Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Punit Kumar Sharma S/O Sh. Kishan ... on 2 September, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DILBAGH SINGH PUNIA: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No. 39/07 & 47/07
Date of Institution :09.03.2007 & 26.03.2007
Date on which reserved for order : 29.08.2008
Date of Delivery of Judgment : 02.09.2008
State Vs. 1. Punit Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Kishan Kumar Sharma,
R/o Village Agwa Pur,
PS Distt. Faridabad, Haryana.
2. Raja S/o Sh. Shyam Singh,
R/o A1/48, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
FIR No. 1055/06
PS Nand Nagri
U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC
J U D G E M E N T : Case of the prosecution as disclosed from the report under section 173 Cr.PC is to the effect that ASI Raghuraj Singh on receipt of DD No.15, dt. 15.12.2006, along with Ct. Gajender Singh reached 'char khamba'. They came to know that PCR had taken the injured to the hospital. ASI along with Constable reached GTB Hospital and obtained MLC No. 5053/06 of Deepu Kashyap, who was declared fit for making a statement by the doctor and his injury had been kept under observation. Deepu Kashyap gave a statement to the effect that he sells ladies suits by hawking. When he had got down at about 3:30 pm from a RTV, which had come from the side of Red Fort to Mandoli, at Mandoli octroi DTC Depot, three persons from the bus surrounded him and snatched purse and mobile phone bearing No. 9818217522. Deepu Kashyap raised noise and the offenders started running towards 'char khamba'. They were chased by Deepu Kashyap and Punit Kumar Sharma was over powered by Deepu Kashyap with the help of the public persons. At the time of over powering, Punit Kumar Sharma gave mobile to his other associate and Punit Kumar Sharma and his associate gave blade blows to 2 him. Deepu Kashyap sustained injuries on his mouth and hands. Two associates of Punit Kumar Sharma succeeded in escaping. From the possession of Punit Kumar Sharma, a purse was recovered. Purse was containing telephone diary, papers and sum of Rs. 250/. Public gave beatings to Punit Kumar Sharma. Someone telephoned at telephone No.100. Police came there and removed Deepu Kashyap and Punit Kumar Sharma to GTB Hospital.
2. ASI endorsed the above discussed statement of Punit Kumar Sharma and sent Ct. Rajinder Singh for registration of the case. He prepared the site plan, recorded statement of witnesses, arrested accused Punit Kumar Sharma. Probable hideouts of other associates, who had fled away were raided. Complainant was shown dossiers of known criminals, but of no avail. Doctor opined nature of injuries of Punit Kumar Sharma as simple. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused.
3. Ld. MM after compliance with the requirement of Cr.PC concerning supply of copies to the accused, committed the case to the Ld. Sessions Judge and ultimately the case was allocated to my Ld. Predecessor. On 16.03.2007, charge under section 392/394/397 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. On 27.02.2007, supplementary challan against accused Raja son of Shyam Singh was filed wherein it stands mentioned that complainant Deepu Kashyap informed the police post telephonically that one of the accused was sitting at a park near cremation ground. DD was recorded in this regard and accused Raja was arrested at the instance of Deepu Kashyap. Accused made a disclosure statement and mobile phone was recovered at his instance.
5. Case of this accused Raja was also committed to the Ld. Sessions Judge and 3 was ultimately allocated to my Ld. Predecessor. My Ld. Predecessor on 26.3.2007 framed charges under section 392/394/397 IPC against the accused. On 24.08.2007, both the cases were clubbed and case of Punit Kumar Sharma was directed to be treated as the main case.
6. Prosecution in support of its case has examined PW1 Ajesh Kumar PW2 Deepu Kashyap, PW3 Ct. Sunil, PW4 Ct. Gajender Singh and PW5 ASI Raghuraj Singh. PW1 is the material witness of the incident and other witnesses are the official witnesses, who have testified about post incident stage details. PW5 ASI Raghuraj Singh is a witness of recovery of mobile, got recovered by the accused.
7. Statement of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.PC without oath in order to give an opportunity to the accused persons to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. Accused persons either denied or pleaded ignorance qua the material incriminating evidence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Raja submitted that he was called by chowki incharge ASI Raghuraj Singh and he does not even know about coaccused. That reason for his false implication is that he was a smack addict and 23 cases of theft were pending against him. Defence of the accused Punit Kumar Sharma was to the effect that he was lifted from a tea shop by the police officials and was falsely implicated in this case.
8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Abdul Sattar for the accused persons has been heard. Ld. PP has also been heard. Services of Sh. Abdul Sattar were provided to the accused Raja on 12.08.2008 for the reason that accused Raja had requested for providing of another counsel as his counsel was not appearing for further conduction of the case.
4
9. Sh. Abdul Sattar, Adv. for the accused persons has argued that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. He has argued that in the DD No.15A there is mention about a knife, whereas PW2 Deepu Kashyap has testified about a blade. He has also argued that Ct. Manoj should have been examined by the prosecution and this fact goes to the root of the case of the prosecution. He has also drawn my attention towards nonjoining of other witnesses at the time of recovery of mobile phone from accused Rajesh @ Raja. He also argued that PW4 has testified in his crossexamination that they went to the spot by a scooter whereas PW5 has testified that they went by motorcycle. He has also assailed the case of the prosecution on the ground that PW5 should have made a departure entry in daily diary register. He has also assailed the case of the prosecution on the ground that there are contradictions in the case of the prosecution concerning arrest of the accused. He has elaborated this argument by drawing my attention to the crossexamination of PW5, wherein he stated that accused was arrested at 11:0012:00 pm, whereas in the arrest memo time shown is that of 9:30 pm. Sh. Abdul Sattar further argued that arrival entry should have been placed on record by PW5 when he reached to the PS. He also assailed the case of the prosecution on the ground that I.O had not offered personal search to the accused persons. He also assailed the case of the prosecution on the ground that as per the case of the prosecution accused Rajesh @ Raja arrested at the instance of PW2, whereas I.O PW5 ASI Raghuraj Singh in his cross examination stated that he was arrested at the instance of an informer. He also assailed the case of the prosecution on the ground that family members of the accused Rajesh @ Raja should have been joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of mobile phone from the accused Rajesh @ Raja.
10. I have carefully perused the records of the case and considered the 5 submissions. I am of the considered view that prosecution has established its case under section 392 IPC against accused Punit Kumar Sharma and under section 411 IPC against accused Raja. Before adverting to other facts, I deem it expedient to give detailed version of PW2 which is given in succeeding para.
11. PW2 Sh. Deepu Kashyap has testified that on 15.12.2006 as soon as he had alighted from a RTV at Mandoli Chungi, he was surrounded by 23 persons. He identified the accused Punit Kumar Sharma and Rajesh @ Raja as the persons, who were amongst those 23 persons. He testified that accused Punit Kumar Sharma caused injury on his hand and right cheek with a blade. This witness has further testified that his mobile phone make Nokia was removed from his pocket. He also testified that he raised alarm and public gathered there. That accused persons ran towards a street approaching side of Nand Nagri Depot and accused Punit Kumar Sharma was apprehended by him after a chase with the help of public. That accused Rajesh @ Raja and his associate Manoj escaped from the spot. That his mobile phone was not found in the possession of Punit Kumar Sharma. That his purse was also removed from his pocket, which was found in the possession of Punit Kumar Sharma. That purse was containing a sum of Rs. 250/ and some papers. That accused Punit Kumar Sharma was beaten by the public and someone informed the police and police reached the spot. This witness further testified that they were taken to GTB Hospital. He has proved his statement Ex.PW2/A. This witness has further testified that on 18.02.2007, he saw accused Rajesh @ Raja sitting in a park at near Mandoli Chungi. That he telephonically informed the police and ASI Raghuraj came. Accused Rajesh @ Raja was apprehended from the park at his instance. That on interrogation accused made a disclosure statement and got recovered a mobile phone from his house, which was lying in a cupboard. This witness identified the mobile phone as the one which was 6 belonging to him. That mobile phone was taken into possession, converted into a parcel and was sealed. This witness proved his signatures on seizure memo of mobile phone Ex.PW2/B, arrest and personal search memo of accused Rajesh @ Raja Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D respectively. He also proved his signatures on disclosure statement Ex.PW2/E, recovery memo of purse Ex.PW2/F from accused Punit Kumar Sharma, arrest memo of Punit Kumar Sharma Ex.PW2/G and personal search memo of accused Punit Kumar Sharma Ex.PW2/H. This witness identified the purse and its articles as the ones which were snatched and recovered from accused Punit Kumar Sharma.
12. In order to establish a case under section 392 IPC, prosecution has to prove that a robbery took place. Robbery is defined in section 390 IPC, which is nothing but an aggravated form of either theft or extortion. Theft becomes robbery, if in order to committing of the theft or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death of any person or causes hurt/wrongful restraint/fear of instant death, fear of instant hurt/fear of instant wrongful restraint etc.
13. Section 379 defines theft. The main ingredients of theft are that one should intend to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person, without that persons consent. Offender should also move the property in order to take it.
14. I am of the considered view that offence under section 392 IPC is made out in this case as in my considered view accused Punit Kumar Sharma committed robbery, which is an aggravated form of theft. I am conscious of the fact that charge in this case was framed by taking the extortion as the base of the offence, whereas it should have been that of theft. It would have been more appropriate if instead of extortion the word robbed would have been used in the charge. I am of the considered view that this will 7 not make any difference as section 392 takes within its ambit, theft as well as extortion and minor change of facts alters the offence of theft into extortion and vice versa. In case of extortion, movable property has to be given by the person extorted whereas in case of theft it is not so. Perusal of Ex.PW2/A has revealed that purse and mobile were taken forcibly by the accused persons and the same was not given to the accused persons by the victim. Illustration (a) appended to section 390 makes my point more clear. Be that as it may, it makes no difference and I am saying so at the cost of repetition. Another reason to say so is that accused persons have not been prejudiced on account of this as PW2 has not been cross examined despite opportunity on many occasions and the crossexamination of other witnesses has been carried out not only from the angle of extortion and theft, but also from the angle of extremely aggravated form of robbery as envisaged under section 394 and 397 IPC. The charges under section 394 and 397 IPC being of graver nature will include the charge of lesser nature. They also include the ingredient of theft as well as of robbery. I deem it pertinent to mention that Ld. Advocate Sh. Abdul Sattar has not argued about this aspect at all and this aspect came to my notice of my own when I read the contents of the charge in juxta position with ingredient of the offence and as a matter of abundant precaution, have deemed it expedient to observe about this aspect.
15. I am adverting to the testimony of PW2 as it is his testimony, which is the bedrock of the case of the prosecution and has to be deciding factor. PW2 was not cross examined despite opportunity. On 27.08.2007, crossexamination of this witness was deferred for the reason that advocate was not feeling well. Sh. R.P. Singh, Adv. appeared on 16.01.2008. Sh. R.P. Singh, Adv. for the accused persons chose not to cross examine this witness despite opportunity of cross examination having been given. I deem it pertinent to mention that Sh. R.P. Singh, Adv. on 16.10.2008 crossexamined 8 PW4 Ct. Gajender. I also deem it pertinent to mention that I had given an opportunity to the accused persons as well as their counsel Sh. Abdul Sattar to recall PW2 for cross examination. The opportunity was not availed of by them despite my specific asking. Accused Punit Kumar Sharma stated that his case be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. He rather requested on every date for his release on the period already undergone by him in judicial custody and I had not deemed it expedient to act upon his plea of guilt. Sufficient to mention that despite specific insistance, accused persons refused to recall PW Deepu Kashyap and stated that they were poor persons and their case be disposed of at the earliest possible. Ld. PP had opposed the recalling of PW2 on the ground that opportunity was given to the accused persons to cross examine this witness and it was Sh. R.P. Singh, Adv. for both the accused persons, who had preferred not to cross examine this witness despite opportunity having been given to him on two occasions. Despite objection of Ld. PP, I had given a chance to the accused persons to recall PW2 for cross examination.
16. Examinationinchief of PW Deepu Kashyap, whose testimony has gone unchallanged and uncontroverted, clearly proves that prosecution has established its case under section 392 IPC as far as accused Punit Kumar Sharma is concerned (with respect to accused Rajesh @ Raja, I will be discussing a little bit later). Aggravated form of theft stands proved by the act of accused Punit Kumar Sharma, who caused injury on the hand and right cheek of PW2 Deepu Kashyap. Causing of injury by accused Punit Kumar Sharma, takes within its ambit the necessary corollary that PW2 Deepu Kashyap was wrongfully restrained in this regard. Snatching of mobile phone and purse proves the ingredients of theft and explanation (a) to section 390 comes into play. As PW2 was not crossexamined, I have no reasons with me to differ from the version of PW2 Deepu Kashyap. Moreover I have found his testimony trustworthy and 9 this is another reason to come to the above mentioned conclusion.
17. The testimony of PW2 finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence in the MLC, which was prepared soon after the incident. It stands mentioned that PW Deepu Kashyap had sustained incised wound of 4 cm x 1 cm over right hand dorsum, incised wound of 2 cm x 1 cm over right tragus of ear, incised wound with the dimension of 1.5 cm x 1.3 cm over right cheek. It is well settled that if a testimony of a witness is corroborated by medical evidence then it requires acceptance. So for this reason also I deem it expedient to observe that prosecution has established the ingredients of section 390 by way of testimony of PW2.
18. A bare perusal of the case of the prosecution goes to show that there are two incidents in this case. First is when mobile phone and purse were snatched and second is the one when the accused persons were chased and one of them was apprehended. As far as accused Punit Kumar Sharma is concerned there is no hesitation in my mind that offence under section 392 IPC is made out against him as he was apprehended from the spot.
19. I do not deem it expedient to believe the case of the prosecution as far as section 394 and 397 against the accused Punit Kuma Sharma, are concerned. The fore most reason for saying so is that blade has not been shown to have been recovered from the possession of the accused Punit Kumar Sharma, which was a necessary requirement for the reason that accused Punit Kumar Sharma was apprehended from the spot. For this short reason I am inclined to award the benefit of doubt to the accused Punit Kumar Sharma as far as the offences under section 394 and 397 are concerned. Ld. PP very fairly conceded that prosecution has failed to establish its case under section 394 and 397 IPC, in view of the defect of nonrecovery of blade from the possession of the accused Punit Kumar Sharma. Thus, for this short reason accused is 10 being acquitted of the offence under section 394 and 397 IPC by awarding him benefit of doubt in this regard.
20. Arguments advanced by Sh. Abdul Sattar, Adv are of no help to the accused Punit Kumar Sharma for the simple reason that testimony of PW2 Deepu Kashyap tilts the complete balance in favour of the prosecution and the contradictions/defects pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel do not go to the root of the case and to say at the least, do not help the accused Punit Kumar Sharma in view of unchallanged testimony of PW2 and therefore, I have no hesitation to disallow the arguments.
21. Coming to the session case No. 47/07 of accused Rajesh @ Raja. I am of the considered view that accused Rajesh @ Raja cannot be connected with the commission of offence under section 392 IPC beyond reasonable doubt what to talk of section 394 &
397. The reason for saying so is that he was apprehended after a long lapse of period and that too at the instance of PW2 Deepu Kashyap. Due to this there was no occasion for the prosecution to put the accused for TIP. Incident took place on 15.12.2006. Accused Rajesh @ Raja was apprehended on 18.02.2007. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW2 Deepu Kashyap was knowing the accused persons before hand and chances of wrong identification cannot be ruled out. For this simple reason, the accused has to be given the benefit of doubt as far as offences under section 392/394/397 IPC are concerned. Ld. PP was right in conceding to this aspect. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in acquitting the accused Raja under section 392/394/397 IPC.
22. However, there is no hitch in convicting the accused Rajesh @ Raja under section 411 IPC for the reason that recovery of mobile phone took place in pursuance to a disclosure statement of accused Rajesh @ Raja. The mobile phone belongs to PW2 Deepu Kashyap and thus there is no hitch in presuming that accused Rajesh @ Raja 11 received or retained the mobile phone knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and thus the ingredient of section 411 IPC are satisfied.
23. Testimony of PW2 Deepu Kashyap requires advertance to fortify my conclusion arrived at supra. PW2 has testified that on 18.02.2007, he had seen accused Rajesh @ Raja sitting in a park and he telephoned the police. He has further testified that police came and accused Rajesh @ Raja was interrogated. He has testified that accused Rajesh @ Raja made a disclosure statement. This witness further testified that accused Rajesh @ Raja led the police to his house, located at Mandoli and produced a mobile phone lying in a cupboard. This witness identified the mobile phone as to be his. This witness has proved his signatures on seizure memo of mobile phone Ex.PW2/B, arrest memo Ex.PW2/C, personal search memo Ex.PW2/D and disclosure statement Ex.PW2/E. Testimony of PW2 has gone unchallanged and uncontroverted in this regard and this proves the ingredients required under section 411 IPC.
24. Testimony of PW2 finds support from the testimony of PW5 in material particulars. PW5 has testified that on 18.02.2007, PW2 Deepu Kashyap had informed the police that accused Rajesh @ Raja was seen by him sitting in a park. That he went to a park near cremation ground Mandoli. That one constable was also with him. That accused was apprehended at the instance of PW2 and was interrogated. That accused in pursuance to his disclosure got recovered mobile phone from his house. During the cross examination this witness could not be shaken on material particulars of recovery and thus testimony of PW2 finds corroboration from the testimony of this witness and conclusion arrived on the basis of testimony of PW2 gets reinforced.
25. Arguments advanced by Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Abdul Sattar are not tenable as far as offence under section 411 IPC is concerned. The reason for saying so is that mobile phone was such a thing which could not have easily changed hands and could 12 have been planted upon by PW5. There were no reasons with PW2 to falsely implicate accused Rajesh @ Raja as it is not the case of the accused Rajesh @ Raja that PW2 and he were known to each other prior to 15.12.2006 and for this reason I am inclined to reject the arguments of Ld. Defence counsel. As far as the arguments concerning non joining of witnesses is concerned, the same is of no help as public witness PW2 was there with the I.O. As far as arguments concerning there being mention of knife in DD No.15, whereas PW2 has testified about blade is of no help to the accused as far as offence under section 411 IPC is concerned. Accused Punit Kumar Sharma has been given benefit under section 394/397 for this defect. It does not require mention that accused Raja has been given the benefit under section 392/394/397 IPC on account of the fact that there was a gap between the apprehension of this accused and accused Punit Kumar Sharma. He has also been given benefit of doubt for the reason that there was another associate of accused persons, as per admitted case of the prosecution, who had managed to escape. In view of escaping of that associate, possibility of that accused snatching the mobile phone and causing of blade injuries to the complainant could not have been ruled out and it was this reason which constrained me to award the benefit of doubt to accused Punit Kumar Sharma under section 394/397 IPC and this accused under section 392/394/397 IPC. The other arguments advanced by Ld. Defence counsel are not germane to the material ingredients required to be proved and I have not hitch in rejecting the same as recovery of mobile phone at the instance of the accused rules out the possibility of false implication. Contradictions pointed out by Sh. Abdul Sattar are minor contradictions, which do not go to the root of the case and such discrepancies are bound to occur in every case. Suffice to say that the contradictions are natural contradictions and do not affects the case of the prosecution at all.
26. In view of the above going discussion, the accused persons are accordingly 13 convicted. Accused Punit Kumar Sharma is being convicted under section 392 IPC, whereas accused Rajesh @ Raja is being convicted under section 411 IPC. Let they be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the Open Court (Sh. Dilbagh Singh) On this 2nd day of September, 2008. Additional Sessions Judge :
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.14
IN THE COURT OF SH. DILBAGH SINGH PUNIA: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No. 39/07 & 47/07 State Vs. 1. Punit Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Kishan Kumar Sharma, R/o Village Agwa Pur, PS Distt. Faridabad, Haryana.
2. Raja S/o Sh. Shyam Singh, R/o A1/48, Nand Nagri, Delhi. FIR No. 1055/06
PS Nand Nagri U/s 392/394/397/411 IPC ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE:
1. I have heard the Ld. Counsel Sh. Abdul Sattar and the convicts on the point of sentence. Ld. PP has also been heard.
2. Convict Punit has stated that he is 27 years of age. That it is his first offence. That he is the sole bread earner of the family. That he is a unmarried and having a family to support consisting of his mother, brothers and sisters. He, therefore, prays that a lenient view be taken while awarding the sentence.
3. Convict Raja has stated that he is 23 years of age. That it is his first offence.
That he is the sole bread earner of the family. That he is unmarried and having a family to support consisting of himself and his mother. He, therefore, prays that a lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence.
4. Before adverting to the sentencing aspect, I deem it expedient to advert to legal situation first.
5. Sentencing is a difficult task as the court has to decide the quantum of 15 sentence on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. The court has to balance the conflicting interests of the society on the one hand and that of the convict on the other hand. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008 (VII) SC 17, has provided apposite guidelines in this regard. In this judgment reliance has been placed on Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhanna Vs. State of W.B., reported in 1994 (2) SCC 220. Reliance has also been placed on Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 359.
6. I am not burdening this order with the ratio decidendi of these cases and the same may be read as part of this para. Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles of sentencing in 2008 VIII AD (S.C.) 581 titled as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pappu @ Ajay and has referred State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh 2003 (8) SCC (13) and State of Barkare @ Dalap Singh (2005 (5) SCC 413). Reliance has also been placed on Dennis Councle MCGDautha v/s State of Callifornia, 402 US 183: 28 L.D.2d 711 and Sevaka Perumal etc. vs State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 SC 1463.
7. I am not referring to the mandates of the above mentioned judgments as well for the sake of brevity and the same may be read as part of this para. Suffice to say that crux of all the judgments mentioned above is that sentencing court has to make a delicate balance between the conflicting interests of the society on the one hand and the convict on the other hand. No doubt, the balancing cannot be done in golden scales but an effort has to 16 be made in this direction.
8. I have kept in my mind the above mentioned position of law and the facts of the case. The submissions made by the convicts are the mitigating circumstances in favour of the convict. However, the fact that convict Punit robbed purse and a mobile phone alongwith his associates at the point of a blade from the complainant in broad day light, when convict and his associates were chased, then the complainant was given injuries on his body with a blade are the aggravating circumstances. The act of the convict Punit is very grave and serious act which requires stern action as otherwise convicts like the present one would take the law in their hands under the impression that firstly they will not be caught, secondly during trial they will be acquitted and thirdly they will be let off with a light punishment. Thus, safety and security of the society at large will be in peril. However, the fact that PW Deepu Kashyap was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for Shri R.P.Singh despite opportunity is a circumstance which inclines me to take a lenient view in this case.
9. Act of other convict Raja is also not worth taking a very lenient view for the reason that possibility of this convict being involved in the main offence (although not proved beyond reasonable doubt) cannot be ruled out in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above, I deem it expedient to sentence the convict Punit to undergo RI for a period of 2 ½ years and a fine of Rs. 3000/ under section 392 IPC. In default of payment of 17 fine, convict Punit shall undergo RI for a period of two months.
11. Convict Raja is to undergo RI for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1500/ under section 411 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict Raja shall undergo RI for a period of 45 days.
12. Benefit of set off under section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convicts. A copy of judgement and order on sentence be supplied to the convicts free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court (DILBAGH SINGH)
8 th day of September, 2008 Additional Sessions Judge :
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.