Delhi District Court
State vs . Sushil Kumar, on 7 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 34/13.
Unique Case ID No.02405R0366402011.
State Vs. Sushil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
R/o H. No.122, Sector-5,
R.K. Puram,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 25.4.2011.
FIR No.208 dated 19.8.2009.
U/s. 375/376/420/406/493/120B/506 IPC.
P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 28.9.2013.
Date of pronouncement : 07.10.2013.
JUDGMENT
1. The above named accused has been chargesheeted by the prosecution for having committed the offence punishable u/s. 376/493/506 IPC.
2. It is revealed from the prosecution case that the FIR in this case has been registered pursuant to order dated 18.8.2009 of the Ld. Magistrate passed in the complaint filed by the prosecutrix namely 'V' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) u/s.200 of Cr.PC. The accused Sushil Kumar is the younger brother-in-law (Devar) of the elder sister of the prosecutrix namely Hemlata. The gist of the complaint filed by the SC No.34/13. Page 1 of 19 prosecutrix is mentioned hereunder :
"The sister of the prosecutrix gave birth to a daughter and her mother-in-law requested the parents of the prosecutrix to take post delivery care of Hemlata as she herself had to attend another daughter-in-law who was admitted in the hospital. Accordingly, the parents of the prosecutrix sent her to the house of the accused to take care of her sister Hemlata. The prosecutrix stayed in the house of the accused from 30.12.2008 to 14.1.2009 and used to do all the domestic work. The accused and his family members initially showed love and affection towards the prosecutrix and won her trust and confidence. The accused developed intimacy with the prosecutrix and came very close to her. Taking advantage of the innocence and simplicity of the traditional girl i.e. the prosecutrix, the accused started teasing her and on one day even went to the extent of outraging her modesty. The prosecutrix was totally shattered and disturbed due to the said act of the accused. She objected to the said conduct of the accused and the accused at first offered his apology and promised not to reveal said incident to anybody but later on threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the same to anybody. The prosecutrix was not in a position to narrate the incident to anybody and taking advantage of her such precarious position, accused again outraged her modesty. The accused, in collusion with his brother, Pramod SC No.34/13. Page 2 of 19 managed to take photographs of the prosecutrix in objectionable position with the sole motive to blackmail her and pressurise her not to take any legal action against him. The accused and his brother clicked few photographs of the prosecutrix in compromising position with the accused. When the prosecutrix protested to their said actions, accused and his mother assured her that she will be got married to the accused. On pretext of solemnizing the marriage with the accused, they persuaded her to come out of her parental house on 17.1.2009 alongwith her date of birth certificate and four passport size photographs so that the formalities for the marriage could be completed. The accused made a telephonic call to the prosecutrix on 21.1.2009 asking her to be ready on the next day i.e. 22.1.2009 at 11.30 a.m. to accompany him for solemnizing the court marriage. With the hope that her marriage is going to be solemnized with the accused, the prosecutrix reached the given place where the accused was already present alongwith his friend named Pappu. From there, she was mischievously taken to Hari Nagar Bus Depot and ultimately, to ISBT in an auto rickshaw. Sh. Pramod, the brother of the accused, was already present on ISBT and helped the accused and the prosecutrix to board a bus for Jammu. When the prosecutrix objected as to why she is being taken to Jammu, Pramod told her that it was not possible to solemnize the court marriage at Delhi and SC No.34/13. Page 3 of 19 therefore, he has made all the arrangements at Jammu and he would also be reaching Jammu the next day. On reaching Jammu in the morning of 23.1.2009, the accused took her to a hotel where a room had already been booked. There the accused put vermilion on the forehead of the prosecutrix and declared that they are now husband and wife. The accused took several photographs of the prosecutrix there in various postures and objectionable position with some ulterior intention. The accused also treated the prosecutrix very badly at Jammu, tortured her and threatened her not to disclose to her family members about the court marriage. When the prosecutrix asked the accused why the court marriage is not being performed, he told her that the agent is in the process of completing the formalities. The accused continuously raped the prosecutrix at Jammu on giving her assurance that they are now husband and wife and there is nothing wrong in such act. The accused brought the prosecutrix back to Delhi on 29.1.2009 and told his mother that she is now his wife and will live with him. The mother of the accused objected and called her son Pramod who told the prosecutrix that she is a girl of bad character as she has stayed outside her parental house for 8 - 10 days. The accused objected to the utterances of his brother Pramod but was beaten by Pramod as well as his mother. The prosecutrix was thrown out of the house stating that they have no relation with her. The prosecutrix was in SC No.34/13. Page 4 of 19 a state of shock and grief on account of aforesaid conduct of the brother and mother of the accused. Thereafter, Pramod, who himself is a driver, with the help of his mother pushed the prosecutrix into his car and dropped her at some lonely place in Delhi Cantt. area and informed her maternal uncle Sh. Krishan Dass telephonically that he can pick up the prosecutrix from that place. Pramod also threatened that in case, she disclosed anything to her parents or initiated any legal action against them, he will kill her younger brother Prithvi Raj. On reaching her parental home, the prosecutrix was in a state of utter shock and grief. However, on the persuasion and support of his family members, she disclosed everything to her parents, who took her to the police station Delhi Cantt. On 30.1.2009. Police initially was not inclined to register the complaint but on the insistence of the prosecutrix and her family members, registered the complaint as per their suitability but did not take any action."
3. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was entrusted to SI Saroj Bala. She made efforts to search the accused but did not succeed. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to SI Sunita Sharma. She came to know that the prosecutrix has been got medically examined by SI Aditi Lilly in DDU Hospital vide MLC no.2183/09 on 05.2.2009 during the course of inquiry on the complaint. Accordingly, SI Sunita Sharma seized the exhibits given to SI Aditi Lilly by the doctor after medical examination of the prosecutrix. She also seized the documents relating to the age of SC No.34/13. Page 5 of 19 the prosecutrix from Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya, Delhi Cantt. where she had studied, which reveals her date of birth to be 10.9.1985. SI Sunita Sharma then produced the prosecutrix before the concerned Ld. Magistrate, who recorded her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC. Accused Sushil Kumar came to be arrested. However, she did not find any prosecutable evidence against accused Pramod and accused Dulari Devi. She recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses and prepared a draft Charge Sheet. Thereafter, she was transferred from the police station and further investigation was entrusted to SI Satto Yadav. She got the accused medically examined in DDU Hospital and seized his blood sample given to her by the doctor. She sent the exhibits to FSL for forensic examination.
4. After completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet was filed against accused Sushil Kumar before the concerned Magistrate.
5. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charges u/s 376 IPC and u/s 493 IPC were framed against the accused on 07.04.2012. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and accordingly trial was held. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. Ld. APP also tendered in evidence the FSL results which are Ex.PA and Ex.PB. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 06.08.2013 wherein he denied all the incriminating facts and circumstances put to him and claimed false implication. The accused has also examined a Pediatrician from Safdarjung Hospital as DW-1 in his defence.
SC No.34/13. Page 6 of 196. Be it noted here that the father of the prosecutrix had made a call at telephone No.100 on 30.1.2009 at 9.52 pm saying that his daughter had been taken away by her brother-in-law (devar) and later on dropped her behind APS Colony Pump House near Jharoda village after committing wrong act with her. This information was recorded as DD No. 15A in the Police Station and was marked to SI SD Mishra for action. Accordingly SI SD Mishra alongwith SI Netarpal reached the spot as mentioned in the DD and found the prosecutrix alongwith her parents present there. The prosecutrix submitted a written complaint to him wherein she has mentioned that she is in love with Sushil Kumar, the brother- in-law of her elder sister Hemlata for the last six months but her parents are not in favour of her marriage with him and, therefore, they both had gone to Vaishno Devi about one week ago where they lived like husband and wife. She had further written that either her marriage be solemnised with Sushil Kumar or action may be taken against his parents. Upon further inquiries made by SI S.D. Misha, and thereafter by one lady SI, conclusion was arrived that no cognizable offence has been made out in this case. It also needs mention that during the course of aforesaid inquiries being made, the prosecutrix had sent a written typed complaint dated 6.3.2009 to the DCP S/W, New Delhi alleging that she had been raped by the accused on the promise of marriage. Since the police had concluded that no FIR needs to be registered in the case, the prosecutrix then approached the court of ld. Magistrate with a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. dated 24.03.2009 which was accompanied by an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. upon which, the FIR was then registered pursuant to the order of the ld. Magistrate, as noted at the outset.
SC No.34/13. Page 7 of 197. I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for accused and have perused the entire material on record.
8. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW-1. She deposed that on 30.12.2008, she had gone to the matrimonial house of her sister i.e. flat No.122, Sector-5, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. On 9.1.2009, she was still in the matrimonial house of her sister. On that date, the accused committed rape upon her in a room of the aforesaid flat in the afternoon. About a couple of days earlier also, he had grabbed her hand with bad intention and at that time she had resisted his moves. On 14.1.2009, her brother brought her back to her home. On 17.1.2009, accused had come to her house and took the copies of her school certificate and photographs for the purposes of completion of formalities for marriage with her. He had assured her that he would marry her. On 22.1.2009, accused came to her house again. At that time she and her younger sister only were present in the house. The accused was accompanied by one of his friends. He called her outside the house and took her on his motorcycle. He took her to some place in Uttam Nagar and thereafter to ISBT from where they boarded a bus to Jammu. They reached Jammu on 23.1.2009 and stayed there in a hotel. In the hotel also he had sexual intercourse with her assuring her that he would marry her. He stated that he has given the documents to a lawyer for the completion of formalities for court marriage. On 24.1.2009, they went to Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine. They returned therefrom on 25.1.2009 and stayed at Jammu in a different hotel till 28.1.2009. During this period also, accused had sexual intercourse with her on several SC No.34/13. Page 8 of 19 occasions. They left Jammu on 28.1.2009 and reached Delhi in the morning of 29.1.2009. The accused took her to his house. She was kept in a room and the accused went somewhere else. The brother of the accused namely Pramod abused her and threatened her that he would get her raped by 8 to 10 persons. Thereafter the parents and brother of the accused accompanied by the mediator of her sister's marriage as well as the friend of the accused, left her at the house of a colleague of her mother. Thereafter her parents and her brother came and took her alongwith them. Next day i.e. on 30.1.2009, they reported the matter to the Police. The accused made a call to the police official who was handling the complaint and told him that he would marry her. For that reason, no action was taken by the Police on that day. Since the Police did not take any action against the accused, she filed a complaint before the concerned Magistrate and it was pursuant to the order of the Magistrate that FIR was registered in PS Delhi Cantt. on 5.2.2009, she was got medically examined by the Police in DDU Hospital.
9. She has also proved her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 24.10.2009 as Ex. PW1/A. In answer to a leading question put to her by the ld. APP with the permission of the Court, she admitted that she was present alone in the house of her sister on 09.01.2009 as all the family members except the accused had gone to hospital and the accused forcibly laid her on a sofa set and raped her. She also admitted that accused had threatened her that in case she disclosed the incident to anybody, the marital life of her sister would be ruined. She also admitted that on reaching Jammu on 23.1.2009, the accused applied vermilion on her SC No.34/13. Page 9 of 19 forehead and made her to believe that she is his wife and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her representing that they are husband and wife. She further admitted that she had conceived a child and she got the pregnancy aborted on 28.2.2009 in a private clinic at Basant Gaon.
10. In the cross examination, the prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed that she is 8th pass and can read Hindi language but cannot read English language. She was shown a complaint dated 30.1.2009 addressed to SHO PS Delhi Cantt., her statement recorded by the SHO, PS Delhi Cantt. and her complaint dated 6.3.2009 addressed to DCP S/W. She admitted her signatures on all these three documents and the same are Ex. PW1/DA, Ex. PW1/DB and Ex. PW1/DC respectively. She further deposed that she was aware about the engagement of the accused which had taken place in the year 2008 but she did not remember the exact date. She had attended the engagement ceremony but she did not know the girl to whom the accused was got engaged. She admitted that the photograph Ex. PW1/DD was taken at the time of engagement ceremony of the accused and she is seen in the same. She admitted that the entire complaint Ex. PW1/DA is in her handwriting and in the statement Ex. PW1/DB, she has mentioned that she is in love with the accused. She, however, added that IO had made her to give such statement. She admitted that contents of the complaint Ex. PW1/DC were drafted by her counsel on her instructions and she had apprised her counsel that her statement was taken by the Police under pressure. She denied the suggestion that she had requested the accused to marry her but he refused and added that infact accused had made a proposal for marriage SC No.34/13. Page 10 of 19 which she refused. She admitted that her parents had made a call at telephone No. 100 alleging that accused had done some wrong act with her in APS Colony behind Jhadera Village. She was present alongwith her parents at APS Colony Pump House when the police reached there and thereafter they were taken to Police Station. She admitted that her parents and her relatives had gone to the house of the accused on 29.09.2009 to discuss the issue of her marriage with accused. She denied having told the police that she was in love with the accused and intended to marry him. She further deposed that she was not under any pressure at the time of giving the photograph and school leaving certificate to the accused and the same were given by her out of her own free will. She was alone when she handed over the photograph and certificate to the accused. She had not apprised her parents and brothers regarding this fact. She further stated that at the time of incident at her sister's house, no one was present there except herself and the accused as all other family members had gone to Safdarjung Hospital for the treatment of her sister's daughter .
11. Smt. Hemlata, the sister of the Prosecutrix has been examined as PW-5. She deposed that she was pregnant in the month of December, 2009 and there was nobody to look after her in her matrimonial home as her sister-in-law (Jethani) was also pregnant. Therefore, her mother-in-law asked her to call one of her sisters from her parental house for house hold work. Accordingly her sister i.e. the prosecutrix 'V' came to her matrimonial house to look after her. She delivered a child on 28.12.2009 and on the occasion of Makar Sankrati on 13.1.2010, her brother came to her matrimonial house and took the prosecutrix alongwith him. A few SC No.34/13. Page 11 of 19 days latter, she came to know that accused Sushil has taken away her sister 'V'. Thereafter she talked to 'V' who told her that accused has taken her to Vaishno Devi Mandir and there he committed sexual intercourse with her. She also deposed that they returned after about one week and thereafter her parents and some relatives had come to her matrimonial house informing what the accused had done with 'V'. However, accused refused to solemnize marriage with 'V' and accordingly her parents filed a complaint against the accused. A leading question was put to her by the ld. APP with the permission of the Court and she denied that she has stated in her statement to the Police that accused used to tease the prosecutrix and had a bad eye upon her. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, she stated that her sister 'V' had not made any complaint to her regarding the behaviour of the accused.
12. The mother of the prosecutrix, Mrs. Seeta has been examined as PW-2. She deposed that in the month of January, 2009, on the request of mother-in-law of her elder daughter Hemlata, she sent her younger daughter 'V' i.e. the prosecutrix to their house to look after Hemlata in post delivery phase. She further deposed that on 14.1.2009, her son Prithvi Raj brought back the prosecutrix. Thereafter one day, the accused had come to their house when she as well as her husband was not present and took away the prosecutrix. After one week the prosecutrix was left at the house of one of her colleagues by parents and brother of the accused and therefrom they brought home the prosecutrix. She also deposed that on the day when accused took prosecutrix from her house, the parents of the accused came to their house SC No.34/13. Page 12 of 19 during the day and told them that the prosecutrix has been taken away by their son Sushil. She also deposed that the prosecutrix had told them that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her on the representation that he is her husband and thereafter they reported the matter to the police.
13. PW-3 is Sh. Chander Prakash, the father of the prosecutrix. He deposed that on the request of the mother-in-law of her daughter Hemlata, they had sent their another daughter prosecutrix 'V' to the matrimonial house of Hemlata to look after her in the post delivery phase. He deposed that on 14.1.2009, his son Prithivi Raj brought back the prosecutrix. Thereafter one day accused had come to their house, when he as well as his wife were not present, took away the prosecutrix. On the same day, the brother of the accused namely Modi told him on telephone that accused Sushil has taken away the prosecutrix. Next day he alongwith two respectable persons went to the house of the accused to initiate the talks of marriage of accused Sushil with prosecutrix but parents of accused Sushil refused the offer of marriage. After one week prosecutrix was dropped at the house of one of the colleagues of his wife namely Kishan Dass and thereafter they brought her home. Prosecutrix told her mother that accused Sushil had committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and his wife apprised him about the same. On 30.1.2009, he made a call at telephone No. 100. PCR officials came to their house and took him to PS Sadar Bazar where the police officials advised him to settle the matter with the family of the accused. Thereafter he alongwith Kishan Dass and one of his colleagues went to the house of accused with the proposal of marriage SC No.34/13. Page 13 of 19 between accused and the prosecutrix but the parents of the accused again struck down the proposal. Then he again approached the Police but no action was taken on his complaint and thereafter his daughter filed a complaint before the concerned Magistrate.
14. As per the aforenoted testimony of the prosecutrix, she was raped by the accused for the first time on 09.01.2009 in his house when only the prosecutrix and the accused were present there as all the family members had gone to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment of the infant daughter of her sister Hemlata. She has not mentioned about this incident either in her complaint dated 6.3.2009 Ex. PW1/DC or in her statement Ex. PW1/DB or in her complaint filed before the ld. Magistrate, on the basis of which FIR has been registered in this case. In the complaint before the ld. Magistrate, she has simply mentioned that on one day, the accused went to the extent of out ragging her modesty. No date has been mentioned therein when the accused indulged in this act. Even, this sentence cannot be taken to mean that accused committed rape upon her. Outraging modesty of a woman is a distinct offence than the offence of rape and the ingredients constituting the two offences are also absolutely distinct. What intrigues this court is that in the complaint dated 6.3.2009 addressed to DCP S/W Ex. PW1/DC, the prosecutrix has neither mentioned about any incident of rape dated 9.1.2009 or any incident of outraging her modesty on the same date. Further in her statement, recorded by the Police Official, pursuant to inquiry in DD No.15A, she has mentioned that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her in his house on 09.01.2009 at about midnight.
SC No.34/13. Page 14 of 19This statement is in total contrast to what she has deposed before the Court as PW-1 wherein she has stated that she was raped by the accused on that date during day time. Further more, it is the contention of PW-1 that her sister Hem Lata and her mother-in-law had gone to the Hospital on that date for the treatment of Hemlata's daughter and she alone was present in the house alongwith the accused. This assertion of the prosecutrix is falsified by the testimony of DW-1, a Specialist Pediatrician of Safdarjung Hospital who has produced the record regarding the details of children vaccinated on 09.01.2009 in their hospital Ex. DW1/A which does not show that any child aged just nine days was brought to the hospital on that date for vaccination. Ironically, she did not mention about this incident of rape either to her sister Hemlata or her parents as none of them has deposed about the same in their testimony before this court. The prosecutrix has come up with this incident of rape for the first time in her deposition before this court without furnishing any explanation for her stoic silence over the same till then.
15. The prosecutrix (PW1) has also deposed that the accused has teased her earlier also (before 09.1.2009) but she had resisted him. What intrigues this court is why didn't she offer resistance on 09.1.2009 also and why she did not complain about the acts of the accused to her sister Hemlata, who was present in the same house. Pertinent to mention here that Hemlata (PW5) has specifically deposed that prosecutrix had not made any complaint to her against the accused.
16. From the conduct of the prosecutrix, it is difficult to SC No.34/13. Page 15 of 19 believe that she was raped by the accused in his house on 09.1.2009. The evidence of the prosecutrix in this regard is absolutely untrustworthy and does not inspire any confidence. And at this point of time, there was no promise or assurance of marriage from the side of the accused.
17. According to the prosecutrix, the accused held out an assurance of marriage to her for the first time on 17.1.2009 when he visited her house and took her photographs as well as school certificates. This was probably the first meeting between the two after she was allegedly raped by him on 09.1.2009. What lead her to believe the words of her rapist that he would marry her, is not discernible. This time, the usual conduct of the prosecutrix would have been to atleast inform her parents about the visit of accused and his assurance of marriage. She did not think it proper to consult her parents and readily handed over her photograph & school certificate to the accused. Such conduct of the prosecutrix also raises serious doubts about the alleged incident of rape and makes it apparent that she had already decided to marry the accused, probably out of love for him, although she has denied having been in love with him.
18. Things did not stop here. The prosecutrix voluntarily and without any force, threat or promise from the side of accused, accompanies him on 22.1.2009 and they reach Jammu where they stayed in various hotels till 28.1.2009 and returned to Delhi on 29.1.2009. the prosecutrix has deposed that she accompanied the accused with the hope that he is going to solemnize marriage with her and he told her the arrangements for court marriage have SC No.34/13. Page 16 of 19 been made at Jammu. In Jammu, he put vermilion on her forehead in the hotel room and declared that they are now married whereafter they had sexual intercourse many a times. What wonders the court is what made the prosecutrix accompany the accused for a run away court marriage. This kind of marriage is usually resorted to when the boy & girl are in love with each other and their respective parents are against their alliance. The conduct of the prosecutrix in accompanying the accused to Jammu for court marriage demonstrates that she wanted to marry the accused but her parents were against this marriage. Her longing to marry the accused appears to be only out of deep love and not on account of assurance of marriage by the accused.
19. The prosecutrix states that she consented to sexual intercourse with the accused when he applied vermilion over her forehead in the hotel room and declared that they are now a married couple. The prosecutrix was a matured lady aged 24 years at that time. (Her school record Ex.PW6/A shows her date of birth as 10.9.1985). She is expected to know that merely putting vermilion on the head of the girl by the boy does not mean that they have got married. Moreover, she had been taken to Jammu for court marriage and therefore, she should not have consented to sexual intercourse before solemnization of a valid court marriage.
20. Of late this court has experienced a trend where the girl says that the boy took her to a room, applied vermilion on her forehead, put garland around her neck and declared that they are now husband and wife. Then they indulge in sexual intercourse SC No.34/13. Page 17 of 19 with each other, with the consent of the girl and later on the girl alleges rape on the false assurance of marriage. This is a very disturbing trend. The girls in such cases are mostly in the age group of 19 - 24 years, thus mature enough to understand the consequences of their acts and not so numb to get carried away with any representations of the boy. They voluntarily elope with their lovers to explore the greener pasteurs of bodily pleasure and on return to their homes, they conveniently fabricate the story of kidnap and rape in order to escape scolds and harsh treatment from the parents. It is these false cases which tend to trivialize the offences of rape and undermine its gravity. A girl of this age group, even if belonging to a rural area, cannot be believed to be not knowing how the marriage is performed or what are the essential ceremonies of a marriage. I am unable to countenance the argument that a mature girl would believe and consider herself a wife of the person who has merely applied vermilion on her forehead and no other rite or ceremony has been performed. The girls are morally and socially bound not to indulge in sexual intercourse before a proper marriage and if they do so, it would be to their peril and they cannot be heard to cry later on that it was rape.
21. Coming to the case at hand, it is manifest that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the accused for a trip to Jammu and the intercourse between the two was with her free and well informed consent.
22. It appears that parents of the prosecutrix were aware about the love affair between her and the accused. Both PW2 and SC No.34/13. Page 18 of 19 PW3 (parents of prosecutrix) have deposed that they came to know on the same day i.e. 22.1.2009 that accused has taken away their daughter. Still they did not report the matter to police and waited for the return of the two to Delhi on 29.1.2009. Thereafter, they approached the parents of the accused with a proposal of marriage of prosecutrix with accused which was turned down by them. They have nowhere explained why did not they lodge a complaint with the police till 30.1.2009.
23. The aforesaid discussion reveals that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused. The accused is liable to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 07.10.2013. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.34/13. Page 19 of 19