Delhi District Court
Sc No: 441102/16 State vs . Mukhtyar Singh & Others on 3 November, 2022
SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 02
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 441102/2016
CNR No. DLSW01-000199-2011
FIR No. 329/10
Police Station Bindapur
Under Section Under Section 147/148/
149/452/308/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Mukhtyar Singh
S/o Sh. Kesho Ram (Since deceased)
2. Robin Ahlawat
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Ahlawat
3. Subhash
S/o Sh. Mukhtyar Singh
4. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Mukhtyar Singh
All R/o H. No. 22, Village Bindapur
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -59
Judgment 1 of 24
SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others
5. Vikrant Ahlawat
S/o Sh. Satbhan Ahlawat
6. Sushil Kumar Ahlawat
S/o Sh. Ram Meher
7. Satbhan Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Meher
All R/o H. No. 23, Village Bindapur
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -59 ......Accused Persons
Date of institution 28.03.2012
Judgment reserved on 01.10.2022
Judgment Pronounced on 03.11.2022
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons are facing trial on allegations of intentionally causing grievous injury on head of complainant/ injured Dharmvir (PW2) with knowledge that it may cause death of complainant and for causing grievous hurt to complainant. Accused persons also facing trial on allegations that they trespassed into house of Anand to assault complainant and for rioting with deadly weapon.
Judgment 2 of 24
SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others
INITIAL COMPLAINT & FIR
2. On 16.10.2010 on receipt of DD No. 41A (Ex
PW1/A) SI Devinder Kumar (PW13) with Constable Manoj (PW5) reached D-68, Pratap Garden, Uttam Nagar. Where it was revealed that PCR van has already taken injured to DDU Hospital. Injured Dharamvir Singh was found admitted in the Hospital. IO collected MLC of injured. Injured / complainant was found fit for statement. IO/SI Devender Kumar recorded statement of complainant. Its translation reads as under:
"That I live with my family at the above address and stay at home. Today on 16.10.2010 at 6.30 pm , I went to the house of my friend Anand son of Mahendra Singh R/o D-68, Partap Gardern, Uttam Nagar New Delhi -59 for having conversation regarding his daughter's marriage. Me and my uncle's son Manohar were sitting in Anand's house. At about 7 o'clock Sunil and Ashok caught from inside the room and brought me out on the road. Ashok was having a knife and Sunil was having an iron rod. Satbhan, Mukhtyar Singh, Subash, Vikrant and robin were on the road they got hockey sticks and danda. They all hit me badly. I have suffered injuries in my hands and I was unconscious for some time. Sushil and SatbBhan and Judgment 3 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others all the rest are residents of our village. With them we have an ongoing property dispute, in which there is a stay. There were other people with them as well. Appropriate action should be taken against these above mentioned people..... "
3. Upon statement of complainant, FIR in question was registered under Section 323/324/34 IPC. During investigations, site plan of place of occurrence was prepared at the instance of Anand. Blood stained clothes of complainant were seized. After opinion on the MLC section 325/326 IPC were added and sections 452/308/147/148 IPC were also added. Accused persons were arrested and charge-sheeted.
CHARGE
4. On 16.04.2012 charge under Section 147/148/452/308 read with 149 IPC was framed against accused persons. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Accused unfortunately got expired and case against him stands abated.
Judgment 4 of 24
SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In all prosecution examined 13 witnesses.
Name Nature Deposition
PW1 ASI Shishupal Duty Officer Recorded DD No. 41A as
Ex PW1/A, DD No. 45A as
Ex PW1/B, Registered FIR
Ex PW1/C.
PW2 Dharambir Singh Complainant Proved his statement as
Ex PW2/A and deposed in
respect of incident. Proved his
clothes Ex P-1 and complaint
filed by him U/s 200 Cr.P.C as
Ex PW2/B
PW3 Vikas Ahlawat Nephew of Took complainant to Hospital,
Complainant proved and seizure of clothes Ex P-1 of complainant vide memo Ex PW3/A PW4 Dr Archana Doctor Proved MLC of complainant as Ex PW4/ A PW5 Ct Manoj Police Went to the spot with IO, proved site plan Ex PW5/A and seizure of clothes of complainant.
PW6 Manohar Lal Public Deposed he along with
complainant went to the house of
Anand. Didn't support
prosecution case.
PW7 Dr Vikram Kumar Doctor Proved ortho notes Ex PW7/A on
MLC of complainant.
PW8 Ct Bijender Police Proved arrest, personal search,
disclosure statement of accused
Judgment 5 of 24
SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others
Ashok and Satbhan vide
Ex PW8/ A to F
PW9 HC Jai Singh Police Proved arrest, personal search
and pointing out memo of
accused Sushil.
PW10 HC Om Prakash MHC(M) Proved deposit of exhibits with
Malkhana vide document
Ex PW10/A
PW11 SI Laxman Police Proved arrest, personal search
disclosure statement and pointing
out memo of accused Subash as
Ex PW11/A to D
PW12 Dr Rakesh Kumar Doctor Proved X-Ray report Ex PW12/A
of complainant.
PW13 SI Devender Investigating Recorded statement of
Kumar Officer complainant and made
endorsement as Ex PW13/B,
prepared site plan as
Ex PW5/A, proved arrest,
personal search and disclosure
statements of accused Mukhtiyar
Singh, Vikran and Robin as
Ex PW13/C to E-2, pointing out
memo prepared at instance of
accused persons as Ex PW13/F,
also proved arrest of accused.
PLEA OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
6. In their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of complainant Dharamvir due to enmity.
Judgment 6 of 24
SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others
DEFENSE EVIDENCE:
7. Accused persons examined 7 witnesses.
S Name Nature Deposition
DW1 Anita Devi Public Proved photographs Ex DW1/A-
1 to A-5 near the place of
occurrence
DW2 Smt. Suresh Sister of Deposed that accused Vikrant
accused was with her at home on date of
Satbhan incident and was not at spot.
DW3 Sushila Devi Wife of accused Deposed that accused Ashok and
Subash and Vikrant were with heart home on
mother of date of incident and was not at
accused Robin spot.
DW4 Ct Ravinder Police Deposed that summoned record
already stands destroyed.
DW5 Surender Singh Mouza Clerk, Proved copy of judgment dated Record Room 16.05.2014 as Ex DW5/A passed in case FIR No.249/08, PS Bindapur DW6 Mahesh Kumar Ahlmad Proved Court Record in case titled as Satbhan Singh & Anr Vs Mahipat Singh as Ex DW6/A DW7 Sushil Ahlwat Accused Deposed false case was registered against him and proved documents Ex DW7/1- 4
8. I have heard Ld. Additional APP for State and Ld. Defense Counsel. I have perused the material on record and have Judgment 7 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others gone through written submissions filed by accused persons. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
9. Case of prosecution is, on date of incident injured/ complainant Dharmvir Singh went to the house of his friend Anand at D-68, Partap Gardern, Uttam Nagar New Delhi. When complainant was sitting in his house along with his uncle's son Manohar, at about 7 O'clock accused Sunil and Ashok caught hold of him and brought complainant on the road. Ashok was having a knife and Sunil was having an iron rod. Accused Satbhan, Mukhtyar Singh, Subash, Vikrant and Robin were on the road they were having hockey sticks and danda. They all hit complainant mercilessly and complainant suffered injuries in the assault.
10. PW2 Dharmvir Singh duly supported prosecution case and deposed in respect of incident as stated by him in his complaint. Complainant proved his statement Ex PW2/A recorded by IO and also proved a complaint case Ex PW2/B instituted by him under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
Judgment 8 of 24
SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others
11. Deposition of PW2 Dharmvir Singh in respect of incident reads as under:
" I know all the accused in this case They are from our family Accused Mukhtiar Singh is my uncle, accused Sushil Kumar is my cousin accused Robin and Vikrant are my nephews, accused Subhash, Salbhan and Ashok Kumar are also my cousins, On 16.10.2010 between 6 pm and 7 pm I had gone to the house of my friend Anand Singh at D-68B, Pratap Garden, Uttam Nagar New Delhi. I was sitting in his house and was talking to him. My another cousin Manohar Lal was already present in the house of Anand Singh and we all three were talking to each other In the meanwhile, accused Ashok and accused Sushil came inside the room where we were sitting. Ashok had a knife in his hand and Sushil was armed with an iron rod. Both of them held me and dragged me to to the road outside the house of Anand Singh. Accused Mukhtiar, Subhash, Vikrant. Robin and Satbhan were present on the road and were armed with rods and hockeys. All of them started beating me with the arms which were in their hands. I became unconscious for some time as a result of beating I regained consciousness after about 10 to 15 minutes and found that I cannot move my arms and legs. After about four minutes, my nephew Vikas came to the spot......... "
12. Now, let us examine what facts have been narrated by PW2 in his complaint Ex.PW2/B filed under Section 200 Judgment 9 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others Cr.P.C. Relevant paras of complaint reads as under:
" 2. That on 16/10/2010 the complainant was sitting in his house and by the time all the accused persons in the above FIR forcibly entered in the house of the complainant and they were having Knife, Iron Rod, Hockey and Wooden stick in their hands and pulled the complainant from the house outside on the road and gave merciless beatings to him.
3. That during the time of beatings one accused namely Ashok attacked upon the complainant with the knife and somehow the complainant saved himself and due to the attack of the knife, the complainant received injuries over his abdomen and the accused Sushil attacked with the Iron Rod to the complainant and gave blow of the rod over his head and the complainant received multiple fractures body and also received injuries all over his body.
4. That a call was made by the police and the police took the complainant to the hospital and the complainant was got admitted in the hospital and he was gone under the surgery and still the complainant is in the hospital in serious condition. But the police officials intentionally registered the case U/S 323/324 IPC, infact the Section 452/307/308 IPC is clearly attracted but the police registered the case in non- cognizable offences instead of cognizable offences and the accused persons are roaming in the area without fear.
5. That it is the fundamental right of the complainant that the accused persons who gave the beatings and tried to kill him should be punished according to law as laid down in Indian Penal Code and it is the duty of the Police Officer to register the case accordingly Judgment 10 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others but this is the intentionally negligency of the police and the complainant is not having any option but to move the present application/petition before this Hon'ble Court. (Copy of the FIR is annexed herewith).
6.That the complainant is still under treatment and got admitted in the hospital as he will be going more surgery. (The M.L.C. and photographs are annexed herewith).
7.That it is the great fault/negligency from the side of the police and hence this application/petition before this Hon'ble Court for seeking justice."
13. Perusal of initial complaint Ex. PW2/A and the facts mentioned in the complaint case Ex.PW2/B shows material difference in the version of complainant.
14. In the initial complaint as well as in his deposition, complainant stated that on the date of incident when he was sitting in the house of his friend, accused Ashok and Sushil came inside the house of his friend and dragged him out on the road and thereafter he was beaten by all the accused persons.
Judgment 11 of 24
SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others
15. However, in his complaint Ex PW2/B complainant stated that on date of incident he was sitting in his house and by that time all accused persons entered his house. Accused persons were having knife, iron rod, hockey and wooden sticks in their hands and pulled the complainant from the house outside on the road and gave merciless beatings to him.
16. Complainant has stated in his complaint Ex PW2/B that place of occurrence was outside his house whereas in his statement Ex PW2/A he stated that place of occurrence was outside house of Anand Singh. Moreover, there is vast difference in Ex PW2/A & B in sequence of events. In Ex. PW2/A, complainant mentioned that accused Ashok and Sushil came inside the room and dragged him outside whereas in complaint Ex. PW2/B complainant stated that all accused persons came inside the house and dragged him on the road.
Judgment 12 of 24
SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others
17. It is also noteworthy that the complainant did not name any other accused person in his complaint Ex PW2/B except accused Ashok and Sushil. In his deposition, complainant mentions that after about four minutes of this incident, his nephew Vikas (PW3) came to the spot but this fact finds no mention in the complaint Ex PW2/B.
18. Let us examine now what complainant has deposed in his cross-examination in respect of these material differences appearing in Ex PW2/ A & B:
....... It is correct that when I had filed the application Ex PW2/B before concerned ld. MM, I was in fit mental condition. Vol. My legs and hands were not working due to Injury, at that point of time. I had Instructed my paternal uncle Raj Singh to file the application before concerned ld. MM, for adding appropriate serious Sections of IPC in the case, but while instructing the counsel, he wrongly mentioned that at the time of incident, I was sitting at my home, whereas in reality I was sitting at the house of Anand Singh and also It was wrongly mentioned that I received 32 fractures in the incident, whereas I received 17 fractures in the incident and that is how and why the sald facts were wrongly mentioned in Ex PW2/B by the counsel engaged by my paternal uncle Raj Singh. Except these two, the entire contents Judgment 13 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others of Ex PW2/B, were correctly mentioned. It is correct that the factum of my being taken to Chanandevi Hospital, is not mentioned in Ex PW2/B. It is also correct that I had not mentioned the name of my nephew Vikas Ahlawat in the said complaint Ex PW2/B. It is also correct to suggest that I had not given the names of assailants in the said complaint except that of accused Sushil and Ashok. ......... "
19. Complainant admits during cross-examination that he wrongly mentioned in Ex PW2/B that at the time of incident, he was sitting at his home, whereas he was sitting at the house of Anand Singh. PW6 Manohar Lal also deposed to the effect that incident happened outside house of Anand Singh. To clarify the issue regarding place of incidence it would be appropriate to examine testimony police witnesses, as well.
20. PW13 SI Devender Kumar (Investigating Officer) and PW5 Ct Manoj Kumar deposed that on date of incident on receipt of DD No. 41A they both reached at D-68, Pratap Garden and from there they came to know injured Dharamvir was already Judgment 14 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others taken to DDU Hospital. During his cross-examination PW5 Ct Manoj Kumar deposed as under:
It is correct that there are other residential houses at the spot adjacent to House no. D-68. The main entrance of house no. D-68 was in East side. It was single storeyed house. I did not enter in the said house. Anand Singh must be 35/40 years of age. 10 obtained his signatures on his statement. I can not tell in which language signatures were done by the said Anand Singh.
The alleged incident had taken place at a distance of 10-12 metres away from the said D-68. None from the family of Anand Singh was seen by me at that time at his house. I have noticed only one entrance in house no.D-68 since I had not noticed the other one.
21. PW13 SI Devender Kumar, Investigating Officer (IO), in respect of place of incident deposed in his cross- examination as under:
It is correct that vide DD No. 41A dated 16.10.2010 which has been seen by the witness in the Hon'ble Court today, the information received from women Ct. Preeti was to the extent that victim had been stabbed and this information had been received from one mobile phone no. 9810886219, R/o RZ D-58. During the course of investigation, I did not record the statement of women Ct. Preeti. The only investigation which was done was to reach the spot Judgment 15 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others pursuant to PCR call. No investigation was done as regards who was the holder of mobile no. 9810886219. No evidence was found on the spot to support the allegation that some person had suffered an injury for example blood stains, earth control etc. When I was recording the statement of Dharambir, his relatives were not surrounding him but around in the hospital.
The site plan was not prepared by me at the instance of injured victim, however, I had prepared the same at the instance of one of the witnesses namely Anand Singh. Complainant had given a statement that he had been pulled out of the house of Anand Singh and subjected to an assault outside his house. ....... ..... During the course of investigation, I did not make any effort to find out who is the occupant/resident of the house of the adjacent sides of the house of Anand Singh. It is not in my knowledge as to whether the house adjacent on the right side of point X in my site plan is the house bearing no. RZD-68A which on the date of incident belonged to one Ombir Singh Rathi.
........ I did not place on record any statement recorded U/s 161 Cr. P. C. of Mahesh Chauhan, Raju, Ombir Singh Rathi, Mukesh or occupants of the houses RZD-69, RZD-68A, RZD-67B.
22. As per Investigating Officer, DD No. 41A (Ex PW1/A) in respect of information that a victim was stabbed was received from mobile phone no. 9810886219. IO did visit the spot of incident but admits that he did not find any evidence on the Judgment 16 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others spot to support the allegation that some person suffered an injury or was assaulted at the spot.
23. Though alleged place of occurrence was thickly populated locality but IO made no effort to join any independent witness to verify the incident. IO deposed that he did not record statements of any of occupants of the neighboring houses RZ-D- 69, RZ-D-68A, RZ-D-67B. It is not the case where the incident could not have been ascertained from independent witnesses but despite availability investigating agency did not do so for the reasons best known to it.
24. Material differences in Ex PW2/A & B are also appearing in respect of sequence of events. In Ex. PW2/A, complainant mentioned that accused Ashok and Sushil came inside the room and dragged him outside whereas in complaint Ex. PW2/B complainant stated that all accused persons came inside the house and dragged him on the road. This variation in Judgment 17 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others complainant's own version of incident is too vast and cannot be brushed aside specially when complainant deposed that when Ex PW2/B was filed before court of MM, he was in fit mental condition.
25. As per the case of prosecution and complainant's version there were two eye witnesses to the incident Anand and Manohar. It is hard to believe that if complainant was dragged by Ashok & Sushil outside the room then why Anand or Manohar did not intervene or no effort was made by them to save complainant. Presuming that both of them avoided to intervene but they could have easily rushed complainant to Hospital but as per prosecution's own case no such action was taken either by Anand or Manohar and their conduct appears far from natural.
26. Complainant in respect of role of Anand and Manohar has testified as under:
... Manohar Lal and Anand Singh had tried to intervene when Ashok and Sushil had come in the Judgment 18 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others room where I, Manohar and Anand Singh were seated having weapons in their hand. Vol. There was no occasion of saving me because I was dragged outside the room and the latch was applied on the door by the accused persons and the other persons who could save me remained inside.
27. Neither in Ex PW2/A nor in Ex PW2/B complainant stated that latch was applied on the door by the accused persons due to which Anand or Manohar could not save him. Anand unfortunately got expired and could not be examined. Other eye witness is PW6 Manohar. His testimony reads as under:
" ..... I have retired from NAFED. On 16.10.2010 at about 07.00 pm, I along with Dharamvir Dharam had gone to the house of our friend Anand at Pratap Garden for talking about marriage of his daughter. In the meantime, Dharamvir @ Dharam received a telephone call on his mobile phone and he went out of the house. After some time, I heard some noise from outside of the house. On hearing the noise, I along with Anand came out of the house and found Dharamvir @ Dharam lying on the ground in injured condition. After some time, police came at the spot and he was taken to hospital. I do not know anything else."
28. PW6 Manohar has not supported the version of complainant. He didn't say that accused Ashok & Sunil or for that Judgment 19 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others matter any other accused came inside the house of Anand and dragged complainant outside the house. He didn't say that accused persons gave beatings to complainant in his presence whereas complainant claims that in presence of PW6 Manohar he was dragged outside the house of Anand and was beaten by accused persons. PW6 also does not say that when complainant was dragged outside house of Anand, he and Anand were locked inside room.
29. PW6 Manohar was declared a hostile witness. He was cross-examined at length by Ld Additional PP. During his cross-examination PW6 admitted that accused persons are also his cousin and he settled a Civil dispute with them after filing of this FIR. But the fact remains that as per prosecution case he was an eye witness to the incident and he did not support version of complainant.
Judgment 20 of 24
SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others
30. In Prabhat Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 10 SCC 391, Hon'ble Supeme Court of India held as under:
"10. We have heard both the parties at length and also gone through the oral and documentary evidence, especially the evidence of the eyewitnesses PWs 4, 8, 15 and 16. The complainant, PW 4, it may be noticed, after the incident had gone to Malwan Police Station and the Head Constable who was present at the police station asked the complainant to give his complaint in writing. PW 4, therefore, gave Ext. 28, wherein he had stated the presence of Divakar Joshi, who entered the house and assaulted the complainant's friend Sanjay Gaonkar and he also saw Bhai Wagh and other 5-6 persons and they were having sword and gupti in their hands and they had assaulted Sanjay Gaonkar, which is reflected in Ext. 28 dated 19-10-1987. Ext. 54 and Ext. 58 dated 19- 10-1987 give a different version. Ext. 27 has been treated as FIR, PW 4, of course, named only A-1, A-3 and A-7, not all. In Ext. 28, PW 4 had not named A-3 and A-7.
11. We find discrepancies in the version given at the very initial stage. The discrepancies and contradictions noticed by the trial court were found to be minor in nature by the High Court, but in our view, there is serious flaw in the conduct of the case by the prosecution and the discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by the trial court cannot be ignored as minor. No explanation is forthcoming as to why Shobhana Parkar was not examined in this case. Even according to the prosecution, Shobhana Parkar had also received injuries on her arm when she tried to intervene. The prosecution story is that Judgment 21 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others the deceased Sanjay Gaonkar ran to the house of Shobhana Parkar and that he was attacked just inside the door of the house of Shobhana Parkar. If that being so, in our view, Shobhana Parkar, who herself was injured and tried to intervene, was a crucial witness. Non-examination of Shobhana Parkar as well as the contradictory versions in Ext. 28 and Ext. 27 as well as the discrepancies and omissions pointed by the trial court, create a dent in the prosecution story. "
31. In present case as well, variations in respect of place of incident and role of accused persons in initial complaint Ex. PW1/A and subsequent complaint Ex. PW1/B are too vast to ignore and dents prosecution case. PW6 Manohar who was cited as eye witness also did not support the complainant's version. Despite availability no independent witness was made to join investigation. There is also no recovery of weapon of offence.
32. Investigating agency did not collect any material to prove that all the accused persons gathered at the spot and formed an unlawful assembly. Their call details/ locations of their mobile phones are not brought on record. There is no investigation as to Judgment 22 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others who other persons were available at the residence of Anand who could clarify about the forceful entry of accused persons in the house of Anand.
33. It has come in the defence evidence that there is some property dispute between complainant and accused persons. Defence evidence has also come on the record to the effect that accused Vikrant, Ashok Kumar, Robin were not at the place of incident. Cross FIRs have been registered between the parties. Complainant also admitted this fact during his cross-examination. There is previous enmity between the parties and the false implication of accused persons cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSION:
34. In the light of above discussions, it is concluded that prosecution is unable to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt is extended to accused persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted of the charges against them. Their bail bonds are Judgment 23 of 24 SC No: 441102/16 State Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Others canceled and their sureties stands discharged. Accused persons are directed to furnish bond under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. accused persons are directed to furnish personal & surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each for period of six months within one week from today.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 03rd day of November, 2022.
GAUTAM MANAN
Addl. Sessions Judge-02
South-West, Dwarka, Delhi
03.11.2022
Judgment 24 of 24