Delhi District Court
State vs . Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh on 11 July, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH-WEST)-04, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 359/07)
State Vs. Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh
FIR No. : 571/07
U/s : 363/376/366/328/506 IPC
P.S. : Sultan Puri
State Vs. Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh
S/o Sh. Amrik Singh
R/o Gali No.9, Nehru Nagar,
Below Zakhira Bridge,
Anand Parvat, Delhi.
Date of institution of case-13.08.2007
Date on which, judgment have been reserved-01.07.2009
Date of pronouncement of judgment-10.07.2009
2
JUDGEMENT
On the basis of statement of Sh. Ramesh Chand, father of the prosecutrix, the instant case was registered on 9.4.2007 at PS Sultan Puri vide FIR No.571/07. In the FIR, the father of the prosecutrix stated that her daughter i.e prosecutrix aged about 15 years had gone to purchase vegetables on 3.4.2007 and has not come back since then. He further stated that he has been inquiring from his relatives and was trying to trace out his daughter but she could not traced. He also stated on inquiry, he came to know that a boy namely Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh, who used to reside in his neighbourhood earlier had induced and had taken away his daughter alongwith him and appropriate legal action may be taken against him.
On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the present case was registered and investigation was entrusted to SI Sewa Singh. During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of accused Ladi from Motihari, District Champaran and they were brought back to Delhi and were got medically examined and the statement of the prosecutrix was also got recorded u/s- 164 Cr. P.C, wherein the prosecutrix stated that accused Ladi forcibly took her and had physical relations with her against her wishes.
3
2. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. After committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and charge for committing the offences u/s 363/328/366/376/506 IPC was framed against the accused by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses i.e PW-1 to PW-10.
4. After recording of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s- 313 Cr. P. C was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, which the accused denied as incorrect. He claimed to be innocent and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also stated that he does not want to lead evidence in his defence.
5. I have heard the arguments put forward by Ld. Addl.PP and Ld. Defence Counsel and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have 4 also carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case.
6. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 3.4.2007 at 5:30 P.M., accused Ladi kidnapped the prosecutrix a minor girl aged about 15 years while she was going to purchase vegetables near her house, situated within the jurisdiction of PS Sultan Puri from out of the keeping of her lawful guardian without the consent of the said lawful guardian. It is stated that after kidnapping the prosecutrix, accused administered some stupefying substance by mixing the same with sugarcane juice with intent to facilitate the commission of rape upon her. It is further stated that the prosecutrix was kidnapped by the accused with intent to force or seduce her for illicit intercourse with him. It is also stated that during the period from her kidnapping on 3.4.2007 and till her recovery on 15.6.2007, accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix without her consent and against her wishes and also criminally intimated the prosecutrix by threatening to kill her, if she disclosed this fact to anybody.
7. In order to prove its case on record, the prosecution has examined 10 5 witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-10.
PW-1 is the prosecutrix and the prosecution is mainly relying upon her testimony to prove its case on record.
PW-2 Sh. Ramesh Chand is the father of the prosecutrix and the prosecution is also relying upon his testimony to prove its case on record.
PW-3 Dr. Brijesh Singh from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital, Delhi deposed that on 18.6.2007, he medically examined the prosecutrix and she was referred to SR (Gynae) for further examination and opinion. He further deposed that on the same day, he also examined accused Ladi @ Gurdarshan and on examination, the patient was found capable to perform the act of sexual intercourse and he has proved his report on the MLC in this regard as Ex. PW-3/B. PW-4 HC Kuldeep Singh was posted at PS Sultan Puri as a Duty Officer on 9.4.2007 and on that day at about 5:20 P.M., the complainant Ramesh Chand came to him and lodged the report on the basis of which, he recorded the 6 FIR of this case and he has proved the photocopy of the same as PW-4/A. PW-5 Dr. Garima Trivedi, SR (Gynae) deposed that on 18.6.2007, the prosecutrix was referred to her for her examination and the mother of the patient refused for her medical examination as the patient was a minor so without the consent of parents, she could not examine her. She has proved the report in this regard as Ex. PW-5/A on MLC Ex. PW-3/A. PW-6 Sh. Jai Karan, Principal, MCD Primary School has produced the record pertaining to admission of the prosecutrix in the school and he deposed that as per record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix as recorded in the register was 22.12.1992 and he has proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW-6/A. PW-7 Ct. Nar Singh deposed that on 14.6.2007, he alongwith W/Ct. Rajesh and Ramesh Chand, father of the prosecutrix joined the investigation in this case and they left the Delhi in search of prosecutrix and accused and they reached Motihari, District Champaran, Bihar and at PS Motihari, the police of the that PS handed over the prosecutrix and accused Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh. He 7 further deposed that the recovery memo of prosecutrix was prepared and accused was arrested by the IO at PS Motihari vide arrest memo Ex. PW-7/A and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW-7/B. He also deposed that accused and prosecutrix were produced before the concerned CJM at Motihari and the transit remand of the accused was obtained and thereafter they came back to Delhi.
PW-8 Ms. Barkha Gupta, Ld. ASJ has recorded the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.PC and she has proved the said statement as Ex. PW-8/A and certificate regarding correctness of the proceedings as Ex. PW-8/F. PW-9 W/Ct. Rajesh deposed that on 15.6.2007 she alongwith Ct. Nar Singh joined the investigation in the present case with the IO SI Sewa Singh and left Delhi for Bihar in search of the prosecutrix and accused. She further deposed that they reached at PS Motihari District Champaran, Bihar where the police officials of that PS handed over the prosecutrix and accused Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh and the IO prepared the recovery memo of prosecutrix Ex. PW-2/A. She also deposed that accused was arrested by the IO in this case and his arrest and personal search memos were prepared and thereafter accused and prosecutrix 8 were produced before the court of CJM at Motihari where the transit remand of the accused was obtained by the IO and thereafter they came back to Delhi.
PW-10 SI Sewa Singh is the IO of this case and he deposed that on 9.4.2007, the Duty Officer handed over him a copy of FIR No.571/07 of PS Sultan Puri u/s 363 IPC for investigation and on receipt of the same, he alongwith Ct. Ramesh and complainant Ramesh Chand reached at the house of the complainant and prepared the site plan Ex. PW-10/A. On the pointing out of the complainant, they reached the house of accused Ladi at Anand Parbat in Gali No.9 but on the search, nobody was found and thereafter, he alongwith complainant and Ct. Ramesh had gone to Batala, Punjab in search of accused and prosecutrix where they met the grand father and grand mother of accused, who informed that accused and his mother had left the village about 15 years ago and they were living in Delhi. He further deposed that thereafter an information was received from PS Motihari, Bihar that one person namely Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh and one girl were detained and the girl was giving her address of Sultan Puri, Delhi and on receiving that message, he alongwith the complainant, W/Ct. Rajesh and Ct. Nar Singh went to Motihari, Bihar and reached at PS Motihari, 9 Bihar on 15.6.2007 where he met the SHO Insp. Jha, who produced Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh alongwith one girl and the complainant Ramesh Chand identified his daughter (prosescutrix) and also identified accused Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh who was named in the FIR. The custody of the prosecutrix was handed over to W/Ct. Rajesh vide memo Ex. PW-2/A. He also deposed that accused was interrogated and was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-7/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW-7/B. Thereafter, prosecutrix and accused were produced before the CJM, Motihari, Bihar and he obtained the transit remand of accused and they came back at Delhi and on 18.6.2007, prosecutrix was sent to SGM hospital for her medical examination in the custody of W/Ct. Pushp Lata. PW-10 deposed that accused was also medically examined at SGM hospital vide MLC Ex. PW-3/B and he obtained the MLCs and undergarments of accused and sample seal and same were deposited with MHC (M) PS Sultan Puri. Thereafter, accused and prosecutrix were produced in the court and he made an application before the concerned court for recording the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.PC and on 11.7.2007, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded by the Ld. M.M and he received the copy of statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr. PC. Thereafter, he completed the 10 investigation and case file was handed over to SHO, PS Sultan Puri, who prepared the charge sheet and the same was presented in the court for judicial verdict.
8. In the present case, accused Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh have been charged for committing the offences punishable u/s -363/366/376 /328 IPC.
Section- 361 of the IPC deals with the kidnapping from lawful guardianship and it provides that whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
Section-366 of the IPC deals with kidnapping , abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc. and it provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, 11 and shall also be liable to fine.
Section-375 of the IPC defines 'rape' and it provide that a man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:-
First - Against her will.
Secondly - Without her consent
Thirdly ---------
Fourthly ---------
Fifthly ---------
Sixthly - With or without her consent, when she is under
sixteen years of age
Section- 376 of the IPC deals with punishment for rape and it provides that whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which 12 case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years of with fine or with both.
In the instant case, it has been stated on behalf of the prosecution that on 3.4.2007 at 5:30 P.M., accused Ladi kidnapped the prosecutrix a minor girl aged about 15 years from out of the keeping of her lawful guardian without the consent of the said lawful guardian with intent to force or seduce her for illicit intercourse with him. It is stated that after kidnapping the prosecutrix, accused administered some stupefying substance by mixing the same with sugarcane juice with intent to facilitate the commission of rape upon her. It is also stated that during the period from her kidnapping on 3.4.2007 and till her recovery on 15.6.2007, accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix without her consent and against her wishes and also criminally intimated the prosecutrix by threatening to kill her, if she disclosed this fact to anybody.
9. In the present case, the prosecution is relying upon the testimony of PW-1 ( Prosecutrix) to prove its case on record.
In her testimony, PW-1 (prosecutrix) deposed that accused Gurdarshan Singh @ Ladi was known to her prior to the incident and on 3.4.2007 at about 13 5:30 P.M or 6:00 P.M, she went to a nearby market to buy vegetables and on the way accused met her and asked her to accompany him but she resisted and refused. Then accused asked her to take a glass of juice but she again refused, however, accused forcibly took her to a juice shop and gave her a glass of sugarcane juice mixed with some intoxicant and he forcibly asked her to drink the same. After drinking the juice, she became partly unconscious and felt giddiness and after some time she lost her consciousness and when she regained her consciousness, she found herself at Mata Vaishno Devi Mandir, Jammu. She further deposed that accused had taken a room on rent in a hotel and there he committed rape upon her twice against her wishes and without her consent. Accused forcibly removed her clothes and undergarments and thereafter he also removed his clothes and put his urinating part in her urinating part. PW-1 (prosecutrix ) deposed that accused thereafter took her to Bihar from Mata Vaishno Devi by train and the accused also threatened to kill her if she refused to accompany him to Bihar. She further deposed that accused took a room on rent at Motihari and there also accused had done sexual intercourse with her forcibly and without her consent several times. Thereafter, someone informed the police and she alongwith accused was apprehended by the 14 police. PW-1 ( prosecutrix ) deposed that she was medically examined at Delhi at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital and her statement was also recorded by Ld. M.M u/s 164 Cr. PC and the same was Ex. PW-1/A. In view of the above testimony of the PW-1 ( prosecutrix), the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt against the accused beyond the reasonable doubts. Further, the testimony of PW-1(Prosecutrix) has also been corroborated to a large extent by the testimony of her father i.e PW-2 Ramesh Chand.
PW-2 Ramesh Chand is the father of the prosecutrix and he deposed that her daughter was aged about 16-17 years and on 3.4.2007 his daughter went to the market for purchasing vegetables but she did not return and he tried on his own to trace out his daughter from the relatives and other known person's houses but all in vain and thereafter he went to police station on 5.4.2007 but because of elections and voting his report could not be lodged and after 3-4 days later i.e on 9.4.2007 he went to PS and an FIR was registered on his statement. He further deposed that on inquiry from the sister of the accused Ladi, named Sonia, she confirmed that his daughter was taken by her brother i.e accused Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh. Thereafter, he joined the police in search of accused as well as 15 of his daughter and they reached PS Motihari District Motihari and found accused and his daughter present there at the PS. IO prepared the recovery memo of his daughter Ex. PW-2/A and accused was produced before the court there by the police and thereafter brought back to Delhi with his daughter. He further deposed that his daughter was sent for medical examination to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital and the statement of his daughter was also recorded by the Ld. M.M.
10. The important fact is that the aforesaid material witnesses PW-1 Prosecutrix and her father i.e PW-2 Ramesh Chand were cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of these witnesses or which could be of any help to the accused. In her cross examination by the Ld. defence counsel, PW-1 (Prosecutrix) denied the suggestion that she got married with the accused at Katra. She further denied the suggestion that she alongwith accused while residing at Motihari as husband and wife used to visit places and theatre to watch movies etc.. She also denied the suggestion that she was living with accused as his wife happily. PW-1 Prosecutrix denied the suggestion that accused was liked by her but was not liked by her parents and because of said reason she has implicated 16 the accused at the instance of her parents. In his cross examination by the ld. Defence counsel, PW-2 Ramesh Chand denied the suggestion that his daughter used to accompany accused before the incident of her own will. He further denied the suggestion that his daughter used to have telephonic conversation with the accused. He also denied the suggestion that his daughter disclosed to him at Moti Hari that she had married the accused of her own will and they were living as husband and wife. PW-2 denied the suggestion that his wife was knowing about the affair of their daughter with accused and she was ready to get the daughter married to accused but he was opposed to the said marriage. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
11. It has been submitted by the ld. Defence counsel that the prosecutrix has almost attained the age of majority on the day of the incident and she accompanied the accused voluntarily and married him of her own free will and she also had sexual intercourse with the accused with her on wishes and as such no offence is made out the against the accused, however the said submissions made on behalf of the accused are devoid of any merits and are contrary to the record as from the material on record, it is clear that the prosecutrix was a 17 minor on the date of incident. PW-6 Sh. Jai Karan , Principal, MCD Primary School, P-41, Sultan Puri, Delhi has deposed that as per the record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 22.12.1992 and he has proved the said record as Ex. PW-6/A. In the instant case, the incident tookplace on 03.4.2007, which implies that the prosecutrix was less than 15 years of age on the day of the incident. Further the prosecutrix at the time of her deposition in the court on 24.3.2008 has herself stated her age to be 15 years. In addition to this, PW-2 Ramesh Chand , who is the father of the prosecutrix in his deposition in the court on 29.3.2008 stated that his daughter was aged about 16/17 years .Further , in the MLC Ex. PW-3/A , the age of the prosecutrix has also been mentioned as 15 years. In these circumstances, in view of the material on record, it is clear that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident and as such all the essential ingredients for the applicability of section- 366 IPC are fulfilled in this case as prosecutrix, being a minor, was enticed or taken away by the accused from out of keeping of the lawful custody of her parents without consent of her parents with intent to force or seduce her for illicit intercourse with him . In addition to this, the contention put forward on behalf of the accused that the prosecutrix married the accused with own free will and also had sexual intercourse with the accused 18 with her own consent is also nullified from the testimony of the prosecutrix, wherein the prosecutrix (PW-1) specifically denied that she got married with the accused at Katra and she also denied the suggestion that she was living with accused as his wife happily. In the instant case, the prosecutrix is under 16 years of age and as such the consent of the prosecutrix even otherwise is immaterial for the purpose of the applicability of section - 376 IPC in view of the provisions of section 375 of the IPC, wherein it has been provided that a man is said to commit 'rape' if he has sexual intercourse with a women, with or without her consent, when she is under 16 years of age. In any event, it has been specifically stated in her evidence by the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly committed rape with her against her will and without her consent. In these circumstances, in view of the material on record, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for committing the offence punishable u/s - 366 IPC and u/s- 376 IPC, beyond the reasonable doubt.
Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the case law cited as AIR 1965 SC 942, however the said case law is not applicable in the present case as the fact and circumstances of the present case are different from the fact and 19 circumstances of the cases discussed in the said case law and in my considered opinion, the aforesaid case law is not of any help to the accused in the present case.
12. It has been submitted by the ld. defence counsel that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses and these contradictions are fatal to the case of the prosecution, however the said contentions put forward on behalf of the accused does not hold water and are contrary to the record as perusal of the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses reveals that there are no material contradictions in their testimonies and the contradictions, if any are minor or trivial in nature and these are not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
In the case titled as "Sukhdev Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar"
(reported as JT-2001(7) - SC-597), it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:-
"The court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from 20 the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence. It is indeed necessary however to note that there would hardly be a witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of exaggeration or embellishment sometimes, there would be a deliberate attempt to offer the same. Sometime, the witnesses in their over anxiety to do better from the witness box details out an exaggerated account."
13. In the instant case, the accused has also been charged for committing the offence punishable u/s 328 IPC & u/s 506 IPC, however the perusal of the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses reveals that the said charges have not been proved by the prosecution on record against the accused. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion , the prosecution has failed to prove the charges for committing the offence punishable u/s 328 IPC & u/s 506 IPC against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is 21 acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 328 IPC & u/s 506 IPC.
14. Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove on record beyond the reasonable doubt that accused kidnapped the prosecutrix, a minor girl, aged about 15 years, from the lawful custody of her lawful guardian without the consent of the said lawful guardian with intent to force or seduce her for illicit intercourse with him and during the period from her kidnapping on 03.4.2007 and till her recovery on 15.6.2007, accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Accordingly, I hold the accused-Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh guilty of the offences punishable u/s- 366 IPC and u/s- 376 IPC and convict him accordingly.
Now to come up for arguments on the point of sentence on 11.7.2009.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 10.07.2009) Addl. Session Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
22
23
FIR No.-571/07
P.S.-Sultan Puri
10.07.09
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh in JC .
Vide separate judgment, announced in the open court, accused - Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh has been convicted u/s- 366 IPC and u/s- 376 IPC.
Now to come up for the arguments on the point of sentence on 11.07.2009, as requested.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 10.07.2009) Addl. Session Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
10.07.2009
24
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH-WEST)-04, ROHINI : DELHI (Sessions Case No. 359/07) State Vs. Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh FIR No. : 571/07 U/s : 366 IPC & 376 IPC P.S. : Sultan Puri ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence put forward by ld. Addl. PP and ld. Defence counsel ( Amicus Curie ) for the convict.
2. It has been submitted by the ld. Addl. PP that in view of the serious nature of offences, the convict does not deserve any leniency and he prays that maximum sentence prescribed by the law may be imposed upon the convict.
3. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the ld. Defence counsel that convict Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh is not a previous convict and is having 25 clean antecedents. He further submits that the convict is the sole bread earner of his family and there is none else to look after his mother. Ld. Defence counsel also submits that the convict has remained in the custody for the last more than two years during the investigation and trial of this case and he prays that in view of the family circumstances of the convict, a lenient view may be taken in this case.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by ld. Addl. PP and ld. Defence counsel and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
5. In the present case, the convict has been convicted for committing the offences punishable u/s- 376 IPC and u/s - 366 IPC. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case and having regard to the nature and gravity of offence, I am of the considered opinion that the convict is not entitled to any leniency in terms of proviso to section-376 IPC, however, in view of the family circumstances of the convict, in my considered opinion, imposition of the minimum sentence prescribed thereof shall meet the ends of justice in this case. Accordingly, I hereby sentence the convict - Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh to 26 undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default SI for one month u/s - 376 IPC. The convict- Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh is further sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default SI for one month u/s - 366 IPC, which sentences shall meet the ends of justice in this case.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit u/s - 428 Cr.PC be also given to the convict.
Conviction warrant be prepared accordingly.
Copies of the judgment and order on the point of sentence be supplied to the convict, free of cost.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 11.07.2009) Addl. Session Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
27
FIR No.-571/07
P.S.-Sultan Puri
11.07.09
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Ladi @Gurdarshan Singh in JC with counsel Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj ( Amicus Curie ).
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Vide separate order on the point of sentence, announced in the open court, the convict-Ladi @Gurdarshan Singh has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default SI for one month u/s -376 IPC. Further the convict- Ladi @ Gurdarshan Singh has also been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default SI for one month u/s - 366 IPC, which sentences shall meet the ends of justice in this case.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC be also given to the convict.
Conviction warrant be prepared accordingly.
Copies of the judgment and order on the point of sentence be supplied to the convict, free of cost.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 11.07.2009) Addl. Session Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi