Delhi District Court
State vs . Bhupinder Singh And Anr. on 25 October, 2018
FIR No.328/16
State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No.53314/16
CNR No. DLNW00048452016
State
Vs
1. Bhupinder Singh
S/o. Late Sh. Kartar Singh
2. Jaswinder Singh
S/o. Sh. Bhupinder Singh
3. Parminder Singh
S/o. Sh. Bhupinder Singh
4. Smt. Balwinder Kaur (already expired)
W/o. Sh. Bhupinder Singh
All R/O H.No. G18, Vijay Nagar
Delhi
FIR No. : 328/16
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
Under Section : 306/34 IPC
Date of Institution in Sessions Court : 16.07.2016
Date when judgment reserved : 23.10.2018
Date when judgment pronounced : 25.10.2018
Page No. 1 of 22
FIR No.328/16
State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case in brief are that on 27.04.2016 ASI Anand Pal, while on night petrol duty, found a person lying in pool of blood at BC Block, in front of Prachin Bhole Shanker Mandir, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The veins of both of his hands were slit and the two blades were also found lying nearby. Matter was informed to the police station. On checking, one wallet was found in the back pocket of the deceased which was found containing one suicide note in which he had mentioned his name as Jasvinder R/o BH46 , East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. His family members were informed and his wife Smt. Amita Kaur gave his statement to the police in which she stated that the marriage of her daughter namely Gurpreet Kaur was solemnized with Jaswinder Singh S/o Bhupinder Singh R/o G18 Vijay Nagar, Delhi on 30/1/2015 but after 1520 days of marriage, her family members in the matrimonial house, started harassing and she was turned out from her matrimonial house on 22/7/2015. Thereafter her daughter filed a complaint in CAW Cell which resulted in lodging of FIR no. 1531/15 at PS Shalimar Bagh and she also filed a petition under Domestic Violence against her husband and other family members in Rohini Court. Her husband Sardar Page No. 2 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh Jasvinder Singh had requested the father in law of Gurpreet not to demean her and not to let her matrimonial life spoiled but despite that Jaswinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh continued threatening them and spoiling their reputation in the society. On 25/4/2016, she alongwith her husband and daughter Gurpreet had gone to Rohini Courts to attend a court hearing in a case related to Domestic Violence and there, her husband was badly threatened by Jaswinder Singh and his father and this disturbed him a lot and due to the said reason, he committed suicide. FIR was registered on this complaint. Investigation was carried out. Accused Bhupender Singh and Jaswinder Singh were arrested during investigation. Balwinder Kaur and Prince were not arrested and pending investigation qua them, police filed chargesheet with respect to accused Jaswinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the chargesheet was committed by Ld. MM to the Court of Sessions.
3. Charge under Sections 306/34 IPC was framed against the Jaswinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh vide order dated 19/9/2016 by my Ld. Predecessor, to which Page No. 3 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
4. It is relevant here to state that after some period, supplementary chargesheet was filed with respect to accused Parminder Singh @ Prince and Balwinder Kaur and it was written in the supplementary charge sheet that accused Balwinder Kaur has already been expired and the proceedings against her had already abated.
5. After the committal of supplementary chargesheet, charge under Sections 306/34 IPC was framed against the accused Parminder vide order dated 19/7/2017, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial .
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in total 13 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESS
7. PW6 Smt. Amita Kaur is the wife of deceased, PW7 Ms. Gurpreet is the daughter of deceased, PW8 Sh. Sarabjeet Singh and PW9 Sh. Jasmeet, are the sons of deceased. Their testimony shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
Page No. 4 of 22 FIR No.328/16State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh POLICE WITNESSES
8. PW1 W/HC Usha Kiran Tirkey is the duty officer. She has tendered her examination in chief by way of affidavit ExPW1/A. She proved the copy of FIR No. 1531/15, U/s 498 A/406/34 IPC which is Ex.PW1/B and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/C. This FIR was registered on the complaint of Gurpreet Kaur.
9. PW2 HC Suresh is also the duty officer. He has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit ExPW2/A. He proved the copy of FIR No. 328/16, U/s 306/34 IPC, his endorsement on rukka and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as ExPW2/B, ExPW2/C and ExPW2/D respectively.
10. PW3 SI Jagdish has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit ExPW3/A. He proved the registration of DD No. 8 A which is ExPW3/B.
11. PW5 Ct. Parvesh has deposed that on 2/5/2016 on the instruction of the IO, he took pullindas in the Forensic Department BJRM hospital vide RC no. 39/21/16 and deposited the said pullandas there. He took the receiving Page No. 5 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh and handed over the copy of the RC and the receipt to the MHCM. On 1/6/2016 he took the exhibits vide RC no. 58/21/16 and 59/21/16 to be deposited at FSL Rohini and got the same deposited at FSL Rohini. He took the receiving and handed over the copy of the RC and the receipt to the MHCM.
12. PW10 W/Ct Sunita has deposed that on 29/5/2016 wife of the deceased Amita Kaur visited PS and handed over the IO SI Manish Kumar two note books which were allegedly containing the admitted handwriting of the deceased. IO seized the same vide seizure memo ExPW10/B. Notebook has been exhibited as ExPW10/A.
13. PW11 SI Manish Kumar, is the IO of the case. He has deposed that on 28.04.2016, on receipt of DD No. 8A he alongwith Ct. Baldev Singh went to the spot i.e. in front of Prachin Shanker Mandir, BC Block, Kela Godown Road, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where they met ASI Anand Pal already present. They saw one person was lying in the pool of blood and two shaving blades, blood, jutties and one water bottle were also found lying there. Thereafter, he made enquiries from the public persons present there but that person could not be identified. He called the crime team at the spot which inspected the spot and took the Page No. 6 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh photographs. The backside pocket of the deceased was found containing one wallet which was containing one suicide note in which the deceased had mentioned his name as Jasvinder R/o BH46, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. His family members were informed and his wife Smt. Amita Kaur identified him. The dead body was sent to BJRM Hospital mortuary through Ct. Baldev Singh and body was preserved vide application Ex. PW11/A. He recorded the statement of complainant Smt. Amita Kaur which is Ex.PW6/A. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex. PW11/B and got the case registered through ASI Anand Pal. He prepared the site plan ExPW11/C at the instance of ASI Anand Pal. At the spot, he also seized the exhibits i.e. blood sample, earth control and two shaving blades, black jutties and water bottle, the black purse containing one duplicate RC, cash of Rs. 120/, three shaving blades, cash of Rs. 60 recovered from his shirt, the suicide note vide seizure memos Ex. PW11/D, Ex. PW11/E, Ex. PW11/F, and Ex. PW11/G respectively. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Anand Pal went to the house of deceased and recorded the statement of daughter and son of deceased. Case property was deposited in malkhana. On the next day, he went to BJRM Hospital mortuary and prepared the inquest papers Ex. PW11/H Ex. PW11/I and Ex. PW11/J. Postmortem was Page No. 7 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh got conducted by the doctor. After postmortem, the dead was handed over to his relatives vide Ex. PW11/M. The doctor concerned handed over him the sealed exhibits containing the clothes, viscera and one envelope containing blood sample of deceased which was seized by vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/N and Ex.PW11/O. During the investigation, he also took subsequent opinion vide application ExPW11/P. He proved arrest memos and personal search memos of accused Bhupinder Singh and Jasvinder as Ex. PW11/Q, Ex. PW11/R, Ex PW11/S and Ex. PW11/T respectively. During the investigation, he sent the exhibits and viscera to FSL Rohini, Delhi and gave notice to the complainant under Section 91 Cr.P.C to produce the admitted handwriting of deceased and she handed over to him one notebook containing the handwriting of deceased which was seized vide seizure memo PW6/B. During investigation, he also collected the documents containing the admitted signatures/handwriting of deceased from PNB and Canara Bank which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/W and Ex. PW11/X and sent the same as well as the suicide note to FSL Rohini for comparison. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed it through SHO. Later on he obtained the result from FSL lab. As per FSL report, the handwriting on the suicide note matched with the Page No. 8 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh handwriting of documents containing his admitted handwriting. Accused Parvinder was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW11/Y and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW11/Z. Death certificate of co accused Balvinder Kaur was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/ZA. Thereafter, he prepared the supplementary chargsheet and filed the same in the court.
14. PW12 ASI Anand Pal Singh has deposed that on the intervening night of 27/28.04.2016, while he was on patrol duty, at about 06:15 AM on 28.04.2016, he reached at BC Block, in front of Prachin Bole Shanker Mandir, near to the wall and he found that one person was lying in the pool of blood with his veins of both of his hands slit and two blades were also lying nearby. He immediately informed to police station Shalimar Bagh. The said information was reduced into DD No. 8 A and from the PS, SI Manish alongwith Ct. Baldev arrived at the spot within 1015 minutes of his giving the information. Thereafter he has deposed in sync with PW11 SI Manish Kumar with whom he remained in the investigation.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
15. PW4 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has deposed that on 28.04.2016, patient Jaswinder Singh, aged about 52 Years Page No. 9 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh was brought in the casualty of BJRM Howpital where he was examined by Fr. Vaibhav, who declared the said patient as brought dead. The MLC was prepared under the supervision of Dr. Saurabh Singh and the MLC is Ex.PW4/A. He identified the signatures of both the said doctors and stated that Dr. Vaibhav had already left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.
FORMAL WITNESS
16. PW13 Sh. Brij Mohan Kishore Gupta, Asst. General Manager, PNB Bank, Ludhiana Branch, Punjab has deposed that on 3/6/2016, he was posted as Chief Manager, PNB, Lawrance Road Industrial Area Branch, Delhi and on receiving notice from the IO u/s 91 Cr.P.C, he provided the account opening form, customer master form, the copy of voter ID car and Pan card of Sh. Jaswinder singh, one pager of a letter pad of Harman Engineering Works and one nomination form given by Sh.Jawinder Singh in reference to account no. 1539002100052657. He proved the seizure memo of all the documents as ExPW11/W and the documents as ExPW13/A (colly).
Page No. 10 of 22 FIR No.328/16State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh DOCUMENTS ADMITTED BY ACCUSED DURING TRIAL
17. It is relevant here to state that on 05/03/2018 Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons admitted the following documents i.e.:
(i) The PM report number 395/16 dated 29/4/2016 given by Dr. N.K. Gunjan autopsy surgeon BJRM hospital, Delhi
(ii) Subsequent opinion given by the said Dr. N.K. Gunjan dated 7/5/2016
(iii) The FSL report dated 6/9/2017 given by Dr. Sarabjit Singh, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL Delhi along with annexure 1 containing allelic data
18. In view of the above, the abovesaid documents were exhibited as ExPX1 to ExPX3 respectively.
19. On 17/07/2018, all the accused persons admitted the following documents i.e.:
(i) FSL report no. FSL/2016/C4122 dated 29/8/2016 given by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Asst. Director (Chemistry) FSL Delhi
(ii) FSL report no. FSL/2016/D4586 dated 8/9/2016 given by Sh. Suneet Kumar, Asst. Chemical Examiner Page No. 11 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh (Documents) FSL Delhi
(iii) Death certificate number MCDOLIR3216 004854161 of accused Balwinder Kaur
(iv) The admitted documents given to the IO by Sh. Virender Kumar Arora, Senior Manager, Canara Bank Branch, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi
(v) The subsequent opinion no. 11/17 dated 14/1/2017 given by Dr.NK. Gunjan, Autopsy Surgeon, BJRM hospital
20. In view of the above , the abovesaid documents were exhibited as ExPX4, ExPX5, ExPX6, ExPX7 and ExPX8 respectively.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
21. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, in which all the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in evidence was put to them, which have been denied by them in toto. They have taken defence that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. A matrimonial dispute was going on between Jasvinder and his wife Gurpreet i.e. the complainant's daughter and there were Page No. 12 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh certain litigations pending in the court in respect of the matrimonial dispute but deceased never attended any of the court hearing with the complainant or her daughter. They were falsely implicated just to put pressure upon them so that they can gain in that litigation. They never had any occasion to talk with the deceased in the last 2 months of the incident in question.
ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES
22. I have heard Sh. Rajat Kalra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Pradeep Khatri, Ld. Counsel for accused persons and I have carefully perused the entire record.
23. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. He has argued that the case of the prosecution was solely built on the statement of Smt. Amita Kaur and her daughter Gurpreet who allegedly were the eye witness of the incident dated 25.04.2016 but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that nothing incriminatory has come on record against the accused persons. It is further submitted that the entire story of the prosecution is highly doubtful and does not have any ring of truth.
Page No. 13 of 22 FIR No.328/16State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
24. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt. It is contended that although PW6 Smt. Amita Kaur and PW7 Gurpreet have withheld certain vital information in their testimony but the overall circumstances in which the offence was committed, have to be considered by the court. It is further argued that having regard to the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the other evidence on record in the form of investigation conducted by the police, the prosecution has been able to prove its case.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
25. As per the case of the prosecution, deceased used to remain tense on account of disturbed matrimonial life of his daughter Gurpreet and he had requested Bhupinder Singh, father in law of her daughter to ensure that matrimonial life of Gurpreet remains intact and her reputation is not spoiled but Bhupinder Singh and his son Jaswinder Singh did not budge and they kept on threatening them. On 25.04.2016, while the deceased come to Rohini Courts alongwith his wife Amita Kaur and Page No. 14 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh daughter Gurpreet to attend court hearing of a case filed by his daughter under Domestic Violence Act, both Bhupinder Singh and his son Jaswinder Singh abused the deceased and Jaswinder Singh threatened him that he was a leader of Delhi University (DU) and till then, nothing much has happened and he was asked to wait for the future and that he would spoil their reputation in the society. As per the complainant, her husband was very disturbed due to the said threat and he could not sleep on that night and owing to the said pressure, he committed suicide on 28.04.2016, after leaving a suicide note.
26. In these circumstance, Ms. Amita Kaur and her daughter Gurpreet were the best witnesses who could have deposed about the incident dated 25.04.2016 and the state of the mind of the deceased at the time of his death but it is relevant here to state that both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution.
27. PW6 Smt. Amita Kaur and PW7 Ms. Gurpreet have deposed that Sh. Jaswinder Singh used to remain tense on account of disturbed matrimonial life of his daughter Gurpreet and on 25.04.2016, they had a court hearing at Rohini Courts in Domestic Violence Act instituted by Gurpreet and after coming back home, Sh.
Page No. 15 of 22 FIR No.328/16State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh Jaswinder Singh was all the more tense and when his wife Smt. Amita Kaur asked him about the reason for the same, he did not tell anything and for the next two days, he remained in somewhat same state of mind. PW6 Smt. Amita Kaur in her examination in chief is completely silent about the accused having threatened her husband on 25.04.2016 in court premises. Whereas PW7 Ms. Gurpeet has deposed that she did not know what words were uttered by the accused persons to her father.
28. Since, both of them were not supporting the case of the prosecution, they were crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which both of them feigned ignorance that on 25.04.2016, accused Jaswinder Singh and his father Bhupinder Singh had threatened the deceased by saying that by that time nothing much had happened and they also threatened him to defame Gurpreet and spoil their reputation in the society and that this was the reason for the deceased to be disturbed on that day. PW7 Ms. Gurpreet even deposed in her crossexamination by the State that she could not say that when the matrimonial dispute was going on, her father had requested her father in law Bhupinder Singh not to demean Gurpreet in the society but inspite of the same, the accused continued to threaten him and his Page No. 16 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh family and continued to spoil their reputation in the society.
29. Testimony of PW8 Sh. Sarabjeet Singh and PW9 Sh. Jasmeet (sons of the complainant) is also of no help to the prosecution. PW8 Sh. Sarabjeet Singh has gone to the extent of deposing that he did not know whether any matrimonial dispute had arisen between Gurpreet and her husband as he was not on talking terms with his parents due to some financial dispute. He also feigned ignorance about the incident dated 25.04.2016 that the accused had in any manner threatened his parents and his sister on that day. Similarly, PW9 Sh. Jasmeet has also deposed that he had only heard that on 25.04.2016 his sister alongwith his parents had gone to Rohini Courts to attend a court hearing but he did not know what happened there as he was not present there. Both of them were also crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but nothing could come out in their crossexamination.
THE SUICIDE NOTE OF THE DECEASED Ex PW8/A.
30. As stated above, as per the case of the prosecution the deceased left behind a suicide note which is Ex. PW8/A in which it is mentioned that (1) Bhupinder Singh, (2) Balwinder Kaur, (3) Jasvinder Singh and (4) Prince were Page No. 17 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh responsible for his death.
31. During the investigation of this case, IO procured the account opening form and other documents including specimen signatures, nomination form etc. filled by the deceased as proprietor of Harman Engineering Works while opening a bank account in Punjab National Bank as admitted handwriting and signatures of the deceased and these coupled with the suicide note were sent to FSL for the opinion of the handwriting expert. Sh. Suneet Kumar, Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examiner (documents) FSL, Delhi gave his report dated 08.09.2016 in which he opined that the writing on the said note were in the hand of deceased and this report has been exhibited as Ex PX5, in view of the admission of this document by the accused persons, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.
32. It is relevant here to state that PW6 Smt. Amita Kaur, PW7 Ms. Gurpreet and PW9 Sh. Jasmeet in their testimony have feigned ignorance about the said suicide note and whether the said suicide note belong to the deceased. They denied the suggestion of the Ld. Addl.PP for the State that they were not deliberately telling the correct fact that the said suicide note belonged to the husband of PW6 and father of PW7 and PW9. PW6 denied that she ever Page No. 18 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh supplied the admitted handwriting of her late husband to the police and she further deposed that she might have signed on the relevant pages wherever she was asked to sign.
33. In view of the testimony of PW6 and PW7 who are very material witnesses, the handwriting on the suicide note Ex. PW8/A becomes doubtful.
34. It is not out of place here to mention that although PW8 Sh. Sarabjeet Singh (son of the deceased) in his testimony has identified the signatures of his father on the suicide note Ex. PW8/A but as discussed above, he is not a reliable witness and he has himself admitted that he was not on talking terms with his parents due to some financial dispute and he even did not know whether there was any matrimonial dispute between Gurpreet and her husband.
35. Even on merits, it can be said that the said suicide note ExPW8/A does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. It has been held in Amalendu @ Jhantu vs. State of Bengal arising out of SLP (Crl.) no. 9483/2008 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in such cases it is to be borne in mind that in case of alleged abettment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of Page No. 19 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh incitement to the commission of suicide.
36. It has further been held in M. Mohan vs. State (2011) 3 SCC 626 that :
" Abatement involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
37. While dealing with abatement /instigation it has been held in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgargh (2001) 9 SCC 628 that:
" Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence."
38. In the present case, in the suicide note ExPW8/A, except referring to the names of the accused persons, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the accused herein is alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. Apart from the suicide note, as discussed above in detail, there is no allegation in the Page No. 20 of 22 FIR No.328/16 State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh statement of the prosecution witnesses in support of the prosecution case or regarding the cause of his committing suicide. The contents of the suicide note and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the family members of the deceased do not in any way make out the offence against the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
39. In the instant case, there is no averment in the statement of the witnesses that any of the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no direct evidence to establish that any of the accused either aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide or entered into any conspiracy to aid him in committing suicide. Here, as stated above, complainant i.e. wife of the deceased and her daughter have not supported the case of the prosecution and inspite of crossexamination by the State, nothing has come out. In the facts of this case, prosecution has been unsuccessful in proving that there was element of mens rea on the part of the accused, accordingly, in my view, ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not satisfied.
Page No. 21 of 22 FIR No.328/16State Vs. Bhupinder Singh and anr.
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
40. In view of the above, in totality of the facts and circumstances, it is held that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and hence, the accused persons are acquitted from the charge framed against them. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
41. Requisite personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each and surety bond under Section 437A Cr. P.C are directed to be furnished on behalf of all the accused persons. All the accused persons seek time .
42. Put up for compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C on 26/10/2018.
Digitally
signed by
DEEPAK DEEPAK GARG
Date:
GARG 2018.10.25
Announced in the open court 15:05:22
+0530
th
on this 25 day of October, 2018
(DEEPAK GARG)
ASJII, NORTHWEST
ROHINI: DELHI
Page No. 22 of 22