Delhi District Court
State vs . 1 Kishan Pal @ Bhagat Ji, on 4 September, 2009
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS): OUTER DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS:
DELHI
SC No.63/2008
FIR No. 234/2008
PS S.P. Badli
U/s 302/34 IPC
State Vs. 1 Kishan Pal @ Bhagat Ji,
s/o Khushi Ram,
r/o H. No.517,
Khasra No. 50/9, Khera Garhi
Colony, Delhi.
2 Ved Wati w/o Kishan Pal,
r/o H. No.517,
Khasra No. 50/9, Khera Garhi
Colony, Delhi.
3 Praveen @ Tek Chand
@ Chhuchhu s/o Kishan Pal,
r/o H. No.517,
Khasra No. 50/9, Khera Garhi
Colony, Delhi.
4 Bal Kishan @ Aney,
s/o Kishan Pal,
r/o H. No.517,
Khasra No. 50/9, Khera Garhi
Colony, Delhi.
5 Kuldeep s/o Kishan Pal,
r/o H. No.517,
Khasra No. 50/9, Khera Garhi
Colony, Delhi.
6 Krishan @ Kishan
s/o Kishan Pal
r/o H. No.517,
Khasra No. 50/9, Khera Garhi
Colony, Delhi.
FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 1
7 Prem Singh s/o Natthan,
r/o A75, Gali No. 2,
Khera Kalan, Delhi.
8 Ved Singh @ Ved s/o Natthan,
r/o A75, Gali No. 2,
Khera Kalan, Delhi.
Date of filing :06.10.2008
Date of conclusion of arguments :02.09.2009
Date of decision :04.09.2009
JUEGMENT
1 All the eight accused persons have been sent up to face
trial by police station S.P. Badli for committing murder.
2 Name of deceased is Ajay and his mother Nirmala is one
of the two eye witnesses of the incident in question. In her report
dated 08.06.2008, she claimed that her son Ajay was eighteen years
of age. She claimed that on the festival of Holi that year, accused
Tek Chand @ Chhuchhu had quarreled with her son Ajay but the
matter was not reported to the police. She, however, claimed that
from that day onwards, Chhuchhu and his family members used to
quarrel with them without any rhyme or reason. She also claimed
that they also used to threat to eliminate her sons. In her such
report, she also claimed that on 06.06.2008, Chhuchhu and his father
FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 2
Kishan Pal @ Bhagat Ji had also come to her house and threatened
that her son would be eliminated. Subsequently, she even went to
their house and claimed that she would advise her sons but accused
Kishan Pal @ Bhagat Ji and his sons did not relent and again
threatened. She further claimed that next day i.e. on 07.06.2008,
she had sent her son Ajay to fetch beedi from a nearby shop. Ajay
had gone at 9.00 PM. Since he did not return till late, she came out
of her house and started moving towards that shop from where beedi
was to be bought by her son Ajay. She heard some shouts and saw
that all the accused persons were quarreling with her son Ajay.
When she rushed towards Ajay in order to rescue him, Ajay was able
to free himself from their clutches and started running. All the
accused persons also started running after him and accused Ved Wati
was claiming and exhorting her coaccused that Ajay should not be
spared. Ajay was overpowered in Baba Mohan Ram Mandir Wali Gali
and accused Kuldeep and Chhuchhu took out ustras and all the other
accused persons caught hold of Ajay and ustra blows were given on
the chest region of Ajay. Ajay fell down and on further exhortation
of accused Ved Wati, accused Chhuchhu again gave ustra blow on
fallen Ajay. All the accused persons, then, fled from the spot. PCR
vehicle reached at the spot and she took Ajay to BJRM hospital in
PCR van where Ajay was declared brought dead. It is in these
FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 3
circumstances that and all the accused persons have been arrested
and chargesheeted for committing murder of Ajay.
3 Chargesheet was filed before the concerned Magisterial
Court on 06.09.2008 and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions and was allocated to this Court. It was received by this
Court on 06.10.2008.
4 All the eight accused persons were charged u/s 302/34
IPC vide order dated 04.12.2008. They all pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
5 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has
examined twelve witnesses viz PW1 Smt. Nirmala (eye
witness/mother of victim), PW2 Anurag (brother of victim). PW3
Dr. R.S. Mishra, PW4 Dr. K. Goel (postmortem surgeon), PW5 Ct.
Ramesh Chand (photographer), PW6 SI Mata Deen Meena ( Incharge
Crime Team), PW7 SI Surya Narain, PW8 Rajender (eye witness),
PW9 HC Chander Mohan (MHCM), PW10 Insp. Sanjeev Kumar
(second investigating officer), PW11 Ct. Devender Kumar & PW12
Sh. Naresh Kumar (Forensic Expert).
FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 4
6 It would also not be out of place to mention here that
defence had admitted various documents during trial. These are FIR
(Ex. D1), site plan (Ex. D2), scaled site plan (Ex. D3), DD No. 72B
(Ex. D4), DD No. 3A (Ex. D5), DD No. 4A (D6), seizure memo (Ex.
D7), seizure memo of cap (Ex. D8) and also all the arrest memos
and personal memos of all the accused persons. At the same time,
nonetheless, defence also contended that though the contents of FIR
and DD entries were disputed yet the factum of recording of same
was not in dispute.
7 All the accused persons, in their respective statements
recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded innocence and did not choose to
lead evidence in defence.
8 I have heard Ms. Purnima Gupta, learned Addl. P.P. and
Sh. Pardeep Rana, learned defence counsel and carefully gone
through the entire material on record.
9 Admittedly, there are two eye witnesses of the incident
in question and naturally the outcome of the case is squarely
dependent upon the testimony of these eye witnesses. They are PW1
Smt. Nirmala and PW8 Rajender.
FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 5
10 PW1 Nirmala was examined in part on 12.01.2009 and
in her such testimony she corroborated the case of prosecution but
her examinationinchief could not be completed that day for want of
case property and, therefore, her examinationinchief was deferred.
Her further examinationinchief was recorded on 02.04.2009 and
same day she was also crossexamined by the defence. To the
astonishment of the court, in her crossexamination, she took total
somersault and disowned the prosecution story practically in toto. As
already discussed above, she is mother of the victim. In her
examinationinchief, she identified all the accused persons and also
claimed that her son was chased and surrounded by all the accused
persons. She also claimed that accused persons were armed with
dandas and some other objects and her son was injured by all the
accused persons. In her crossexamination, she, on the other hand,
claimed that she had sent her son to fetch beedi at 9.30 PM and at
about 11.30 PM one boy from her locality came to her house and
informed her that her son was lying dead in Gupta Wali Gali. She
further deposed that she immediately reached at the spot and found
that her son was lying dead. She also deposed that police officials
were already present at the spot and there was crowd as well. She
further deposed that she did not see the incident with her own eyes
and could not say who had injured or killed her son. She
FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 6
claimed that she was not interrogated by the police at the spot and
police had simply ascertained the relationship between her and the
deceased. She also claimed that her statement was neither recorded
at the PS nor at the hospital. She also deposed that her signatures
were obtained on some papers. She deposed that she did not know
as to what type of documents those were. She also claimed that
when she reached at the spot, she had seen two ustras lying at the
spot.
11 It becomes manifest that she has resiled from her
previous statement and has not deposed even a single word
favouring prosecution in her crossexamination. She categorically
claimed that she did not know who had killed her son. She was re
examined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court but
she remained adamant in her such stand. She also claimed that it
was wrong to suggest that relatives and friends of the accused
persons had approached her and offered a huge sum of money and,
therefore, she was deposing falsely and deviated from her previous
deposition. She also claimed that it was wrong to suggest that all the
documents, which were bearing her signatures, were read over to her
and she had signed the same after ascertaining the contents thereof.
FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 7
12 Naturally, in view of her complete deviation, as
aforesaid, various court questions were put to her and it would be
appropriate if those questions along with answers are extracted.
These are as under:
Court Que.:Your statement was recorded
on 12.01.09 before the court and your
such statement was on oath and why did
not you tell to the court on that day that
you were under pressure of any police
official?
Ans. I did not tell this fact to the
court as I was threatened by the police
that in case I did not depose as per their
wishes then they would falsely implicate
my other son in some other case.
Court Que.:Can you give the name of that
police official?
Ans. No. He was in civil dress.
Court Que.:How did you ascertain that
he was a police official?
Ans. I had seen him in PS S.P.
Badli.
Court Que.:Can you identify that police
official?
Ans. No.
Court Que.:Has any friend or relative of
accused party approached you after
12.01.09 and has threatened you?
Ans. No.
Court Que.:Has any such person tried to
influence you with money?
FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 8
Ans. No.
Court Que.: Which of your statement is
correctwhether of 12.01.09 or the
statement of today?
Ans. My today's statement is
correct. My previous statement was under
threat of police.
Court Que.:If it is believed that in fact
you had been threatened by any police
official on the last date i.e. 12.01.09,
what makes you believe that now your son
would not be falsely implicated in any
other case?
Ans. I want to tell the truth only.
13 Thus, she is asserting that her previous deposition was
under the influence of some mysterious police official. She remained
adamant to the stand taken by her in her crossexamination and
categorically claimed that her deposition in cross was truthful and
she was neither influenced nor threatened by the opposite side. She
deposed that she did not see the incident with her own eyes and she
did not know as to who had injured or killed her son.
14 PW8 Rajender has also not supported the case of
prosecution. He deposed before the Court that when he was taking
meals, he heard some shouts and he came out from his house and
saw a person lying on the road at the Chowk. He informed the police
FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 9
by dialing 100 and PCR van came at the spot and took that person
from the spot. He deposed that he did not know anything else and
did not know any of the accused persons present in Court. He was
duly crossexamined by the prosecution with the permission of the
Court and he claimed that it was wrong to suggest that on
07.04.2008at about 9.45 PM, he had seen Ajay running in nervous condition in Gupta Wali gali and Ajay was being chased by all the accused persons present in court. He also claimed that it was wrong to suggest that accused Vedo @ Ved Wati had asked her associates to stop Ajay and not to permit him to escape. He also claimed that it was wrong to suggest that accused Bal Kishan, Kishan Pal, Prem and Ved caught hold of Ajay and accused Kuldeep and Chhuchhu took out ustras and inflicted injuries on chest, stomach and other parts of body of Ajay. He also claimed that it was incorrect to suggest that mother of Ajay was present there and she was crying there. He also claimed that it was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely being won over by the accused. In his crossexamination, he also admitted that police did not record statement of any public witness or any lady at the spot. It becomes very much perceptible that this material eye witness has also not supported the case of prosecution. FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 10 15 Learned Addl. P.P. has placed her strong reliance upon Khujji Vs. State of MP AIR 1991 SC 1853. She has contended that in that case also, eye witness had turned hostile in the cross examination but despite that accused was convicted on the basis of examinationinchief. I have carefully gone through aforesaid judgment. I need not remind myself that outcome of criminal trial is largely based on appreciation of its peculiar and individual backdrop of bundle of facts. In the case of Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2003 Cr.L.J. 4329, it has been observed as under: "Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases or between two accused in the same case. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It is more pronounced in criminal cases where the backbone of adjudication is fact based."
16 In the case of Khujji (supra), there were several distinguishing features. Firstly, in that case, examinationinchief was already over and the witness had changed his version when he was called for crossexamination. Here examinationinchief was still continuing and immediately after the examinationinchief, witness was tendered for crossexamination same day when she came up FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 11 with contradictory version. Secondly, in that case, there was one very peculiar and significant feature. In that case, one of the eye witnesses was severely beaten up on the night previous to his appearance in the Court as a witness and it was observed that, in between, witness seemed to have been won over or succumbed to the threat. Here despite there being court questions, witness never divulged that she was intimidated from the side of accused party. Thirdly, in said case, eyewitness had not entirely turned hostile. He simply expressed some doubt regarding the identity of the accused claiming that he had seen their backs only. Here, whereas, witness has entirely turned hostile and has claimed that she did not see the incident at all. Fourthly, in that case, such eyewitness was a chance witness whereas in the present case, such witness is mother of victim and as per prosecution case, there was previous enmity as well. It cannot be forgotten that enmity, as usual, is a doubleedged weapon, providing motive both for the offence as well as for false implication. The evidence in such a case has, therefore, to be scrutinized with added care so that neither the guilty party erroneously escapes on the plea of enmity, nor an innocent person gets accidentally convicted on that basis. Fifthly, in that case, recovery of weapon of offence was proved beyond doubt whereas in the present case it is not so. I would delve on this issue in the later part of my judgment. FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 12 17 PW2 Anurag is real brother of victim and prosecution wanted to prove the factum of previous enmity through him but he has also turned hostile and has deposed that he did not know anything with respect to any previous dispute. He rather claimed that his brother had no enmity with anyone. This witness was also crossexamined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court but despite that prosecution could not elicit anything from his mouth which may even remotely give any boost to the case of prosecution. He even claimed that he never gave any statement to the police and in his crossexamination, he also claimed that his mother was also in the hospital at that time and even she did not know as to who had killed Ajay. He also admitted that police official had taken signatures of his mother at hospital and those were blank documents. 18 Defence has also argued that even otherwise it is very much visible to the naked eyes that Nirmala was never an eye witness to the incident in question. He has argued that even as per case of prosecution, when PCR received information regarding stabbing, PCR van had arrived at the spot, no public witness was found there at the spot. Even Nirmala was not there at the spot. In this regard, he seeks corroboration from the bare statement of ASI Balbir Singh as recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. ASI Balbir Singh was FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 13 Incharge of PCR Van L79. When he reached at the spot, he took the injured to BJRM hospital in PCR van with him. In his entire statement, he nowhere claimed that Nirmala was there at the spot or that he had taken Nirmala along with the injured. My attention has also been drawn towards MLC Ex. PW3/A. In such MLC also, it has been merely mentioned that ASI Balbir Singh had brought the injured to the hospital and no name of relative or friend is mentioned in such MLC. Sh. Rana has also claimed that if prosecution case is to be believed then incident had taken place outside the house of Rajender Singh but Rajender Singh has not supported the case of prosecution and he has also deposed that till the arrival of PCR van, no one had come at the spot. According to defence, presence of Nirmala at the spot or witnessing the incident is highly susceptible. Sh. Rana has also claimed that even her examinationinchief does not throw requisite light on the case of prosecution as according to her specific earlier version, as given to police, she had claimed that Chhuchhu and Kuldeep were armed with ustras and she did not make mention of any other weapon or weapons which the other accused might be carrying. In her deposition, she rather claimed that accused were armed with lathies and some other objects. He has also argued that as per site plan Ex. D3, there is considerable distance between point A and point B. Point A is the place where Nirmala had FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 14 seen the accused persons quarreling with her son Ajay and point B is the place where her son was attacked. It has been argued by defence that entire stretch is a thickly populated area and lots of houses are situated between point A and point B and it would be highly unbelievable that accused persons would dare to chase the victim in open and in full public gaze and would invite gallows for themselves. It has also been argued that even otherwise there is no corroboration from any neutral corner as the solitary independent witness has also rejected the prosecution story.
19 Undoubtedly, Nirmala supported the case of prosecution in her initial examinationinchief but fact remains that she has also demolished the case of prosecution in toto by claiming that she did not see the incident with her own eyes. Court questions were put to her in order to ascertain whether she was giving deposition under any influence or threat but answers given by her did not suggest that she was under any influence or intimidation.
20 Evidence of a witness turning hostile cannot, as a matter of fact, be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether. Court has to consider whether as a result of such major shift in deposition and brazen contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 15 discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the court finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, it may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. However, Court is required to be extremely cautious and circumspect in acceptance of testimony of such witness more so when such witness is interested witness and should always look for substantiation from other legally admissible material. 21 In State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani 2003 CRI. L. J. 3857 SC, it has been observed as under: "The fact that the witness was declared hostile by the Court at the request of the prosecuting counsel and he was allowed to crossexamine the witness, no doubt furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. But the Court has at least to be aware that prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to the same. The Court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and, normally, it should look for FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 16 corroboration to his evidence..."
22 In Keshoram v. State of Assam 1978 CRI. L. J. 1089 SC it has been observed that while it was true that merely because a witness had been declared hostile his evidence could not be rejected on that ground alone, it was equally well settled that when once a prosecution witness was declared hostile the prosecution clearly exhibited its intention not to rely on the evidence of such a witness and, hence his version should not be treated as the version of the prosecution itself.
23 This brings me to the other crucial aspect of the case i.e. recovery of weapon of offence. As per prosecution, two ustras were used. One was seized from the spot and other was recovered at the instance of accused Tek Chand @ Chhuchhu. As far as recovery of ustra at the instance of accused Tek Chand @ Chhuchhu is concerned, even such recovery is not free from suspicion. There are two witnesses of such recovery. These are Ct. Devender Kumar and Insp. Ranvir Singh. Insp. Ranvir Singh did not even bother to enter into witness box. Summons were sent to him repeatedly but surprisingly he kept on sending the request on medical ground time and again and kept on extending his medical leave in such a manner FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 17 so that he does not have to appear in court as witness. It is beyond my comprehension to understand as to why he was shying away from the court. PW11 Ct. Devender Kumar has though claimed that blood stained razor (ustra) had been recovered at the instance of accused but such recovery is not free from doubt. According to Ct. Devender, accused was arrested and his disclosure statement Ex. PW11/A was recorded and pursuant to such disclosure statement only, accused had got recovered one blood stained razor which was lying behind a trunk in a corner of room of his house. Thus as per him, recovery followed the disclosure statement meaning thereby, first disclosure was recorded and then recovery was effected. I have seen the disclosure statement which has been proved as Ex. PW11/A. As per such disclosure statement, accused claimed he had thrown the ustra, which he had used, behind the trunk lying in the room of his house and in the same statement it is also mentioned that he had got such ustra recovered. I am unable to reconcile the disclosure statement and the testimony of Ct. Devender Kumar. As per Ct. Devender Kumar, first disclosure statement was recorded and then the recovery was effected. But according to document prepared by the investigating agency, disclosure had been recorded after the recovery of the ustra. Moreover, Ct. Devender Kumar is completely oblivious as to when such recovery had taken place. He does not remember FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 18 the time of the arrest of accused and has vaguely claimed that it was day time. He admitted that accused was arrested in a residential area and lots of shops were there and accused was arrested just opposite Sharma Medical Store. He also claimed that no shopkeeper or resident was called to join investigation despite the fact that they were available. He also admitted that none of the neighbours was called to join the investigation at the time of alleged recovery of ustra. Investigating officer did not find it sane to adhere to Section 100 Cr.P.C. and did not find it wise or prudent to even make request or call any neighbour or independent person at the time of alleged recovery. Moreover, as per case of prosecution, such ustra was recovered from the house of accused Tek Chand @ Chhuchhu but mother of the victim has deposed before the court that when she had reached at the spot, she had seen both the ustras lying at the spot. This again makes story of recovery of ustra at the instance of accused Tek Chand @ Chhuchhu highly unsafe to rely upon.
24 In view of my foregoing discussion, I strongly feel that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond doubt. Testimony of PW8 Rajender does not serve the case of prosecution despite the fact that he was alleged to be an eye witness. Mother of victim has also deposed in her crossexamination that she had not FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 19 seen the incident with her own eyes and it would be highly unsafe to rely upon her examinationinchief without any further corroboration.
25 Now, naturally, it agitates the mind of the Court whether any action is required to be taken against Nirmala or not. She has come up with contradictory statements and her both statements are under oath. She has, however, tried to give an explanation regarding her previous deposition claiming that her previous statement dated 12.01.2009 was under pressure of police. According to her, she was threatened by police and, therefore, she had given a wrong statement on that day. Obviously, when she was examined by the Court on 12.01.2009, she did not reveal any such fact to the Court. There was none to prevent her from disclosing such fact to the court immediately. She could also lodge some report in this regard with the higher police authorities but she chose to keep mum and uncovered such fact for the first time when courtquestion were put to her. It is still not outandout clear as to under what circumstances, she had given the names of the accused persons as the actual offenders in her earliest complaint before the police as well as in her examinationinchief but she fairly admits that her previous deposition dated 12.01.2009 was incorrect. Section 344 Cr.P.C. FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 20 provides summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence and it stands attracted when Court expresses opinion that any witness has knowingly or willfully given false evidence. At the same time, court is required to record its satisfaction that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice to do so. As per admission of Nirmala, it becomes discernible that her previous statement was wrong and she knew that she was making a false statement before the Court. She also says that she has not been allured with money. She also denies her being under any threat from the opposite side. Since she made a false statement knowingly, she has virtually made herself liable for perjury. But, I cannot lose sight of the fact that she is mother of the victim. Her young son died in the incident in question and according to her, she was pressurized by the police and, therefore, she had deposed falsely. Her version though does not appear to be plausible but cannot be outrightly ignored either. Thus, though, it is still not clear as to what made her to give false statement before the court yet keeping in mind her age and the fact that her she has lost her young son in the incident in question, I do not find appropriate to take her to task u/s 344 Cr.P.C. I do not find it necessary and expedient in the interest of justice more so when no flawless system or mechanism exists in our country to protect the witnesses. In several judgments, Courts have raised serious and genuine concern with respect to the FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 21 issue of protection of witnesses but so far no legislation has been brought on this vital aspect. Great jurist Jeremy Bentham says that eyewitnesses are eyes and ears of justice. Therefore, if actual justice is to be delivered then witnesses are required to be protected. Witnesses need to be protected from two things. Firstly, threat or intimidation coming from the side of offender party and secondly the lure of money again coming from the opposite side. It is high time that a fullfledged body is created where witnesses can feel themselves truly protected. In serious matters and heinous crimes, their identity should be hidden so that they depose without fear. At the same time, if any such witness succumbs to monetary consideration and deposes under the influence of money, he should be taught a stern lesson. It is known that when money speaks, truth becomes silent spectator and is virtually eclipsed. Courts are meant to discover truth but it becomes arduous and strenuous to discern the same if witnesses do not come up fearlessly and with honesty. Besides sending such witness behind the bars, his assets should be thoroughly evaluated by IncomeTax authorities so that no witness dares to tell lie before the Court at least under the influence of money.
26 Be that as it may, keeping in mind my aforesaid FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 22 discussion, I let her off with warning.
27 I accordingly grant benefit of doubt to all the accused persons and acquit them of all the charges levelled against them. 28 Accused Ved Singh, Ved Wati and Prem Singh are on interim bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. 29 Accused Kishan Pal @ Bhagat Ji, Praveen @ Tek Chand @ Chhuchhu, Kuldeep, Krishan @ Kishan and Bal Kishan are in judicial Custody. They all be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case.
30 Case property stands confiscated and be destroyed as per rules after expiry of the period of appeal or after awaiting the outcome of appeal, as the case may be.
31 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court On this 04th day of September, 2009.
(MANOJ JAIN) ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS) Outer Distt: Rohini Delhi FIR No. 234/08 PS S.P. Badli 23