Delhi District Court
By Hon'Ble Supreme Court In State Of U.P. vs . Satish, Air 2005 on 17 August, 2012
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR No. : 672/08
PS : Prashant Vihar
U/s : 302 IPC
Unique Case ID : 02404R0 017042009
In the matter of
The State
Versus
1. Robin @ Bablu S/o Sh. Randhir Singh,
R/o Village Bhatana Jafrabad,
PS Mohana, Distt. Sonepat,
Haryana.
2. Vikram S/o Sri Pal, (P.O.)
R/o Village Dudhli, PS Charathwal,
Distt. Muzzafar Nagar,
Uttar Pardesh.
...ACCUSED
Session Case No. : 368/09
Date of Institution : 22.01.2009
Date of Committal : 02.04.2009
Date of reserving judgment/order : 04.08.2012
Date of pronouncement : 04.08.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. Accused Robin @ Babloo was sent up by police of PS Prashant Vihar to stand trial for offence punishable U/s 302 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 12.09.2008, on the receipt of DD No.11, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi, ASI Ishwar Singh along with Ct. reached at Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital and obtained the MLC of Munna Singh S/o Sh. Shankar Singh, R/o A-1/342, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi, who was sustained gun shot injuries at about 8:00 a.m. He was unfit for statement and was under treatment. At the hospital FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 1 of 38 -2- itself, complainant Renu Saini D/o Sh. Mamraj, R/o A-1/342, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi met and stated herself to be the eye witness, who got her statement recorded. She stated that she is living with her children, including the wife of his son Ashish. About 1½ years ago, she was divorced and the house was in her name and she is housewife. Munna Singh, who is the residents of 'Unnav' was earlier living as tenant in their house at Sector-24, Rohini and with whom they have intimacy and he used to visit her house and thereafter she had developed physical relations with him and he started taking care of her and her children. His wife lives with her children in Sector-23, Rohini. Her daughter, namely, Bhavna, aged 20 years had relations with Robin, who lives somewhere in Swaroop Nagar and it was not liked by her. She also disclosed this fact to Munna Singh. On 11.09.2008, her daughter Bhavna wanted to talk with Robin on telephone, but she objected the same and at that time Munna Singh was also present at the house and she along with Munna Singh scolded her daughter and not allowed to make telephone call and also threatened Bhavna. At about 9:00-9:30 p.m, Bhavna left the house by closing the door from outside. They got the door opened from someone going in the street. After sometime Bhavna returned and she asked as to why she has returned when she had earlier ran away. On this, she said that she has spoken with Robin and who had assured her that he will come tomorrow and make everything right.
3. At about 6:30 a.m, on next morning her younger son Chintan went in the street to throw the garbage and he saw Robin FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 2 of 38 -3- roaming in the street and told her about the same. She asked Bhavna, and on this she said she has no concern. Thereafter, at about 8:00 a.m, Munna Singh, who had stayed in the night in the house went down stairs for cleaning the Maruti Car. In the meantime, she heard the sound of firing. She came out and saw Munna Singh had kept his hand at his stomach and was coming towards stairs saying that Robin has fired at him and he came inside the house and lied down. She woke up her son Ashu and taken him in the Maruti Car to the hospital.
4. On the basis of the same, offence punishable U/s 307 IPC was registered. The place was got photographed and blood seized from the spot. Munna Singh died during the treatment and on 15.09.2008 postmortem was got done and accused was arrested on 25.10.2008. He disclosed that he had taken the fire arm from his accomplice Vikram and had returned the same, which could not be recovered. Vikram was declared proclaimed offender.
5. After completion of the investigation, accused was charge sheeted for offence punishable U/s 302 IPC.
6. After supplying the necessary copies to the accused, the case was committed to the court of session vide order dated 02.04.2009 by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
7. My Ld. Predecessor, after finding prima-facie case, charged the accused Robin @ Babloo for offence punishable U/s 302 IPC vide order dated 03.06.2009, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 3 of 38 -4-8. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as twenty six (26) witnesses :-
9. The prosecution examined following material witnesses :-
i. PW-2 Smt. Renu Saini, the complainant. She proved her statement Ex.PW2/A. She after being led by the prosecutor admitted the seizure of two bullet led, one empty cartridge and one empty cartridge, Ex.PW2/B, seizure of blood sample and earth control Ex.PW2/C, seizure of blood stained piece of petticoat Ex.PW2/D and also identified the material i.e bullet lead Ex.P1, deformed bullet lead Ex.P2, petticoat is Ex.P3, live cartridge Ex.P4 and empty cartridge case Ex.P5.
ii. PW-4 Chintan, the son of the complainant.
iii. PW-5 Ms. Bhavna, the daughter of the complainant.
10. The prosecution also examined following formal witnesses :-
i. PW-1 Dr. K. Goel, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body and found six external injuries and gave cause of injury by fire arm i.e riffle and injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually or collectively and proved his report Ex.PW1/A. ii. PW-3 Dr. N.K. Singh, CMO, who examined the injured and proved the MLC, Ex.PW3/A. iii. HC Ashish Kumar was also examined as PW3. He will be referred to as PW3A. He proved the FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 4 of 38 -5- information received from duty constable from the hospital, regarding admission of injured and proved DD Ex.PW3/A. iv. PW-6 ASI Sangeeta, duty officer, who recorded the formal FIR, Ex.PW6/A. v. PW-8 Udham Pal, who identified the dead body of his mausa, Munna Singh and proved identification statement Ex.PW8/A and receipt of dead body Ex.PW8/B. vi. PW-9 Mahender Singh, son of the deceased Munna Singh, who also identified dead body and proved the identification statement Ex.PW9/A and receipt of dead body Ex.PW8/B. vii.PW-10 SI Manohar Lal, who proved the scaled site plan, Ex.PW10/A. viii.PW-11 Dr. Surender Singh Yadav, S.R, who proved the ortho note at point X on the MLC Ex.PW3/A and proved the signature of Dr. Atul Garg at point B in encircled portion.
ix. PW-12 Ct. Bhawnish, who collected the blood sample from the hospital after the postmortem and proved its seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. x. PW-15 Ct. Arvind Kumar, who deposited the sealed parcels at CFSL.
xi. PW-16 Gurmeet @ Sonu Kohli, who had done voice FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 5 of 38 -6- recording of accused Robin and proved the same as Ex.P6.
xii.PW-17 Ct. Sandeep, who deposited the exhibits at FSL Rohini.
xiii.PW-18 Ct. Satish in whose presence the voice recording was taken and sample was seized vide memo Ex.PW18/A. xiv.PW-19 HC Shahir Khan, who had done the interception of voice of accused and recorded in the C.D and proved the seizure of the C.D Ex.PW19/A and identified as Ex.P6.
xv.PW-20 Dr. Rajender Singh, who compared the sample voice with recorded voice and gave his report Ex.PW20/A and found the sample voice of accused tallied with the recorded voice.
xvi.PW-21 HC Prabhu Lal, who was the MHC(M) with whom the case property was deposited and proved the entries.
xvii.PW-26 Sh. G.S. Patnaik, who had authorized by the intercepting authorities to record the call, messages, received on telephone number, bearing IMEI No. 358254010291480, Ex.PW26/A.
11. The prosecution also examined following witnesses of arrest and investigation :
i. PW-13 Ct. Jal Raj, who visited the hospital along FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 6 of 38 -7- with ASI Ishwar Singh.
ii. PW-14 ASI Rajender Singh, who had joined the investigation with I.O and is witness of formal arrest Ex.PW14/A and disclosure statement Ex.PW14/B and pointing out memo Ex.PW14/C. iii. PW-22 ASI Ishwar Singh, who recorded the statement of complainant and proved his endorsement, Ex.PW22/A. He is also the witness of the seizure of articles from the spot. He proved the sketch of seized articles i.e cartridges Ex.PW22/B and proved DD No. 11, Ex.PW22/C. iv. PW-23 Inspector Ram Sunder, I.O, who proved the site plan, Ex.PW23/A. Seizure memo of cloth of deceased Ex.PW23/B, request for postmortem, Ex.PW23/C, brief facts, Ex.PW23/D and form No. 25.35 Ex.PW23/E. v. PW-24 Inspector Jagdish Prasad, who was the part I.O, who proved the DD of crime branch, Ex.PW24/A. Application for production warrants Ex.PW24/B, application for interrogation of accused Ex.PW24/C and application for obtaining PC Remand Ex.PW24/D and seizure of cassette of voice recording Ex.PW18/A and proved the cassette Ex.PW24/Article-1 and voice recorded in cassette by interception Ex.PW24/Article-2.
vi. PW-25 SI Shyam Sunder, who arrested the accused in FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 7 of 38 -8- case FIR No.425/08 and proved his arrest Ex.PW25/A, disclosure statement Ex.PW25/B and place of theft of the motorcycle Ex.PW25/C and supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW25/D and recovery of motorcycle, Ex.PW25/E.
12. After conclusion of the trial, part statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded by my Ld. Predecessor and remaining was recorded by me. The accused denied the prosecution evidence and claims to be innocent. He stated that he was shown to the witnesses at the PS after his arrest in the present case. He does not know the family members of the complainant. The SHO and other staff members of PS Prashant Vihar had colluded with the complainant party to save the complainant's husband who in fact was behind the murder of deceased Munna Singh. Said Munna Singh was a paramour of Renu Saini complainant. The complainant's husband had a grudge with said Munna Singh as he used to stay and sleep in the house of the complainant and due to this reason he was subjected to snide remarks and was getting bad reputation in the society. Police has also manipulated the FIR and suppressed the true facts of the case. In his life time, he had never seen Munna Singh, nor had he seen him at any point of time. He would lead his defence, but not produce any defence witness.
13. I have heard Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. Amicus curiae for accused Robin @ Babloo. I have gone through the record.
FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 8 of 38 -9-14. The case is based on circumstantial evidence as well as dying declaration. Law on the circumstantial evidence is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Satish, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1000. Observed with approval the law laid down in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A. P. (AIR 1990 SC
79) it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :
i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established ;
ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
iii)the circumstance, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
The accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstance complete.
15. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 9 of 38 -10- following circumstance :
i. Bhavna Saini daughter of Smt. Renu Saini fell in love with the accused and developed intimate relation, which was not liked by her mother.
ii. The deceased & mother of Bhavna used to counsel her not to do and counseled her on 11.09.2008 at about 9:00 p.m. iii. Bhavna Saini went out of the house to ring up the accused, after bolting door from outside, who assured her that everything will be alright by the morning.
iv. At about 6:30 a.m, son of Renu Saini went to disposed off garbage and saw accused present at the corner of the gali.
v. At about 8:00 a.m, Muunna Singh went down stairs to clean the vehicle, parked there and after sometime noise of bullet was heard by PW2 and she saw Munna Singh keeping his hand on his abdomen and running inside the house.
vi. Munna Singh told PW2 that the accused Robin @ Babloo had fired upon him (dying declaration).
vii.As per postmortem, PW-1 Dr. K. Goel gave his opinion that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by fire arm which was riffled. Range of fire arm was beyond blast effect range. Cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries to liver FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 10 of 38 -11- and intestine. Injuries to liver and intestine by fire arm were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually or collectively. Mode of death was homicidal.
viii.The mobile phone No. 9718468907 was intercepted and sample voice of the accused matched with the voice sample, wherein he had stated about the commission of murder.
16. Now, to see whether prosecution has succeeded in proving the circumstances. Let's examine the evidence of the prosecution. PW-5 Ms. Bhavna is the most important witness. She was 22 years of age at the time of her deposition. She testified that she was residing at A1/342, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi. Her father was residing separately from them for the last about 8-10 years. About four years ago, there was a divorce between her mother and father. One Munna Singh (deceased) was their tenant in their house, which was situated in Sector-24, Rohini and was on visiting terms with them. She know accused Robin, as he was also working in the same office, where she was working at Badli. They started seeing each other. Her family members were not in favour of her meetings with the accused Robin, as they were knowing that the accused used to indulge in stealing. On 11.09.2008, she was intending to meet accused Robin, but her mother, deceased Munna Singh and her brothers were not in favour of this and they objected to it. Even her family members were not allowing her to call him telephonically. On the same evening, at about 9:00-9:30 p.m, she called him from one PCO.
FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 11 of 38 -12-Before leaving her house, she had bolted the house from outside, so that no one can follow her. During her telephonic call with accused Robin, she had asked him to take her along with him, as nobody at her house is allowing her to talk with him and her family members are against her relations with him. Accused Robin Singh told her that he would come on the next day and would talk with her parents and thereafter he will take her with him. She was pressing him to take her immediately, but he showed his inability, as he was far away from Sector-17, Rohini. On the next day, i.e on 12.09.2008, at about 6:00-7:00 a.m, her brother Chintan had told her mother that accused Robin Singh is roaming in the gali and she thought that he had come for a talk with her parents. After sometime, she heard a bang of gun shots and Munna Singh was climbing the stairs with injuries and he was saying that "Robin ne ushe goli mar di". Her brother and mother had shifted Munna Singh to the hospital. Her parents were saying to her that she had called Robin. She was confronted with the portions her statement, wherein she stated that the accused was indulging in stealing and she had asked the accused to come to her house and take her. It was an improvement, but are insignificant.
17. In her cross-examination, she had stated that at the time of incident, she was in the second year of her graduation. She was working as a telecaller in the loan department of ICICI Bank. Accused was not having any job in her office, but he often used to come and meet her boss, as the accused was brother-in-law of her boss. At the time and date of incident, they were not having FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 12 of 38 -13- any landline phone and she personally was not having any mobile phone. She does not know, where her father resides and she does not have any contact with him. Deceased Munna Singh remained their tenant for about one year in Sector-24. She stated that she cannot tell the name of the STD/PCO booth, but she can tell the locality, where the said booth is situated. She stated that her brother, mother and Munna Singh (deceased) did not meet the accused for any talk. She does not have any letter or any gift, which was given to her by accused. She did not go to any theater to watch any movie with the accused. She categorically stated that she had not seen the accused on the date of the occurrence, but her brother had seen him. She stated that Munna Singh is a married person and his family stayed in Rohini. They were on visiting terms with the family of deceased Munna Singh and they also used to go out. Maruti Car, in which the deceased was removed to the hospital is in the name of her mother. Blood was oozing profusely from the wounds of Munna Singh and he was assisted by her mother and brother to take him down stairs to the car. She admitted that the clothes of her brother Ashutosh and her mother were soiled with blood. Immediately, thereafter, police came. The scene of crime was not washed away. She admitted that from the dustbin of their room, one cloth soiled with blood was seized by the police. She admitted that after the incident many people had gathered, but they were standing in the gali. When, Munna Singh was climbing the stairs of their house on the first floor, he was speaking incoherently. Vol. He was saying Robin had shot him. Therefore, this witness has deposed regarding her FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 13 of 38 -14- affair with the accused and the same was not favoured by her mother and brother and Munna Singh. She had also told about leaving her house and making call to him and forcing him to take her. She heard the bang of shot and heard Munna Singh saying "Robin ne ushe goli mar di".
18. Now, the another important witness is PW-4 Chintan, who is aged about 17 years at the time of his deposition. He stated that he was residing at premises No. A-1/342, Sector-17, Rohini, Delhi with his mother, sister Bhavna, his brother Ashish and his wife. One Munna Singh used to reside with them in the same house. He was like their family member. He knew accused Robin @ Bablu. He had seen him on two occasions with his sister Bhavna. He used to meet his sister Bhavna outside their house. Their family was not inclined to the meetings of his sister Bhavna with accused Robin @ Bablu. His mother, Munna Singh, brother and other family members used to object the meetings of his sister with accused Robin @ Bablu. On 11.09.2008, his sister Bhavna was willing to talk with accused Robin @ Bablu. His family had objected to it. At about 9:00-9:30 p.m, his sister Bhavna went outside the house and bolted the door from outside. They got opened their door by calling someone from the gali. After sometime, his sister Bhavna came back and when his mother scolded her, she told that she had a talk with Robin @ Babloo and who had said that he will come tomorrow and settle the issue permanently (kal akar sub thik kar dega).
19. On the next morning, at about 6:30-7:00 a.m, he went outside FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 14 of 38 -15- his house for throwing away the garbage. He noticed accused Robin @ Babloo was roaming in the gali and on seeing him, he hide himself. He came back and told this fact to his mother. His mother also asked his sister Bhavna about the presence of Robin @ Babloo in the gali, but she had not stated anything. After sometime, Munna Singh went outside from the house in the gali for cleaning the car. Accused Robin @ Babloo came running there and fired on Munna Singh and ran away. Munna Singh rushed back to the house and was crying that Robin @ Babloo had fired on him. He was climbing up stairs and there blood was oozing out from his body. His brother came down and injured Munna Singh was taken to the hospital.
20. In his cross-examination, he was confronted with the portion that accused Robin @ Babloo had hide himself on seeing him. He was also confronted with the portion that accused had fired upon Munna Singh, which was not recorded in his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC. He had stated that his statement was recorded in the hospital, as he had accompanied the injured Munna Singh to the hospital along with his brother and his mother. He stated that he was never called by the police in the PS, in order to identify the accused. He stated that on the date of incident, his sister used to have a mobile phone. He had stated to the police in his statement that he had accompanied his mother, brother and injured Munna Singh to the hospital. He stated that when the injured Munna Singh was removed to the hospital, he was unable to speak. He admitted that he had come to the court and saw the accused. He stated that he had not stated to his mother FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 15 of 38 -16- that he had met accused Robin @ Babloo along with his sister.
21. This witness therefore has deposed about the affair of his sister with the accused. His sister wanted to talk with the accused, but the same was objected by the family members. She went out to call the accused and on the next morning he saw accused roaming in the gali and Munna Singh saying that accused had fired on him.
22. PW-2 Smt. Renu Saini stated that her daughter fell in love with accused and both had developed intimate relations with each other. Accused was residing at Swaroop Nagar at that time. She did not like the said relations between her daughter and the accused. She and one Munna Singh used to counsel her daughter Bhavna Saini not to do so. On 11.09.2008, at about 9:00 p.m, Renu Saini and Munna Singh were trying to counsel her daughter, but she did not listen to them and she suddenly went out of the house to ring up accused Robin @ Babloo. Thereafter, she came back after making a call and told them that everything will be alright by the morning, as accused Robin had told her that he will do everything O.K by morning. At about 6:30 a.m, in the morning, her son went to dispose off the garbage of their house, he saw the accused at the corner of the gali. Her son told her this fact after returning back to house. She tried to avoid him. At around 8:00 a.m, Munna Singh had gone down (stairs) (sic) to clean their vehicle. Suddenly, she heard a noise of bullet, being fired. Thereafter, she immediately ran to see, what was the matter. She saw Munna Singh was keeping his hands on his abdomen and was running FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 16 of 38 -17- inside the house. She asked Munna Singh, what was the matter. He told her that accused Robin had fired upon him. She immediately removed Munna Singh to BSA Hospital. There, he was declared dead. Munna Singh had stayed with them in the previous night before the incident.
23. She was put leading question by the prosecutor, to which she admitted that on 12.09.2008, I.O Inspector Ram Saran taken into possession two bullet led, one empty cartridge and one empty cartridge by keeping the same into separate container turning the same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of ISS. She also admitted that I.O from the spot lifted the blood with the help of cotton and kept the same in a container and turned into a pullanda and from the spot blood stained stone and another stone to serve a earth sample, by keeping both of them in separate container turning them into separate pullandas. She identified the metallic bullet led is Ex.P1, deformed bullet led is Ex.P2, the petticoat is Ex.P3, the live cartridge is Ex.P4 and empty cartridge case is Ex.P5. In her cross-examination, she stated that her statement was recorded twice, once in the hospital and second time at police post. She stated that she had never talk to accused Robin Singh to stop him meeting her daughter. Munna Singh had also never met Robin Singh personally. She had identified accused Robin Singh at police post. She stated that Munna Singh was climbing up the stairs having wound in his abdomen and she also assisted him to climbing up to the first floor of their house and at that time Munna Singh was pressing his abdomen. He remained in their FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 17 of 38 -18- flat after receiving gun shot injuries for about 5 minutes. It took about 10-15 minutes to reach the hospital. The police reached in the hospital within 15-20 minutes of their arrival in the hospital. Doctor had not made any inquiry from Munna in her presence. Vol. He was not in a position to speak. The gali is about 30 feet wide where incident had taken place. She admitted that she had washed the blood stained floor of their house with the petticoat Ex.P3. When they had removed Munna Singh to the hospital, people had also gathered at her house and in the gali thereafter. She admitted that police had never requested her to accompany them to jail for the purpose of identification of the accused.
24. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the accused Robin @ Babloo was not seen by deceased or her mother then how the deceased had identified the accused as Robin @ Babloo, therefore the part of the dying declaration that "Robin ne ushe goli mar di" cannot be relied upon. Further, the accused Robin @ Babloo was identified at the police post by Smt. Renu Saini, who had never met him. Therefore, the identity of the person, who has caused the incident is in dispute. Further, there are inconsistency in the testimony of mother and children, regarding the possession of mobile phone and stated that the deceased was killed by her ex-husband of Renu Saini, who did not like illicit relation between the two and in order to save him, Robin @ Babloo has been falsely implicated in this case. Ld. Counsel submitted that there was a delay in recording the evidence and dispatching the same to the magistrate.
FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 18 of 38 -19-25. Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments i.e Sampath Kumar v Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Criminal Appeal No. 1950 of 2009, Rajeevan & Anr. v State of Kerala 2003(1) JCC 527, Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & Ors. v State of Maharashtra 2007(4) JCC 3266, Narendra Singh & Anr. v State of M.P 2004 (2) JCC 832, Kavinder & Ors. v State (NCT of Delhi 2005 (1) JCC 53, Naraian Singh @ Lala v State of Delhi 2005 (1) JCC 366 and Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr. v State of Andhra Pradesh 2006 (1) JCC 541.
26. In Sampath Kumar v Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Criminal Appeal No. 1950 of 2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the tests to be satisfied in a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is no ground to the proposition and as regards Rajeevan & Anr. v State of Kerala 2003 (1) JCC 527. In the cited judgment, the spot of incident was only at a distance of 100 meters from the place of incident. The incident took place on 28.12.1987 at about 7:00 p.m. The FIR was recorded on 29.12.1987 at 7:40 a.m in the morning and when sent to the Magistrate at 5:40 p.m on 30.12.1987. It was also noticed that counter foil file of FIR and between the entries related to Crime Nos. 5 and 7 were found blank, which was not explained by the police officer. On those facts, Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the innocent person were being implicated resulting of political vendetta. High Court found the delay in dispatching the FIR for justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that possibility of subsequently implicating the appellant FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 19 of 38 -20- as after thought cannot be ruled out and circumstances of delay in dispatch was not properly explained and the blank sheets in the counter foil were not properly written and all the circumstances taken together held that it is not safe to rely the FIR in the said case. However, in the present case, the time of incident was about 8:00 a.m and the FIR was registered at 11:00 a.m on the same day after the injured was admitted in the hospital. Ld. Counsel also pointed out that the FIR Ex.PW6/A was sent to the court on 15.09.2008. In December, 2008, 12 th was Friday, 13th was second Saturday and 14th was Sunday. Second Saturday and Sunday was holiday of the court and the report reached the Magistrate on Monday. Admittedly, the FIR was registered initially U/s 307 IPC and it was not a special report case not required to be sent immediately. Therefore, there is no delay regarding the same. Moreover, in the cross- examination of PW6 has categorically stated that he had not sent the FIR to the court, it was sent by Daak Constable later on. Therefore, the delay is properly explained and taking the other circumstances into account. Same is not fatal to the prosecution.
27. In Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & Ors. v State of Maharashtra 2007(4) JCC 3266. In the said case also, the FIR was received after four days in a murder case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court similarly held that the FIR should be sent within 24 hours.
28. There is no quarrel to proposing of law but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the Narendra Singh & Anr. v State of M.P 2004 (2) JCC 832, it was held that FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 20 of 38 -21- if two views are possible, the view supporting the accused should be preferred. There is no quarrel for supporting the accused. In the case of Kavinder & Ors. v State (NCT of Delhi 2005 (1) JCC 53 is also lays down the principle of which the case based under circumstantial evidence should be established. In the case of Naraian Singh @ Lala v State of Delhi 2005 (1) JCC 366, there was a time gap of about 12 hours, when the accused was seen with the deceased till the recovery of dead body. The benefit of doubt was extended to the accused. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The time gap is only 1½ hour of the present case. In the case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr. v State of Andhra Pradesh 2006 (1) JCC 541. There is no quarrel. The court held that the tests to be satisfied for holding the accused guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
29. Firstly, coming to the identification of the accused. PW2 Renu Saini has stated that Munna Singh had never met Robin @ Babloo personally. She had also never talk to Robin @ Babloo to stop his meeting with her daughter. Chintan has, however, claimed that he had seen his sister on two occasions with Robin @ Babloo. Bhavna has categorically identified the accused being the same person with whom she had fallen in love.
30. Now, the question arises that whether deceased had seen him before the incident? The relation between Robin @ Babloo and Bhavna was so intimate that she was willing to meet him even in the face of objection of her mother, Munna Singh and her brother. She had gone to the extent of going out of her FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 21 of 38 -22- house bolting the house from outside and making call to him from public booth and asked him to take her away. The mother and brother scolded her not to meet him. The mother has claimed that Munna Singh had never met Robin @ Babloo personally and she had never talk to accused to stop meeting with her daughter, but that does not mean that they had not seen Robin @ Babloo or do not recognize him. If the daughter of Renu Saini was having such a strong relation with Robin @ Babloo, which was not liked by her mother, it is not possible that she would not look at the boy or Munna Singh, who was living with the mother as paramour would not know the boy. Had the question been asked from the witness, whether she had seen Robin @ Babloo before the incident or Munna Singh had seen the accused before the incident, the situation would have been different. Therefore, the identity of the accused Robin @ Babloo is established on record that he is the same person, who had fired with bullet and was seen in the corner of the gali, one hour before the incident.
31. Now, coming to the important aspect of dying declaration. The Renu Saini had categorically stated that when she asked Munna Singh told her that accused had fired upon him. PW-4 has also stated that Munna Singh was crying that accused had fired upon him. There is no cross-examination on this aspect. PW-5 Bhavna also stated that while he was climbing the stairs with injuries he was saying that "Robin ne ushe goli mar di". In her cross-examination, she stated that when Munna Singh was climbing the stairs of their house on the first floor, he was FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 22 of 38 -23- speaking incoherently. She however voluntarily stated that he was saying Robin had shot him. She denied the suggest that Munna Singh was not in a position to speak anything. Therefore, the witness have stated that the deceased stated that immediately after he was fired at that "Robin ne ushe goli mar di". This portion of his evidence is a dying declaration and consistent, therefore, the same is found to be trustworthy and relied upon.
32. PW Bhavna is the most important witness in the sense that she was in love with the accused and she has deposed against the accused despite having strong love affair to the extent that she was ready to fight her family members on their refusal to permit her to meet accused Robin @ Babloo. This lends credence to the prosecution case that the same is truthful. She is the most unlikely witness against him, but being young educated woman, employed with ICICI Bank in loan department as telecaller, having exposer of the world around her has deposed consistently against the accused, which has to be believed.
33. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the evidence has been tempered with and deceased was not able to speak anything. As per the MLC admitted in the hospital, at 8:20 a.m with history of gun shot injury, as told by the patient himself and his attendant. On local examination, omentam was found exposed, penetrating wound were found. However, he was unfit for statement. He was semi-conscious irritable. Meaning thereby when he was brought to the hospital, he was alive and semi- conscious, therefore he was in a position to state as to who has FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 23 of 38 -24- fired at him and that he had sustained gun shot injury. Therefore, it cannot be said that deceased did not speak after he was fired at.
34. As regards the tempering with the evidence, Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the blood stained petticoat was lifted from the dustbin in the bathroom. PW Renu Saini stated that the injured was shifted in Maruti Car. Maruti Car was not seized by the police nor inspected by the police. The police had not seized the cloth, which she was wearing at the time of shifting the deceased. Police had not seized the seat cover and foot mat. She admitted that she had washed the blood stained floor of their house with petticoat, Ex.P3. Photographs were also taken. No photographs have been placed on record. PW Chintan stated that when Munna Singh happened to climb up stairs, the room in which he came was washed and cleaned. The vehicle in which they removed the injured to the hospital was taken in possession by the police. The police had not taken into possession the foot mat or the seat covers. He also pointed out the inconsistency that he stated that his sister was having mobile phone and her mobile phone was not seized, whereas PW5 had stated that she was not having any mobile phone.
35. Firstly, as regards the submission of mobile phone, Bhavna herself told that she had gone to make a call to PCO, meaning thereby she had not mobile phone at that time. She had also stated that her mother was not permitting her to speak with him on telephone and therefore, even if there was a mobile phone, the same was not usable and it cannot be termed as FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 24 of 38 -25- inconsistency. As regards the inconsistency as to what was seized by the police or whether the floor was cleaning does not go to the root of the matter.
36. In that regard, it is worthwhile to examine the testimony of I.O, who had reached at the spot. PW22, who reached the spot for the first time. He stated that from the hospital, he along with Smt. Renu Saini reached at the place of incident i.e in front of flat No. A-1/342, Sector-17, Rohini, where Addl. SHO Inspector Ram Sunder along with his staff and crime team met. The scene of crime was inspected by the crime team and thereafter, I.O Inspector Ram Sunder had prepared the site plan at the instance of Smt. Renu Saini. I.O had seized one pellet found on the stone, which was kept above the nali and same was kept in a plastic container. I.O had also lifted one pellet from near the water pipe and same was kept in a plastic container. I.O had further seized one empty cartridge from lifting it from a stone, kept on a nali in the corner of gali. I.O also seized one live cartridge from footpath. Same was kept in a plastic container. I.O had also lifted blood from the water pipe with the help of cotton. One stone with blood stained one stone without blood adjacent to the same from near the nali on the corner of the gali was also seized. One cemented brick with blood and one cemented brick without blood from footpath was also seized. I.O had lifted blood with the help of cotton, from the room of a first floor of house No. A-1/342. I.O had also lifted blood stained earth along with earth without blood stained. On the pointing out of the complainant, I.O had also FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 25 of 38 -26- seized one blood stained petticoat from a dustbin kept in the bathroom. He stated that when he visited house of Renu Saini, the house was not washed. He denied the suggestion that the house of Renu Saini was washed and mopped and the evidence was tampered with in active connivance with the police team and the I.O.
37. PW-23 Inspector Ram Sunder similarly testified regarding the lifting of fire pellet, empty cartridge and live cartridge and lifting of blood from various places and also seizing of petticoat soiled with blood.
38. As regards the place of occurrence, the I.O had lifted the blood from the footpath as far as from the stones, which shows the place of occurrence and as regards the injured have been taken inside the house. The blood was lifted from the floor. The blood stained petticoat would show that there was no attempt to temper with evidence. Petticoat was lying in the house in dustbin. Renu Saini is the best witness, who had stated that blood stains from the floor was washed from the petticoat. It was inside the house and it is not that all people would act in the same manner and keep the every place connected with the crime intact. Therefore, merely because the blood stains have been cleaned, but the articles with which it was clean was lying and seized to show the presence of blood and whose blood it was. Therefore, it does not in any manner, show that there was any attempt to temper with the evidence.
39. As regards non seizure of car or the cloth of the Renu Saini and FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 26 of 38 -27- her son. It is now well settled that the accused cannot take benefit of deficiency in the investigation unless it is caused serious prejudice to him. The car and the cloth of these persons would have only proved that the injured was transported in a car and these are the persons, who had accompanied him. The MLC of the deceased prepared at the hospital had set the controversy at rest, which shows that he is brought by Ashish, the brother.
40. As regards, the intercepted conversation and the voice recording, it is worthwhile to see as to what it actually contains. The intercepted conversation from mobile No. 9718468907 is between the accused and one unknown person. The relevant portion is that he said "galat na samajh yar sonu bahut dikkat ho gayi wo murder sa ho gaya tha no delhi main". This has reference to some murder, but can be said that this is with respect to the present murder. The information given in the said version is so incomplete that one cannot link the accused with the present case. Another question would arise as to whose mobile phone was it?
41. PW-24 testified that the voice sample of accused was recorded in the cassette, which was recorded in a cassette by Gurmeet Kohli @ Sonu. He had collected the C.D of voice recording at the time of interception of mobile No. 9718468907. He stated that investigation in respect of mobile No. 9718468907 was conducted by Inspector Ram Sunder. He interrogated one Ram Kumar Singh in whose name the mobile number 9718468907 exist, but he had not recorded his statement, as he stated during FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 27 of 38 -28- interrogation that he never used this phone number. He had not taken the specimen of handwriting and signatures of Ram Kumar Singh, when he interrogated him. Whereas Inspector Shyam Sunder does not say that he collected the call details of this number. Interception of this number was done by PW19.
42. PW-20 Dr. Rajender Singh had proved the intercepted voice and voice sample was of the same person. In his cross- examination, he stated that there is possibility of similarity of voice of two persons in the world, but voice cannot be identical. He also admitted that by doing mimicry the voice can imitated, but cannot be identical. By voice spectographic test, an expert can identify the voice of a person, however, he may disguise or mimic his voice. He replied to the question that in case, if the voice is recorded from the mobile phone of a particular person, will it match in terms of treble, bass etc. if the voice of the same person recorded in an open room. In this condition the voice may be differ in respect of their frequencies but not other spectographic parameter. He replied to the question that what are those major spectographic parameters. He stated that intonationi pattern, frequency time coordination and unvoiced area in spectograms. He replied to the question that would not it been more desirable if the voice sample of the accused in the present case would have been taken in the same condition in which his voice was intercepted and recorded i.e on the mobile phone instead of recording the same in a closed room. He stated that they prefer the questioned and the specimen voice should be taken in the same mode, but, if it is FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 28 of 38 -29- not possible they have eliminate some parameters such as frequency during examination. He examined the whole recorded conversation by auditory method, wherein he linguistic and phonetic features of the speaker were examined by taking 28 parameters. Therefore, this witness has proved the voice, which was intercepted and of the accused matched. However, the part of the conversation, which talks about the murder is not specific and in no manner can connect the accused with the present case, as it talks about some murder in Delhi, which murder in which part of Delhi are the question to be answered. Therefore, although the voice of the accused has matched yet it does not lead us anywhere that he is talking about the present murder.
43. Now, as regards as the circumstances, the prosecution has succeeding in proving that Bhavna Saini had affair with the accused, which was objected by her mother and deceased. It is also established that on the preceding night from the date of incident, she wanted to speak to him, which was objected by her mother and deceased, but she went out and had made telephonic call to the accused from PCO. They also proved that accused was seen by the brother of Bhavna, standing in the street at around 6:00-6:30 a.m. It is also proved at 8:00 a.m, Munna Singh went down stairs to clean the car and fire shot was heard and he came holding his abdomen and said Robin ne ushe goli mar di hai", and the dying declaration of the deceased is also proved. It is also proved that deceased had sustained bullet injury. He was taken to the hospital, where he was semi-
FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 29 of 38 -30-conscious. Doctor had found following injuries in the postmortem and opined that they are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
i. Lacerated punctured wound 2.5 x 1 cm over left elbow lateral aspect, margins inverted. No blackening or tattooing seen. Abraded collar present (entry wound).
ii. Lacerated perforated wound with everted margins 2.5 x 1.5 cm over medial aspect of left arm about 6 cm above elbow. Both the injuries (1 & 2) are communicated to each other internally. (exit wound of injury No.1).
iii. Lacerated punctured wound with inverted margins of size 1.25 x 1 cm over left side chest at anterior axillary line about 17 cm below axilla. Abraded collar present. No blackening or tattooing seen (entry wound).
iv. Lacerated perforated wound with everted margins 1.5 x 8 cm over lateral aspect of right inguinal region. No blackening or tattooing seen. On exploration, injury No.3 entered through left 7th inter coastal space pierced left dome of diaphragm. At multiple places suturing of intestine and bruised area seen. On further exploration, the injury tract ended at injury no. 4 i.e exit wound.
v. Lacerated punctured wound 1.75 x 9 cm over left side of epigastrium with inverted margins having no tattooing or blackening (entry wound).
vi. Lacerated perforated wound 1.25 x 1 cm over left side back of FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 30 of 38 -31- abdomen about 9 cm left to midline back and just below coastal margins with everted margins. On exploration, injury No.5 entered into abdominal cavity, liver was found extensively lacerated and shattered. The injury tract is connected with injury No. 5 & 6. the direction of the injury No.3 & 4 was from left to right and slightly above downwards. Injury No.5 & 6 were from front backwards and slightly above downwards. There was surgically stitched laprotomy wound from epigastrium to hypogastrium.
44. The circumstance that accused was called previous night by Bhavna saying that mother and Munna Singh are not permitting her to meet him and he was seen at 6:30 a.m at the corner of the gali, as he promised Bhavna to come and after 1½ hour, Munna Singh came down and was shot at. The time gap between the time, he was seen at the place and firing shot at Munna Singh is very less and also he had very strong motive to come to take revenge for not allowing his girlfriend to meet him from Munna Singh, who was not a family member of Bhavna Saini, but a stranger, and therefore, all the circumstances taken together alongwith the dying declaration, completes the chain of circumstances against the accused and it consistently proved that it was the accused only who had fired at the deceased and caused his death.
45. The circumstances are firmly established against the accused and they have definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. The circumstance taken cumulatively formed a chain so complete that there is no escape from the FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 31 of 38 -32- conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstances are incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused. The evidence is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
46. Now, coming to the defence of the accused. He has stated that he has been falsely implicated. He was shown to the witness at the PS after his arrest. He does not know the family of the complainant. The SHO and other staff members of the PS Prashant Vihar has colluded with the complainant party to save the complainant's husband who in fact was behind the murder of deceased Munna Singh. Said Munna Singh was a paramour of Renu Saini complainant. The complainant's husband had a grudge with said Munna Singh as he used to stay and sleep in the house of the complainant and due to this reason he was subjected to snide remarks and was getting bad reputation in the society. Police has also manipulated the FIR and suppressed the true facts of the case. However, has not lead any evidence.
47. Renu Saini stated that she was married to Phool Singh on 27.11.1982. their marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce. She does not know where Phool Singh was residing. There was no litigation regarding maintenance pending. Phool Singh never meets their children. She know deceased Munna Singh since 2006. He was a contractor by profession and used to deal in whitewash. She was not formally married with Munna Singh. Her relatives and other society folks did not object the visits of Munna Singh to her house. Munna singh was married FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 32 of 38 -33- having kids. The wife and kids of Munna Singh also used to visit them. Munna Singh used to stay 2-3 days at her house. She had never talk to accused Robin Singh to stop him meeting her daughter. Munna Singh had also never met Robin Singh personally. She denied the suggestion that her son Ashish was not happy with her relations with Munna Singh. She denied that her Ex-husband Phool Singh was also not happy with her relations with deceased Munna Singh. She voluntarily stated that Phool Singh was not knowing said relations. She denied that Phool Singh also used to object her relations with deceased Munna Singh. She also denied that Phool Singh used to warn her and Munna Singh regarding their relationship. She denied that Phool Singh also had threatened them that he would teach them a lesson in case if she will not part with her relations with Munna Singh. She also denied that her children used to meet her Ex-husband without her knowledge. She further denied that her children used to complaint to her Ex-husband regarding her relations with Munna Singh by saying that they were feeling humiliated due to such relationship and the atmosphere of the house is being spoiled.
48. She denied that on 11.09.2008, her daughter Bhavna had gone to downstairs to call her father for complaining that she was fedup due to the regular visits of Munna Singh and he asked her father to do some solution. She denied that on 12.09.2008, in the morning around 8:00 a.m, her Ex-husband Phool Singh visited her residence and finding Munna Singh at her home, he pulled him out of the house and fired at him in the gali. She FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 33 of 38 -34- denied that due to the pressure of her relatives and society, she had saved her Ex-husband and in active connivance with the police and have falsely implicated accused Robin in the present case.
49. It is admitted that she was divorced and also admitted that Munna Singh had relations with her and even on the previous night from the incident, he was present at her house during the night. It was also admitted that she used to counsel Bhavna for not met with the accused. Similar suggestions were given to the other children. PW Chintan stated that he met his father in the matrimonial court twice or thrice. His father had never objected to the visits of Munna Singh, as he was not aware of the same. Similar suggestion have also given to Bhavna, but she denied the same. She categorically stated that her other relatives/community members do not stay in Rohini. Her mother and father had obtained a decree of divorce from the court, wherein no litigation is pending between her mother and father. She stated that she does not know where her father resides and they have no contact. Therefore, the defence put forth by the accused is of baseless. Renu Saini is a divorced woman living with her children, who have no connection with their father. They even do not know where he resides. No litigation is pending. Therefore, the version given by the accused is of concocted and tissue of imagination. He does not make out a reasonable defence to improbabalise the prosecution case. I am of the opinion that defence of the accused does not appeal to reason and circumstances are so that are incapable of FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 34 of 38 -35- explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and are consistent with the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with his innocence.
50. As per discussion above, I am of the opinion that prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s 302 IPC against accused Robin @ Babloo beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly accused is convicted for said offence.
51. Let accused be heard on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open court GURDEEP SINGH
today i.e. on 04.08.2012 ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi
04.08.2012
FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 35 of 38
-36-
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 672/08 PS : Prashant Vihar U/s : 302 IPC Unique Case ID : 02404R0 017042009 ORDER ON SENTENCE - ROBIN @ BABLOO 17.08.2012 Pr.: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Convict Robin @ Babloo in j/c Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, Ld. Amicus Curiae for convict.
Heard.
It is submitted that convict is young person aged about 27 years and is not a previous convict. He is unmarried and has one brother younger to him and old aged mother and his father has already expired six years ago. He was gain fully employed at electronic shop and is sole bread earner of the family. He is only person to support his family. It is further submitted that the convict is in j/c since the date of his arrest. Further, it is submitted, that this case does not fall in the category of rarest of the rare cases. Therefore, lenient view be taken.
On the other hand, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the state submits that the convict be given maximum punishment.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases has reiterated that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception to be given only in the rarest of the rare case. In Lehna V. State of FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 36 of 38 -37- Haryana, 2002 SCC (Cri) 526, it was held that the death penalty can be awarded when:
(1)When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (2)When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness, e.g., murder by hired assassin for money or reward, or cold-
blooded murder for gains of a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust, or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland.
(3)When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community, etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of "bride burning"
or "dowry deaths" or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.
(4)When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. (5)When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community.
In this case the convict has been held guilty for offences punishable u/s 302 IPC.
In order to find out whether the case falls under the category of rarest of the rare cases, mitigating circumstance and aggravating FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 37 of 38 -38- circumstance has to be weighed. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and that convict is a young person aged about 27 years and the manner of commission of murder also does not fall in any category falling in rarest of the rare category.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would met in sentencing the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable U/s 302 IPC and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months.
The fine, if recovered, shall be paid as the compensation to the family of the deceased.
The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict.
Copy of the judgment, order on sentence, charge, evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC and all the exhibited documents duly attested by the reader of the court be given to the convict, free of cost. The case property, if any, be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. Document, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement, if any. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court today i.e. on 17.08.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 17.08.2012 FIR No. : 672/08, PS : Prashant Vihar Page 38 of 38