Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikas Dabboo & Others. 1/30 on 12 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL FTC - 2 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
SC No. 29/2015
Case No. 28450/2016
Assigned to Sessions. 27.04.2015
Arguments heard on 06.07.2018
Date of Judgment 12.07.2018
FIR No. 234/2015
State V 1. Vikas Yadav @ Dabboo s/o
Rajender Yadav, R/o. H. No.18/182,
Khursaba Mohalla, Phool Bagh,
Janpur, U.P.
Pr. Add.: 2013/3, Gali No.07, Padam
Nagar, Kishanganj, Delhi.
2. Brijan Singh @ Gujjar s/o Sodhan
Singh, R/o. Village Pali, PO
Hastinapur, Distt. Meerut, U.P.
Pr. Add. 201/3, Padam Nagar,
Kishanganj, New Delhi.
3. Bipin Pandey s/o Lt. Hardhy
Narayan Pandey, r/o M.B. College
Gate, Charitra Van Distt. Baksar
Bihar.
Pr. Add.: Old Kakrola Road, Shri
Chand Park, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
Police Station Karol Bagh
Under Section 120B IPC, 366 IPC r/w 120B IPC, 342
IPC r/w 120B IPC, 376D IPC and 323
IPC r/w 120B IPC
Case No.28450/2016
State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 1/30
JUDGMENT :
1. In the present case Station House Officer of Police Station Karol Bagh had
filed a challan vide FIR No.234/2015 dated 13.03.2015 u/s.
376(D)/323/342/109 IPC for the prosecution of accused persons namely Vikas
Yadav @ Dabboo, Brijesh Singh @ Gujar and Bipin Pandey in the court of ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate. After compliance of the requirement of section 207
Cr. P.C. the case was sent to this court being the designated Special Fast Track
Court for trial of the offences of sexual assault against the women through the
Office of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Keeping in view of section 228 (A) IPC and directions of Supreme court in
"State of Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) SCC 475" and "Om Prakash Vs.
State of U.P. 2006, CRLJ. 2913", the name of prosecutrix is not being
disclosed in the judgment.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. In this case criminal law was set into motion on 13.03.2015 when case case FIR No.234/15 was registered on the basis of complaint of prosecutrix who is a national of Kazakistan dated 13.03.2015 wherein precisely she alleged that two men did sexual actions (rape) against herself on 12.03.2015 (night) in the room of Hotel Surya Palace. She further stated that Vikas Yadav is her driver, who helps her in findings shops, carrying bags and shows fabric, so she pay to Vikas Rs.1500/ per days for this service & met Vikas eight months ago in one hotel Arpit where she stayed at that time. She further stated that yesterday, on 12.03.2015, she got a problem with hotel Arpit (Room No.404) due to the problem with her bank card so she asked the reception to wait for couple of hours so that her transaction will be successful but they first of all cut the electricity in her room then the policeman along with reception person came to Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 2/30 her room to force her to leave the room.
3. She further stated that when they went downstair the reception person said that go with these guys namely Vipin Pandey and Brijan Singh to the another hotel to stay there for the night as she was not allowed to stay in their hotel Arpit without money and her goods will be with them till the time she will not clear the payment for hotel room. Thereafter, she along with Vikas, Vipin and Brijan reached at hotel "Surya Palace" and when they reached at the hotel Surya, Pandey said that he is the boss here, so she does not required passport." Thereafter, she got the key from the hotel room and then she entered the room and was trying to close the door, Pandey and Brijan suddenly entered the room and she asked them "What do you want?" then Brijan locked the door and Pandey hit her on her face. After that she fell down and was not able to even stand for a seconds, then Brijan and Pandey put her on the bed. Brijan was folding her hands and Pandey started taking out her clothes so they started raping her. She further stated that she was not able to move because both them was on the process of raping her and when she got a chance she kicked Pandey in his balls very hard and scratched face of Brijan, then she took the bottle and cut the Pandey's hand. Ultimately she was raped. She tried to call Vikas on telephone but both Vipin and Brijan did not allow her to make call. She came to the reception and screaming in loud voice and called Vikas who came there after two minutes. Brijan and Pandy left from the room and Vikas told her to dress her clothes. Thereafter, Vikas took away Pandey and Brijan. She kept crying. After about 30mintues Vikas, Brijan and Pandey and one person from reception offered her to take 2 lacs and not go to police. On which she said no and locked to door of her room. She even tried to kill herself. W/SI Suman had prepared rukka in this case and she visited the spot of incident and prepared site Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 3/30 plan of the spot and got the room inspected by crime team officials. Photographs of the room were also taken. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Lady Hardinge Medical College and exhibits of her medical examination were seized by the I.O.
4. On 13.03.2015 itself accused Brijan Singh, Vipin Pandey and Vikas Yadav were arrested in the case and they were also medically examined in Lady Hardinge Medical College and their blood samples were taken. Apart from this I.O. seized the wearing clothes of accused Vipin Pandey and Brijan Singh. Their disclosure statement was recorded.
5. During investigation, on 14.03.2015 statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
was also recorded through an interpretor by Ld. MM Ms. Mona Tardi Kerketta wherein she had again reiterated the same facts and circumstances against the accused persons.
6. On 15.03.2015, I.O. had seized DVR containing CCTV footage from the Hotel Arpit from the Manager of the Hotel and also seized a pen drive containing the CCTV footage of DVR and also seized the DVR of the Hotel Pablas International Pahar Ganj, Delhi.
7. During the course of investigation, exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini and chargesheet was filed in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. After compliance of the requirement of section 207 Cr. P.C. the case was sent to this court being the designated Special Fast Track Court for trial of the offences of sexual assault against the women through the Office of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. During the course of trial, I.O. of the Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 4/30 case has also filed the FSL report.
CHARGE:
8. On the basis of material available on record, Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 07.07.2015 framed charges against accused persons namely Vikas Yadav @ Dabbo, Bipin Pandey and Brijan Singh @ Gujjar for the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC, 366 IPC r/w 120B IPC, 342 IPC r/w 120B IPC, 376D IPC and 323 IPC r/w 120B IPC to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
9. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 18 witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Manish Sen Gupta, PW2 Sh. Mukesh Gupta, PW3 Sh. Dharamraj, PW4 HC Ramesh Chand, PW5 Sh. Harshpati, PW6 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, PW7 Sh. K. Alagar Kumar, PW8 Mr. Konstantim Chi, PW9 Sh. Chandan Kumar Paswan, PW10 Ms. Mona Tardi Kerketta, Ld. Civil Judge, PW11 SI Rupesh Khatri, PW12 Ct. Priyanka, PW13 Dr. Aparna, PW14 Ct. Arun, PW15 Ct. Dayanand, PW16 Dr. Sindhu, PW17 Ct. Dinesh and PW18 Ct. Ashok.
10. PW1 Sh. Manish Sen Gupta was the Sr. Manager of hotel Arpit Palace. He has brought the original guest register of the hotel for the period 04.04.2014 to 25.05.2015. He has proved photocopy of the relevant extract of the guest register vide Ex. PW1/A and the entry No. 16936 at point X encircled in red colour [original register seen and returned].
11. He further deposed that on 15.03.2015 the Duty Manager Mr. Alagar Kumar, who was then working in their hotel had handed over the photocopy of relevant Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 5/30 extract of hotel register along with copies of identity documents of the guest namely prosecutrix. The photocopy of the Cform and ID proof handed over by Mr. Alagar Kumar vide Mark PW1/A [running into 03 pages]. He identified the signatures of Mr. Alagar Kumar on seizure memo Ex. PW1/B.
12. He further deposed that on 15.03.2015 he handed over the CCTV footage of camera No. 1 installed in their hotel dated 12.03.2015 from 19:08 to 20:24 hours, in a pendrive to the police. He has proved seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C.
13. He further deposed that on the same day i.e. 15.03.2015 police also seized the Digital Video Recorder installed in their hotel which contained the CCTV footage of dated 12.03.2015 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D.
14. He also issued a certificate under Section 65 B Indian Evidence Act dated 15.03.2015 to the effect that DVR installed in their hotel is fully under her control, he being the Manager of the hotel and that the recording of the CCTV footage in the pendrive is not tampered with. He has proved the said certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act vide Ex. PW1/E.
15. This witness has proved pendrive vide Ex.PW1/F. After seeing the CCTV footage of the pendrive, this witness has also identified the guest namely prosecutrix, who is seen at 7:33:51 hours 7:34:06 hours.
16. On being cross examined by Sh. B. S. Dubey and Sh. AshutoshLd. Counsel for accused Birjan and Vipin Pandey, this witness deposed that the CCTV camera and DVR remain under control of the Managers including himself, Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 6/30 night Manager and Mr. Alagar Kumar. Mr Sandeep Singh was working as Night Manager.
17. He further deposed that he does not know if prosecutrix had any dispute with accused Vikas. He further deposed that prosecutrix also did not make any payment while leaving the hotel nor she paid the bill within 12 months.
18. On being cross examined by Ms Chitra Mal - Learned Legal Aid Counsel for Accused Vikas, he deposed that accused did not go to the room of the prosecutrix. He did not hand over CCTV recording of 11.03.2015 to the police. This witness had denied to suggestion that accused Vikas did not come to their hotel either on 11.03.2015 or 12.03.2015.
19. PW2 Sh. Mukesh Gautam has deposed that all three accused persons namely Vikas Yadav, Virjan Singh and Vipin Pandey present in court today [correctly identified] are known to him as they used to bring guests at the hotel.
20. He further deposed that on 12.03.2015 at about 10.30 PM while he was on duty at the said hotel, accused Virjan came to the said hotel and asked him to get a room booked for about 1 ½ hours on the pretext of holding a meeting. He booked Room No. 304 to the accused Virjan Singh for the said purpose. At the time of booking, he submitted his driving licence as his ID proof. He made relevant entries in this regard in the hotel guest register.
21. He further deposed that after about 05 minutes, accused Vipin Pandey alongwith lady namely prosecutrix also came there and they along with accused Virjan went to Room No. 304 at 3 rd floor. Room boy Dharamraj also Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 7/30 accompanied them at that time and that the said lady had also appended her signatures in the hotel guest register.
22. He further deposed that the said room boy also brought Frooti and Wafers and served the same to accused persons in their room. He further deposed that after about 15 minutes, accused Virjan also went out of the hotel and again came back after 510 minutes and that after sometime, accused Vipin Pandey also went out of the hotel. Thereafter, after about half an hour, the said room boy came to him and informed him that he had heard the shoutings of the said lady coming from Room No. 304. Immediately, he went upstairs to the room. Since accused Virjan standing on the road outside the hotel, he also took him along with him while going to the room. The said room boy namely Dharamraj also accompanied him. He further deposed that when they went to the room, she saw the lady sitting on the bed in front of the TV and that she was shouting by saying that call the police. He pacified her and told her that he is going to call the police.
23. He further deposed that when he met accused Vikas @ Dabboo, he asked him what had happened in the room as he had received a call from said lady. He told him to go the room and see what had happened with the lady. At that time, accused Virjan was also standing on the road. He also told him to go to the room alongwith Vikas and just check what exactly had happened. After about 05 minutes, Virjan came downstairs in the lobby and told him that the said lady had bolted the door of the room from inside. He further deposed that 12 persons were also present there and he also requested them and accused Vikas to break the door of the room.
Case No.28450/2016State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 8/30
24. He further deposed that after sometime, accused Vikas along with said two accused persons brought the said lady down in the lobby of the said hotel and that while taking down the said lady in the lobby, Vikas was holding her for a support. He further deposed that in the meantime, PCR van also reached at the hotel and took the said lady along with accused Vikas in the PCR van. He further deposed that when he had gone to the said room, he had seen the broken pieces of glass bottle lying in the room and empty packet of wafers.
25. He further deposed that he had also given copy of relevant entries of hotel guest register along with copy of the ID provided by the accused at the time of checkin in the hotel. Police had taken the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A, bearing his signatures at point A. This witness has proved copy of the Driving Licence given by the accused to him vide Ex.PW2/B. This witness has proved photocopy of the relevant entry of the hotel guest register vide Ex.PW2/C. He has proved copy of the first page of the register vide Ex.PW2/D.
26. On being cross examined by Sh. A.T.Ansari - learned Add. PP for the State, this witness had denied to the suggestion that when the room boy viz., Dharamraj informed him about the said lady being shouting and while he was about to go to the room, accused Vipin Pandey and Virjan Singh came down in the lobby and told him not to worry about the same. This witness admitted that after about 5 minutes accused Vikas @ Dabboo also came up there and told him that the said lady was his friend and he would take care of her.
27. On being cross examined by Sh. V. S. Dubey and Sh. Ashotosh - Learned Counsels for accused Vipin Pandey and Birjan, this witness deposed that he Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 9/30 had been working at hotel Surya for the last 25 years. This witness admitted that the adjoining rooms were also occupied by guests at that time. He further deposed that police did not make any enquiries from those guests in his presence and that the said guests were inside their respective rooms at the time of incident.
28. He deposed that that liquor is served in the rooms on demand and no such demand was made from Room No. 304. He further deposed that accused Birjan had paid Rs. 1000/ as room rent for room No. 304. The room was allotted in the name of Birjan Singh, Vipin Pandey and prosecutrix. He further deposed that the signatures at point B on Ex. PW2/C i.e hotel guest register of hotel Surya Palace is of the prosecutrix. As per record, they checked in at 10 PM. This witness admitted that there is some overwriting at point X to X, but the arrival time is 10 PM. He deposed that the CCTV footage is stored automatically in the system and that no one is specifically deputed to supervise the CCTV system. This witness had denied to the suggestion that no such incident happened in the hotel and he is deposing falsely in this regard at the instance of police. Police had also visited the hotel on the next morning.
29. On being cross examined by Ms Chitra Mal - Learned Legal Aid Counsel for Accused Vikas, this witness deposed that when the room boy informed him about the shouting being made by the prosecutrix, he immediately rushed to her room i.e. Room No. 304. He further deposed that when he came back to Reception, he saw accused Vikas standing on the road outside the hotel. He further deposed that he does not know if the police seized the latch of the door of the room which was broken by accused Vikas.
Case No.28450/2016State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 10/30
30. PW3 Sh. Dharamraj was working as Waiter at Hotel Surya Place, Karol Bagh from 2009 till August, 2015. He deposed that on 12.03.2015 at about 1010.30 PM, he was present in the lobby of the said hotel alongwith the hotel Manager Sh. Mukesh Gautam, when one foreigner lady came there alongwith accused Birjan Singh @ Gujjar and Vipin Pandey, who are present in the court today [correctly identified]. He deposed that he knew accused Vipin Pandey as he was earlier working as a Manager in a nearby hotel where he had also worked for sometime. He further deposed that accused Vipin Pandey asked him to bring frooti, namkeen and cigarette and that he brought the said articles and gave it to them and that then he started doing his other work on the same floor i.e. the third floor.
31. He deposed that after sometime, he heard the sound of breaking of glass bottle and the sound of shouting of said foreigner lady from Room No. 304. He immediately rushed to the lobby to inform the Manager about the same. He further deposed that in the meantime, accused Birjan and Vipin Pandey also came to the lobby on the ground floor from Room No. 304. Accused Vipin Pandey and Birjan told the Manager that there is no need to be afraid due to the sound of shouting of the lady and that thereafter, he, Manager Mukesh Gautam, accused Vipin Pandey, Birjan and guard went upto Room No. 304.
32. He further deposed that accused Vikas Yadav, present in the court today [correctly identified] also came to the hotel and that he knew him from before as he used to bring tourists to their hotel. They knocked at the door, but the lady did not open the door. Accused Vipin Pandey, thereafter, left from the hotel stating that he is feeling sleepy.
Case No.28450/2016State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 11/30
33. This witness was cross examined by the learned Addl. PP for the State as his statement is not in full consonance with his earlier statement. In cross examination by Sh. P. K. Ranga Ld. Substitute Addl. PP, this witness had denied to the suggestion that only accused Vikas, Birjan and Vipin Pandey went upto the room after accused Vikas came to the hotel. He further deposed that he does not know if accused Vikas had stated that the lady is his friend and he will take care of her or that then her shouting stopped. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW3/PX where it is so recorded at point A to A and at point B to B.]
34. This witness was cross examined by Sh. Ashutosh and Sh. V. P. Dubey -
Learned Counsel for accused Vipin and Birjan. In his cross examination, he deposed that on 12.03.2015, his duty hours were from 9 PM to 9 AM. He was directed to bring cigarette and other articles after about 05 minutes of checking in by the accused and the lady. He heard the sound of shouting after about 30 45 minutes. The adjoining rooms were occupied by guests. There were monthly guests in Room No. 302. The guests from other rooms did not come out from their rooms. His statement Ex. PW3/X1 was confronted with on various facts. This witness admitted that no incident of rape happened with the prosecutrix in their hotel on 12.03.2015.
35. PW4 HC Ramesh Chand has proved recording of FIR vide Ex.PW4/A.
36. PW5 Sh. Harshpati deposed that he was doing the business of CCTV installation at different locations including hotels. He further deposed that on 15.03.2015, at the request of WSI Suman and SI Lalit, he accompanied them to Hotel Pabals International, Sarswati Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and had played Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 12/30 the DVR of CCTV installed at the hotel and saw the video footage from 12.03.2015 to 15.03.2015. He have also saved the said video footage in a pen drive and handed it over to the said police officials. He further deposed that on the same day, he had also accompanied the said police officials to the Hotel Arpit Palace, whereon he had also played DVR containing the CCTV footage of dated 12.03.2015 and shown the same to the said police officials and that he had also saved the said footage in the pen drive and handed it over to the said police officials.
37. PW6 Sh. Sanjay Sharma had been working as senior Manager at Hotel Pablas International, Karol Bagh, New Delhi since last 10 years. This witness has proved seizure memo of DVR vide Ex.PW6/A and his certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act vide Ex.PW6/B and seizure memo of the pen drive vide Ex.PW6/C.
38. This witness was cross examined by learned Addl. PP. In his cross examination by ld. Addl. PP, this witness admitted that the date of the aforesaid proceedings was 15.03.2015 and he was unable to remember the same due to lapse of time.
39. On being cross examined by Sh.V.S. Dubey & Sh. Ashutosh learned counsels for Accused Vipin Pandey and Birjan, this witness deposed that he was not on duty at night time when police came to their hotel and took the DVR into custody. He does not have any personal knowledge about the incident.
40. On being cross examined by Ms. Chitra Mal - learned Legal Aid Counsel for Accused Vikas, this witness deposed that he used to view the CCTV footage of Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 13/30 the hotel recorded in the DVR. He further deposed that he cannot say if the DVR was tampered with by anyone before he came for his duty.
41. PW7 Sh. K. Alagar Kumar was the Manager of Hotel Arpit Palace, Karol Bagh. He deposed that on 07.03.2015, he was working as Front Office Manager at Hotel Arpit Palace, Karol Bagh and that on that day, a foreigner lady came to their hotel and check in 404. He made relevant entries in the hotel guests register, Ex.PW1/A at point X and also filled form C, mark PW1/A in the computer. He further deposed that the said foreigner lady handed over a copy of her passport and visa as proof of ID. He further deposed that he does not remember the date when he handed over the aforesaid documents to the police who took the same in to possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that their Senior Manager, Sh. Manish Sen had demanded the advance payment from the said lady but, she did not make payment on that day instead told them, she would made the payment next day and that the said lady had left the room at about 8.00/8.30 pm without informing them and that thereafter, she did not turn up.
42. On being cross examined by Sh. V. S. Dubey and Sh. Ashutosh, Learned counsel for accused Birjan and Vipin Pandy, he deposed that he worked at aforesaid hotel about 34 months in the year 2015. He further deposed that he stated his statement to the police that one driver namely Vikas known to the foreigner lady came to meet her but, he did not let him meet that lady and that he told him that he had to some money to her and that the said Vikas made a call to the Police and police came there. He further deposed that the aforesaid lady did not make any payment with regard to her stay in Hotel. He deposed that he does not know if anyone from their hotel asked her to vacate the room Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 14/30 on account of non payment of bill. This witness had denied to the suggestion that the electricity and other service were disconnected as she was not paying the bill. He admitted that CCTV camera installed in the Hotel. The same were not being looked after by him.
43. PW8 Mr. Konstantim Chi deposed that he was posted at Embassy of Kazakhistan as a Consular since 2013. He further deposed that on 13.03.2014 he was called by the police to assist them in recording the statement of victim, who belongs to Kazakhistan. He reached the police station and talked to the victim. She narrated the incident in Russian language happened with her to him. He had recorded the same on sheets of paper in English language. Thereafter, the victim had appended her signature thereon and he also appended his signature thereon. This witness has proved the aforesaid statement/complaint running into 5 pages available on judicial vide Ex.PW8/A.
44. PW9 Sh. Chandan Kumar Paswan deposed that on 14.03.2015 he was working as Russian Language Interpreter, Department of International Marketing at B.L. Kapoor Hospital, New Delhi. He further deposed that he is graduate in Russian language from JNU and as such he is fully conversant with Russian language and can translate the same. He further deposed that on 14.03.2015 he was brought to Tis Hazari Court by the police for the translation of the statement of the victim which was to be recorded by the Ld. Magistrate. He was called in the Chamber of Ld. Magistrate for the said purpose. He further deposed that in the chamber of Ld. MM victim narrated the incident in the Russian language to Ld. MM and he had translated the same in Hindi language. He had also given copy of his ID of Jawahar Lal Nehru University and B.L. Kapoor Hospital as well as copy of his certificate to the police. He has proved the same vide Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 15/30 Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C respectively. This witness has proved the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW9/D.
45. PW10 Ms. Mona Tardi Kerketta, Ld. Civil Judge has proved statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW9/D.
46. PW11 SI Rupesh Khatri has deposed that pursuant to a call received from Distt. Control Room of Central Distt. for inspection of scene of crime i.e. Room No.304, 3rd Floor, Hotel Surya Palace, Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, he along with a Finger Print Proficient, HC Hari Kishan and photographer Ct. Arun reached the aforesaid place of crime whereon SI Lalit, IO alongwith other staff were found present. He had inspected the scene of crime. He further deposed that the aforesaid Photographer took photographs of aforesaid crime and that Finger Print Proficient also tried to lift chance print from the scene of crime but no chance print was found. He directed the IO to take into possession stained bed sheet and broken pieces of Strong Beer bottle. He further deposed that the Chatakni was detached from the door but it was hanging with it. He has proved his detailed report vide Ex.PW11/A This witness has proved photographs already Mark PW2/P1 to P14.
47. On being cross examined by Sh. V.S. Dubey, learned counsel for accused, this witness deposed that they reached the place of incident within 25 minutes. He further deposed that he had got the information about the incident at about 05.00 am on 13.03.2015. He deposed that Prosecutrix was not present at the spot when he had reached the spot.
48. PW12 Ct. Priyanka has got medically examined the prosecutrix from Lady Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 16/30 Hardinge Hospital, Delhi. The examining doctor of the prosecutrix had handed over her, her inner garments, outer garments and sexual assault kit containing exhibits pertaining to prosecutrix in sealed condition. The said doctor had also handed over her sample seal. She handed over the said exhibits/clothes of the prosecutrix alongwith sample seal to the IO W/SI Suman. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A.
49. PW13 Dr. Aparna has proved the MLC of prosecutrix vide Ex.PW13/A. She further deposed that she had also prepared sexual assault kit pertaining to the said examination and also collected outer and inner garments of the patients, preserved, sealed and handed over to W/Ct. Priyanka along with sample seal. She further deposed that the alleged history mentioned at point 'C to C' in the MLC Ex.PW13/A was given by the patient herself. She further deposed that on examination of the patient fresh strangulation mark was observed on her neck and that her hymen was also found torn.
50. PW14 Ct. Arun is the photographer. He had taken photographs from the scene of crime from different angles. He proved the photographs already marked PW2/P1 to P14. He has also proved negative of the photographs vide Ex.PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A14. He deposed that the Incharge of the Crime Team prepared inspection report already Ex.PW11/A.
51. PW15 Ct. Dayanand has taken the accused Vipin Pandey to Lady Harding Medical College and got his medical examination conducted vide MLC Ex.PW15/A. He further deposed that the examining doctor of the accused Vipin Pandey had also handed over him the exhibits pertaining to the accused Vipin Pandey along with sample seal. IO took the same into possession vide Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 17/30 seizure memo Ex.PW15/B. He further deposed that so long as exhibits remained in his custody they were not tempered with in any manner.
52. PW16 Dr. Sindhu has proved MLC Ex.PW15/A of accused Vipin Pandy on behalf of Dr. Saunik Ghosh. He has also proved the MLC Ex.PW16/A in respect of accused Birjan Singh and MLC Ex.PW16/B in respect of accused Vikas Yadav on behalf of Dr. Saunik Ghosh.
53. PW17 Ct. Dinesh has taken the accused Birjan Singh to Lady Hardinge Hospital and got the accused medically examined vide Ex.PW16/A. The examining doctor had also handed over him the exhibits pertaining to Birjan Singh in sealed condition along with sample seal and he handed over the same to the IO vide seizure memo vide Ex.PW15/B.
54. PW18 Ct. Ashok has got medically examined the accused Vikas Yadav vide MLC Ex.PW16/B. Ct. Dinesh and Ct. Dayanand had also taken accused Birjan Singh and Vipin Pandey respectively for their medical examination. The doctors who had conducted medical examination of aforesaid accused persons had also collected their blood samples, preserved, sealed and handed over to us along with sample seal. They all handed over the blood sample along with sample seal in the presence of SI Lalit Kumar to the IO who seized the same vide common seizure memo already Ex.PW15/B. Blood samples were not tempered with in any manner till they remained in their respective custody.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CR.P.C.:
55. After the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused Vikas Yadav @ Dabbo claimed that Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 18/30 prosecutrix had been known to him since 2013 as he was in business of clothes with the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix had offered him if he sell clothes to her, she would pay him triple time amount of the clothes. He sent 50 Kgs clothes in year 2014 to the prosecutrix in Kazakhistan through Sagar Air Cargo but prosecutrix did not pay any single penny to him against the aforesaid delivery and when he demanded amount of the aforesaid 50 kgs clothes prosecutrix registered the present false case against him. He further claimed that he had filed a complaint against the prosecutrix vide DD No.41A dated 11.03.2015 at PS Karol Bagh but no action was taken. He further deposed that when prosecutrix came to know about his complaint she filed the present false complaint against him.
56. Accused Bipin Pandey claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was working as a hotel agent and his job was to bring customer in the hotel. He had brought the prosecutrix to the hotel for a room on her request. Prosecutrix was not having money at that time and room was alloted to her was @ Rs.2200/ per day and she stayed in that room for about 78 days and thereafter, she shifted her room to Hotel Surya Palace at cheaper rate @ Rs.800/ per day. Prosecutrix had not paid payment of the bills for the room in Hotel Arpit which was about Rs.33000/ approximately and on their persistent request she did not pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.33000/ and lastly when they forced her to pay this amount, she falsely lodged the present complaint against them. Accused Brijan Singh also claimed that he is innocent and he has been implicated falsely in the present cae. Accused persons have not preferred to lead defence evidence. Hence, D.E. was closed and case was fixed for arguments.
Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 19/30
ARGUMENTS:
57. Ld. counsel for accused argued and submitted that prosecutrix had offered him if he sell clothes to her, she would pay him triple time amount of the clothes. He sent 50 Kgs clothes in year 2014 to the prosecutrix in Kazakhistan through Sagar Air Cargo but prosecutrix did not pay any single penny to him against the aforesaid delivery and when he demanded amount of the aforesaid 50 kgs clothes prosecutrix registered the present false case against him. He further claimed that he had filed a complaint against the prosecutrix vide DD No.41A dated 11.03.2015 at PS Karol Bagh but no action was taken. He further deposed that when prosecutrix came to know about his complaint she filed the present false complaint against him.
58. Ld. counsel for accused Bipin Pandey and Birjan Singh submitted that accused Bipin Pandey was working as a hotel agent and his job was to bring customer in the hotel. He had brought the prosecutrix to the hotel for a room on her request. Prosecutrix was not having money at that time and room was alloted to her was @ Rs.2200/ per day and she stayed in that room for about 78 days and thereafter, she shifted her room to Hotel Surya Palace at cheaper rate @ Rs.800/ per day. Prosecutrix had not paid payment of the bills for the room in Hotel Arpit which was about Rs.33000/ approximately and on their persistent request she did not pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.33000/ and lastly when they forced her to pay this amount, she falsely lodged the present complaint against them.
59. Ld. counsel for accused persons submitted that prosecutrix has not appeared for her deposition despite various opportunities given to her. Without cross examination of statement not admissible in Evidence Act. PW3 Dharamraj Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 20/30 admitted that door of the room was lying open till they heard the sound of shouting and went upstairs. He further admitted that no incident of rape happened with the the prosecutrix in their hotel on 12.03.2015.
60. On these grounds, ld. counsel for accused persons has prayed that accused persons may kindly be acquitted.
61. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the case of prosecution is proved on the basis of statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by ld. MM wherein she has made specific allegations against the accused persons and the said statement in the absence of prosecutrix not coming to the court for deposing has to be considered as secondary evidence and should be relied upon. The case of prosecution is also established on the basis of deposition of PW8 Mr. Konstantim Chi, Counselor of Kazakistan Embassy who stated in the court that he had reached PS and talked with the prosecutrix and in his presence statement of prosecutrix was recorded which he had also signed. He proved the said statement running into five pages Ex.PW8/A he also identified his signature at point A. and of prosecutrix at point B. The counsel for accused had not done any cross examination on this witness. So testimony of PW8 is unrebutted and should be relied upon against the accused as the statement of prosecutrix is proved.
62. Ld. Addl PP further submitted that the case of prosecution is also proved by the deposition of PW9 Chandan Kumar Paswan who is a Russian language interpretor and he had deposed on 14.03.2015, he had come to Tis Hazari Courts with police and whatever was narrated by the prosecutrix to him in Russian Language was interpreted by him in Hindi Language to the Ld. MM.
Case No.28450/2016State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 21/30 He proved the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/D.
63. The case of prosecution is also proved by the deposition of PW10 Ms. Mona Tardi Karketta also proved the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/D which she has recorded after ascertaining that there was no threat or inducement to the prosecutrix.
64. That the MLC of the prosecutrix Ex.PW13/A was also proved by PW13 Dr. Aparna who had examined the prosecutrix and she has recorded the history given by prosecutrix in the MLC as stated to her by prosecutrix and as such the allegations against the accused persons are proved.
PERUSAL OF RECORD:
65. Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that on the statement of prosecutrix Ex.PW8/A, present FIR Ex.PW4/A was registered against the accused persons.
66. It is further revealed that PW8 Mr. Konstantim Chi, Counselor of Kazakhistan was called by the police to assist them in recording statement of prosecutrix who belongs to Kazakhistan; he reached in the police station and spoke to the prosecutrix; she narrated the incident in Russian language to him; he recorded the same on sheet of paper in English language and thereafter, prosecutrix appended her signature and he also appended his signature on the said document; he identified the said document as complaint, Ex.PW8/A (running into 5 pages) bearing his signature at point A and of prosecutrix at point B.
67. It is further revealed that PW9 Sh. Chandan Kumar Paswan was brought by police officials to Tis Hazari Court along with the prosecutrix where PW10 Ms. Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 22/30 Mona Tardi Karketta, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi recorded statement of prosecutrix, Ex.PW9/A under section 164 Cr.P.C. in her Chamber and PW9 Sh. Chandan Kumar Paswan had narrated and translated the incident to PW10 Ms. Mona Tardi Karketta, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in English which was told to him by prosecutrix in Russian language. It is further revealed that PW9 Sh. Chandan Kumar Paswan gave proof of his IDs of graduating from JNU, Ex.PW9/A and working from B.L. Kapoor Hospital, Ex.PW9/B and copy of his certificate Ex.PW9/C to the police; he also identified the statement, Ex.PW9/D as the same which was recorded by Ld. Magistrate on his translation.
68. It is further revealed that PW11 SI Rupesh Khatri inspected the scene of crime;
he directed the IO to take into possession bed sheet and broken pieces of bottle of strong beer; he found Chatakni of the door detached and it was hanging with door; he prepared report of his detailed inspection, Ex.PW11/A.
69. It is further revealed that PW12 W/Ct. Priyanka along with SI Lalit took the prosecutrix to Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital, where prosecutrix was medically examined by doctor, who also prepared exhibits of the clothes of the prosecutrix and sexual assault kit which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A.
70. It is further revealed that PW13 Dr. Aparna examined prosecutrix and found fresh strangulation mark on her neck, her hymen was torn; after taking her willingness internal examination of the prosecutrix was done by her; she also took samples of prosecutrix's examination and prepared MLC Ex.PW13/A; she sealed the inner garments of the prosecutrix and other samples, which were Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 23/30 given to W/Ct. Priyanka in sealed condition.
71. It is further revealed that accused Bipin Pandey was arrested by police; he was taken by PW15 Ct. Dayanand to Lady Hardinge Medical College And Hospital and examined by doctor vide MLC Ex.PW15/A; doctor prepared exhibits pertaining to examination of accused Bipin Pandey, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/B. Accused Brijan Singh was arrested by police; he was taken by PW17 Ct. Dinesh to Lady Hardinge Medical College And Hospital where he was medically examined by doctor vide MLC Ex.PW16/A; doctor prepared exhibits pertaining to his examination which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/B. Accused Vikas Yadav @ Dabboo was arrested by police from Chhaina Market, Gol Chakkar, Karol Bagh, Delhi; he was taken by PW18 Ct. Ashok to Lady Hardinge Medical College And Hospital, where he was medically examined by doctor vide MLC Ex.PW16/B; doctor prepared exhibits pertaining to medical examination, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/B.
72. It is further revealed that on 13.03.2015 accused Brijan Singh was medically examined by Dr. Saunik Ghosh vide MLC Ex.PW16/A, which MLC was proved by PW16 Dr. Sindhu. Accused Bipin Pandey was medically examined by Dr. Saunik Ghosh vide MLC Ex.PW15/A, which MLC was proved by PW16 Dr. Sindhu who was aware of the handwriting and signature of Dr. Saunik Ghosh. Accused Vikas Yadav @ Dabboo were medically examined by Dr. Saunik Ghosh vide MLC Ex.PW16/B, which MLC was proved by PW16 Dr. Sindhu who was aware of the handwriting and signature of Dr. Saunik Ghosh.
Case No.28450/2016State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 24/30
73. It is further revealed that PW1 Sh. Manish Sen Gupta, Manager of Hotel Arpit Palace, also proved the documents i.e. hotel guest register, Ex.PW1/A seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B; he also deposed that DVR containing CCTV footage of the relevant date was also seized by the police vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. He also gave certificate, Ex.PW1/E under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding correct contents of CCTV footage contained in pen drive, Ex.PW1/F.
74. It is further revealed that PW2 Sh. Mukesh Gautam gave copy of the relevant entry of hotel guest register, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/C alongwith copy of ID proofs, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/D to police. PW2 Sh. Mukesh Gautam also identified 14 photographs, Ex.PW2/P1 to P14 of the room of the hotel.
75. It is further revealed that PW4 HC Ramesh Chand, on the basis of rukka received from W/SI Suman, registered the FIR, Ex.PW4/A; he made his endorsement, Ex.PW4/B on the rukka; he also gave a certificate, Ex.PW4/C under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding correct contents of computerized copy of FIR.
76. It is further revealed that PW6 Sh. Sanjay Sharma has proved the CCTV footage and which was taken the same in a pen drive by police which was seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C; they had also seized the DVR vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A which he had signed; he also gave certificate, Ex.PW6/B under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding correct electronic footage of DVR.
77. It is further revealed that PW7 Sh. K. Alagar Kumar has proved the hotel guest entry register, Ex.PW1/A and he had given the documents of stay of Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 25/30 prosecutrix in hotel to the police which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B.
78. Before reaching at any conclusion, let the relevant sections i.e. 120B IPC, 366 IPC r/w 120B IPC, 342 IPC r/w 120B IPC, 376D IPC and 323 IPC r/w 120B IPC be reproduced, which are as under: Section 376D IPC. Gang Rape. Where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and with fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.
Section 323 IPC:
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.
Section 342 IPC:
Punishment for wrongful confinement. Whoever wrongfully confines any person 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.
Section 366 IPC:
"Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc - 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, and shall also be liable to find, and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid."Case No.28450/2016
State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 26/30 Section 120B IPC: Punishment of criminal conspiracy. (1)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
FINDINGS:
79. Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that present case was registered on the complaint of prosecutrix and chargesheet was filed against the accused persons. During trial, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses, PW1 Sh. Manish Sen Gupta, PW2 Sh. Mukesh Gupta, PW3 Sh. Dharamraj, PW4 HC Ramesh Chand, PW5 Sh. Harshpati, PW6 Sh. Sanjay Sharma, PW7 Sh. K. Alagar Kumar, PW8 Mr. Konstantim Chi, PW9 Sh. Chandan Kumar Paswan, PW10 Ms. Mona Tardi Kerketta, Ld. Civil Judge, PW11 SI Rupesh Khatri, PW12 Ct. Priyanka, PW13 Dr. Aparna, PW14 Ct. Arun, PW15 Ct. Dayanand, PW16 Dr. Sindhu, PW17 Ct. Dinesh and PW18, Ct. Ashok, all are official/formal witnesses, but it is a very strange situation that despite all best efforts made by the police the prosecutrix could not be produced in the court for her deposition despite various opportunities given to the prosecution as mentioned in my order dated 13.12.2017, when it was informed by the SHO Karol Bagh that summons were sent to prosecutrix through the Ministry of serving her at Kazakistan but no acknowledgment was received from her side. Detail order of dated 13.12.2017 is as under :
"The perusal of order sheets of the case reveal that the summon to prosecutrix was issued for the first time on 07.07.2015 and three months time was given for serving the summon upon her as per guidelines of MHA.Case No.28450/2016
State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 27/30 Reply was filed by Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma the then SHO PS Karol Bagh on 07.12.2015 qua service of summons upon the prosecutrix stating that on 03.11.2015 a letter was written to MHA through DCP legal cell seeking status of service of summons upon the prosecutrix and it was found that a letter dated 27.11.2015 to the Embassoy of India at Kazakistan, MHA, Govt. of India was sent by Ministry of Home Affairs seeking the status of service of original summon upon the prosecutrix and a reminder was also sent to this effect by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 27.11.2015 to the said embassy but no response was received. In that view of the matter, said Inspector sought one month more time to find the status of service of summon upon the prosecutrix. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the SHO PS Karol Bagh to pursue the matter with the Ministry of Home Affairs and submit the report for service of summons upon the prosecutrix on 08.1.2016.
On 08.01.2016, a report was received from SHO concerned that the matter was being persued by Inspector Ravinder who was also present in the court on that day and sought four months more time for taking necessary steps in this regard. Accordingly, a fresh summons was issued to prosecutrix returnable by 10.05.2016 through SHO PS Karol Bagh.
On 10.05.2016, it was reported by ACP legal cell, Central District that a letter was forwarded to Embassy of India in Kazakistan to find out the actual address as per passport of prosecutrix however, no reply was received.
On 19.12.2016, W/SI Suman filed status report regarding service of summon upon prosecutrix seeking some more time to serve the summon upon her. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances at that time and in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was given to the State to produce prosecutrix on next date of hearing i.e. 22.05.2017.
On 22.05.2017, process upon the prosecutrix was not received back and fresh summon was directed to be issue to her returnable by 24.07.2017.
On 24.07.2017, process in respect of prosecutrix received back with the report from DCP legal cell that prosecutrix could not be served for want of proper address. Accordingly, fresh summons was issued to her for 13.12.2017 i.e. today.
The aforesaid order sheets clearly reflect carelessness and casual and perfunctory approach on the part of investigating agency to serve the summon upon the prosecutrix in such a heinous crime of rape where foreign national is victim of crime. Despite the several consecutive opportunities given to investigating agency to serve the summon upon the prosecutrix but for want of sincerity on the part of investigating agency, summons to her could not be served causing inordinate delay in trial of present case.
It is pertinent to mention here that this court is a Special Fast Track Court designated for speedy trial of offences against the women in a time bound manner but for the callous and casual approach of the investigating agency, the trial is not reaching to its completion.
At the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State one more opportunity is being given to the investigating agency to serve the prosecutrix. Let, summons be issued to prosecutrix through Joint Commissioner of Police Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 28/30 (Central Range) returnable on 17.04.2018.
It is made clear this is the last and final opportunity to serve the summon upon the prosecutrix. It is also expected from Office of Joint C.P., Central Range to take necessary action against the officials for their careless and casual approach in persuing the matter qua service of summons upon prosecutrix.
It is note worthy that again, as per guidelines of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, four months time is given to serve the summons upon the prosecutrix."
80. However, matter was again adjourned for 17.04.2018 for giving the prosecution another opportunity to serve the prosecutrix.
81. Thereafter, on 17.04.2018, it was informed by the SHO Mukesh Tyagi and DCP Sh. Surender Dahiya, PS Karol Bagh that prosecutrix has refused to receive the summons which clearly shows that prosecutrix is not interested to depose in the case as such finding no alternative the prosecution evidence was closed. Now considering that whatever evidence has come on record through prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW18 same were put to the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. where all the accused persons had stated that they have been falsely implicated and they are innocent. They did not choose to lead any defence evidence. As such, the position of the prosecution case remain the same that the main star witness who is the prosecutrix in this case has not come in the court to depose against the accused persons. Other witnesses examined by the prosecution witness are of formal/official nature. The witnesses PW8 who is the counselor of embassy and PW9 who is the interpretor though have deposed about recording of the statement of prosecution before them but same cannot take place the position of actual proof of the facts and statement of prosecutrix which were supposed to be proved only by the prosecutrix herself. As such the testimony of PW8 Mr. Konstantim Chi, PW9 Sh. Chandan Kumar Paswan, can only to be relied upto the extent that statement of prosecutrix was Case No.28450/2016 State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 29/30 recorded in their presence but whatever facts and allegations were required to proved against accused persons were not proved by the prosecutrix as she chose not to appear before the court by refusing the summons of the courts. Hence, in the absence of testimony of prosecutrix allegations against the accused persons remained unproved and the benefit of doubt should go to the accused persons. So without deliberating much on the deposition of other witnesses examined by the prosecution, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons as prosecutrix did not appear in Court. Accordingly, accused persons namely Vikas Yadav @ Dabboo, Bipin Pandey and Brijan Singh @ Gujjar are acquitted from the charges u/s 120B IPC, 366 IPC r/w 120B IPC, 342 IPC r/w 120B IPC, 376D IPC and 323 IPC r/w 120B IPC.
82. In terms of section 437 A Cr. P.C. accused persons are directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.25,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount.
83. Since prosecutrix has not appeared before the court, hence, no compensation is awarded to her.
84. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.07.2018.
(RAMESH KUMARII)
ASJ/SFTC2(CENTRAL),
Digitally signed
by RAMESH TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
KUMAR
RAMESH Date:
KUMAR 2018.07.13
15:58:03
+0000
Case No.28450/2016
State Vs. Vikas Dabboo & others. 30/30