Delhi High Court
Mintu Kumar ..... Appellant vs State Gnct Of Delhi on 28 August, 2017
Author: Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
Bench: Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
$~R-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 44/2014
Judgment reserved on : 22nd August, 2017
Judgment pronounced on: 28th August, 2017
MINTU KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sandhu, Advocate
versus
STATE GNCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
Crl. M. A. No. 8461/2017 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.A. 44/2014
1. The present appeal has been instituted under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated
07.11.2013 and order on sentence dated 11.11.2013 by which the appellant
has been convicted for the offences under Section 328, 366, 368 and 376 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟). The present
appellant has been sentenced to undergo:-
(i) rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of
Rs.4,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year U/s 328 of IPC.
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 1 of 18
(ii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine
of Rs.4,000/- in default thereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 366 of IPC.
(iii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine
of Rs.4,000/- in default thereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 368 of IPC.
(iv) rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default thereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 376 of IPC.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution as observed by the Trial court is as under:
"That on 06.02.2010 prosecutrix (name withheld
being a case u/s 376 IPC) came to the Police Station-
Bharat Nagar and got recorded her statement to ASI
Dev Raj which is to the effect that, she lives at D-629,
Wazirpur J.J. Colony, Delhi with her mother in a
rented house (Kiraye Ka Makaan) and she is the
permanent R/o Village Harihar Bainsa, PS Banns
Gaon, Distt. Gorakhpur, U.P. She studies in twelfth
class (Barvi Kaksha). In the room adjacent to her
rented room, one boy named Mintu lives. Who used to
look at her while she going and coming and used to
try to strike a conversation with her (Jo Mujhe Aate
jate Dekhta Rehta Tha Aur Mere Sath Baat Cheet
Karne Ki Koshish Karta Tha). On 02.02.2010, at
about 12:00 noon she was basking in the sun (Dhoop
Sek Rahi Thi), while sting in the Tikona Park 115 bus
stop, Wazirpur J.J. Colony, then Mintu with one glass
of juice after taking the same from the juice rehri
which was passing, came there and asked her to drink
the juice, however, she refused to drink the juice but
Mintu after too much insisting her (Zid kar ke)
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 2 of 18
forcibly made her to drink the juice and thereafter she
came under the influence of intoxication (Nasha ho
gaya) and Mintu took her in an unknown jhuggi. When
she regained consciousness, Mintu was found lying
with her (leta hua tha). From 02.02.2010 to
04.02.2010 Mintu forcibly established physical
relations with her without her consent. On 04.02.2010
at about 6.30 p.m. Mintu had left the jhuggi for
smoking cigarette without closing the door of the
jhuggi and she finding an opportunity came out from
the jhuggi. Prior to this Mintu was not allowing to her
go out from the jhuggi. After coming out from the
jhuggi she reached at Bus Stop of (Bus No.) 115 and
there, after taking mobile from one old gentleman
(Bujurg) she called Nisha Aunty at Bus Stop of (Bus
No.) 115 and from here Nisha Aunty took her
(Prosecutrix) to her Nisha Aunty) house. Nisha Aunty
called her (prosecutrix) mother at her house. On that
day she (Prosecutrix) did not tell anything to her
mother and Nisha Aunty. On 05.02.2010 she
(prosecutrix) told about the entire incident to her
mother and Nisha Aunty. Because of public shyness
(lok laaj ke karan), they did not come to lodge the
report with the police on 05.02.2010. That today, on
06.02.2010 she alongwith her mother and Nisha Aunty
has come to the police station and has told about the
incident which had taken place with her, (Apni Aap
Beeti Aapko Batlai) on which her statement has been
recorded....."
3. After committal of the case, the Court of Sessions framed charges
under Section 328/366/368/376 IPC against the appellant. After the
prosecution examined 17 witnesses, statement of the appellant was
recorded wherein he took the plea of false implication and stated that
prosecutrix had been sending love letters to him.
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 3 of 18
4. Ms. Inderjeet Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellant argued that
the foundation of the entire prosecution story stands demolished in
view of the testimony of PW-11 Smt. Kiran; that the prosecutrix being
a major of 18 years, which is duly proved as per the school records
voluntarily accompanied the appellant; that the Trial Court erred in
convicting the appellant on the basis of sole testimony of prosecutrix
which is shaky, unreliable and not worthy of credence; that as per the
history given by the prosecutrix in the MLC, she has admitted that she
eloped and had an affair with the appellant; that there is no evidence
of intoxication and therefore her testimony is highly improbable; that
no missing complaint was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix
despite the fact that the prosecutrix was missing for 3 days. To
substantiate her arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relied
upon the judgment of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs State reported in
2012 (131) DRJ 3 (SC) to show that the solitary version of the chief
examination of the prosecutrix cannot be taken as gospel truth,
Narender Kumar Vs State reported in 2012 (7) SCC 171 to show that
if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on
its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial which
may lend assurance to her testimony, Tameezuddin @ Tammu
reported in 2009 (15) SCC 566 to demonstrate that if the story of the
prosecutrix is improbable and belies logic it need not be accepted.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Akshai Malik, learned APP for the State
vehemently opposes these arguments and supports the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and
submitted that it is a well settled law that the sole testimony of
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 4 of 18
the prosecutrix can be acted upon and made the basis of conviction
without being corroborated in material particulars and that the appeal
lacks merit and is liable to dismissed.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
7. Before proceeding to examine the impugned judgment of the court
below and facts of the case, it is obligatory to refer to the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix.
Testimony of the prosecutrix
8. PW1 prosecutrix in her Examination in Chief deposed as under:
"On 02.02.2010, at about 12 noon, I was sitting in
Tikona Park, behind bus stop of bus no.115. I was
living in my village in District Gorakh Pur. I had
come to Delhi for coaching and for my treatment as I
had developed Jaundice. Mintu, accused present in
the court resides in our neighbourhood. He came in
the park. He started talking to me. He offered me juice
which I refused but he again insisted to take the juice.
So I took the juice offered by him. I started feeling
dizziness. I my unconscious state, he took me to some
jhuggi but I do not know in which jhuggi he took me.
When I regained consciousness, I found that the zip of
my pant was unzipped and he was lying along with
me. When I objected to it, he slapped me and he
started fiddling with my body and then he forcibly
established physical relations with me. For three days
he kept me confined in that jhuggi and he used to go
himself to bring food for me and while leaving the
jhuggi he used to lock it from outside. He used to
accompany me for attending the call of nature and did
not allow me to talk to anybody around.
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 5 of 18
On 04.02.2010 at about 6.30 or 7 p.m. he went
to buy a cigarette leaving the door of the jhuggi
opened. Taking advantage of the situation I ran away
from that jhuggi. I was weeping at the bus stand of bus
no.115. There I requested an old man to use his
mobile and telephoned Nisha Aunty from his mobile
phone. I told Nisha Aunty that I was standing at bus
stand of bus no.115 and requested her to take me from
that place. Nisha Aunty came to the bus stand and
took me to her own house and from there she
telephoned my mother. On that day I did not disclose
anything to anybody including my mother and Nisha
aunty. On 04.02.2010 my mother came to the house of
Nisha aunty but did not take me back home and
requested Nisha aunty to keep me in her house on that
night. Next day on 05.02.2010 when husband of Nisha
aunty left for his office, I disclosed everything to Nisha
aunty as well as to my mother. Thereafter also we
remained silent due to fear of the society.
On 06.02.2010 the family members of Mintu
started abusing my mother. When my mother
requested them not to misbehave Mintu extended
threats to us. He also said that if any police complaint
will be lodged he would kill me and my mother.
Thereafter we went to police station and lodged the
report. My complaint bears my signature at point A.
Complaint is Ex.PW1/A. I was got medically examined
from BJRM Hospital. My clothes were not seized by
the police or by the hospital authorities because I had
washed the clothes which I was wearing. Accused was
arrested from his house in my presence on
07.02.2010. His arrest memo is Ex.PW1/B which
bears my signature at point A. Personal search memo
of accused is Ex.PW-1/C which bears my signature at
point A. I was student of Intermediate, Inter College,
Malhan Par, Gorakh Pur...."
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 6 of 18
9. During her cross examination, she denied the following
suggestions put to her by the defence counsel:
That the appellant came to tikona park to talk to her;
that when she had regained consciousness, her pant was
unzipped and that the appellant was lying by her side;
that the appellant had slapped her and started fiddling with
her body;
that the appellant used to go out to take food for her;
that the appellant used to accompany her for attending the
call of nature;
that the appellant did not allow her to talk to anybody while
attending the call of nature;
that her mother came to her aunt‟s house on 04.02.2010 and
requested the aunt to keep her on that night;
that the next day when the aunt‟s husband left for office, she
disclosed to her aunt about the incident of rape;
that on 06.02.2010 the appellant started threatening her
mother.
10. Indisputably, it is a well settled proposition of law that
the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be made the basis of
conviction without being corroborated. Infact even
doctor's evidence is not required to record a finding of guilt of the
offender in a rape case when the evidence of the prosecutrix is
found wholly reliable. However, assistance can be had from the
doctor's evidence when the evidence of the prosecutrix is found
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 7 of 18
somewhat shaky. There is no legal compulsion to look for
corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix unless there are
compelling reasons which necessitate the Court for corroboration
of her statement. In the instant case, as there are many
improvements, the testimony of the prosecutrix appears to be
shaky, thus this court deems it appropriate to rummage through the
medical evidence, FSL report and other relevant testimonies placed
on record.
MLC
11. PW4 Dr. Ekta Kale had testified in court that there was alleged
history of sexual assault. On examination, the patient was found in
the conscious state. There was no injury mark over the whole body
and that there was no injury mark over private part. There was
slight white discharge present and hymen was perforated. No scar
mark was present (old or habitual) and Index finger admitted
easily.
12. In view of the above, it is abundantly clear that the testimony of the
prosecutrix does not find support from the medical evidence on
record and no definite opinion can be given regarding rape. Infact,
it is revealed in the history given by the prosecutrix herself that she
had intercourse with the neighbor since two months and she ran
away with the boy on 02.02.2010 and returned on 04.02.2010 and
later took a bath and changed her clothes. Moreover, the result of
analysis as per the FSL report shows that blood and semen could
not be detected on the relevant exhibits and thereby the story of the
prosecution is also falsified by the FSL report.
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 8 of 18
Other relevant testimonies
13. PW5 Smt. Jamurti Devi, mother of the prosecutrix to whom the
facts of the incident were narrated by the victim deposed as under:
"Earlier I used to reside at house No. 629/630, JJ
Colony, Wazir Pur. My husband expired in the year
2008. Prosecutrix Geeta is my daughter. My daughter
used to live in the village in District Gorakhpur. She
came to me in Delhi this year from my native place.
On 2.2.2010, my daughter was ill. She went to park
near the bus stop of bus route No. 115. She did not
returned to the home, then I traced to locate her in the
locality. On 4.2.10 I received a telephone call from
Nisha that my daughter was at the bus stop of bus
route no. 115. Nisha has brought my daughter from
the bus stop to her house. Thereafter, I went to the
house of Nisha. My daughter was also present there.
My daughter was weeping. My friend Nisha asked me
to not to take my daughter, so my daughter remained
with her for one day. I brought my daughter to my
home on 5.2.2010. Then my daughter narrated me the
story regarding the incident. Then accussed who used
to olive near my house along with his brother came to
me and started fighting with us. My daughter had told
me that accused had intoxicated her and had taken
her somewhere and also threatened her to kill and had
committed rape upon her. She further told me that she
came out of the house when accused had gone out to
purchase a cigratee. We went to the police station on
6.2.2010 and the case was registered on the statement
after her medical examination.
14. PW12 Smt. Nisha, the aunt to whom the prosecutrix claimed to
have narrated the facts of the incident deposed as under:
"I know Jmurti Devi and her family from my age of
14/15 years. On 04/02/2010, at about 7:15 pm, I
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 9 of 18
received a phone call from Geeta on my mobile phone
and she asked me to come at the bus stand of bus
route no. 115 and to take her along with me. I called
to Jmurti Devi, mother of Geeta, about her phone call.
I went to the bus stand and brought the said Geeta at
my house where Smt. Jmurti Devi was also present. I
offered the prosecutrix tea etc. Jmurti Devi asked me
to keep the said Geeta at my house for one or two
days. At that time, Geeta was scared and nervous. On
04/02/2010, she did not tell anything and she slept
after having her dinner. In the afternoon of
05/02/2010, Geeta told me that she was with accused
Mintu in the same locality where accused Mintu had
raped her. I informed this fact to the mother of
prosecutrix. On the next day, I was taken by Smt.
Jmurti Devi to talk to Mintu in a park in the area
where accused Mintu was not at all scared. Rather, he
was showing his anger. Thereafter, in the evening, I
along with prosecutrix and Smt. Jmurti Devi went to
the police station and then the report was lodged. In
the night, Geeta was medically examined in a hospital
at Jahangir Puri. I narrated the entire facts stated
above by me to the police also who recorded my
statement."
15. PW10 Sh. Om Prakash who rented out the room to the prosecutrix
deposed as under:
"I am also having my another house at D 629-630,
J.J. Colony, Wazirpur. I had rented out one room at
the first floor of the house to Geeta, her mother and
brother on a monthly rent of Rs.600/- p.m. They were
residing there for the last two and half years. Accused
Mintu present in court today was also my tenant in the
same house on another room on the same 1st floor. He
was residing there with his brother. He was also my
tenant for the last two and half years...."
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 10 of 18
16. At this juncture, it is significant to reproduce the testimony of PW-
11 Smt. Kiran who claims that the appellant and the prosecutrix
had come to her house on 02.02.2010. She deposed in her
Examination in Chief as under:
" The above mentioned house is owned by my
husband. It is two storey constructed. On the night of
02/02/10, one boy namely Mintu Kumar, who is
present in the court today (witness has correctly
identified the accused) along with one girl namely
Geeta came to me and they asked for one room on
rent. I told him the rate of rent as Rs. 700/- per month,
out of which he gave Rs.200/- as advance and the rest
of the amount was to be paid by him after 7th after
getting his salary. The condition of the girl was
normal. After two days i.e. in the evening of 04/02/10,
the accused along with the said girl left my house in
my absence even without informing me. Thereafter,
they never visited my house. Police came and asked
about the stay of the accused and the prosecutrix at
my house and I narrated the above mentioned facts to
the police also."
17. This witness in her cross examination stated as under:
"Rupees 200/- were handed over to me by the girl. No
toilet is constructed in my house. We use public toilet
which is situated at some distance from my house. The
said girl also used to go the said public toilets. It is
correct that we have to go from main road to the said
public toilets from our house and there is no other
way. The girl used to go alone to the toilets. Accused
went to his work during his stay in my house. The girl
used to talk to the neighbours. The girl did not make
any complaint either to me or to any other neighbours
that she was forcibly brought by the accused. I asked
about the relationship from them to which they replied
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 11 of 18
that they were husband and wife and belonging to the
Muslim community, as I did not see any signs of
Hindu married woman like mangal sutra or
vermellion on her forehead. Police obtained my
signature on one paper. My statement was recorded
by the police on 07/02/2010. The accused and
prosecutrix lived happily for two days in my house. It
is wrong to suggest that I am before the court at the
instance of police."
18. From the perusal of the testimonies, it is revealed that PW10 who
is the landlord, rented out one room of the first floor of his house
to the prosecutrix, her mother and brother on a monthly rent of
Rs.600/- p.m. who were residing there for the last two and half
years. The appellant was also a tenant in the same house on another
room on the same first floor for two and a half years. Thus, it
appears that the prosecutrix and the appellant were acquainted to
each other.
19. Moreover, PW11 stated that on 02.02.2010 the appellant went
along with the prosecutrix to PW11 to ask for one room on rent.
The condition of the prosecutrix was normal at the time they met
PW11. After two days i.e. in the evening of 04.02.2010, the
appellant along with the prosecutrix left her house without even
informing PW11. Further, it shows that PW1 used to go alone to
the toilets which was outside the house and she used to talk to the
neighbours. Appellant went to his work during his stay in this
house. The girl did not make any complaint either to PW11 or to
any other neighbours that she was forcibly brought by the
appellant. When PW-11 asked about the relationship from the
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 12 of 18
prosecutrix and appellant, they claimed to be husband and wife. It
emerges from above that the prosecutrix infact knew the appellant
very well and that the prosecutrix accompanied the appellant
voluntarily from the very beginning. The history stated by the
prosecutrix in the MLC reveals that she ran away with a boy cannot
be lost sight of.
20. Also, it is to be noted that so far as registering of an FIR was
concerned, the prosecutrix and the mother were prompt and
fearless, however, the mother of the prosecutrix at the time when
her daughter went missing made no effort to file a missing
complaint. It has also been revealed from the testimony of PW-11
that the prosecutrix used to use the public toilets which is outside
her house and she used to go alone to the toilets. Had the
prosecutrix been taken forcibly by the appellant to the jhuggi, she
would have raised an alarm before all the neighbours or would
have availed of this opportunity to run away from the clutches of
the appellant.
21. Moreover, when the victim managed to run away from the jhuggi
at about 6.30 p.m or 7.00 p.m. when the appellant went to buy a
cigarette leaving the door of the jhuggi opened, the first person she
called to inform was her aunt (Nisha) and not the mother who took
her from the bus stop. On that day, she (Prosecutrix) did not tell
anything to her mother and Nisha aunty. On 05.02.2010, she
(prosecutrix) narrated the entire incident to her mother and Nisha
aunty. As per PW12, the mother of the prosecutrix had asked her to
keep the prosecutrix at her house for one or two days. But, as per
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 13 of 18
PW10 she went to the house of PW11 (Nisha) and her daughter
was weeping. Her friend Nisha (PW11) had asked her not to take
her daughter, so her daughter remained with her for one day.
22. A careful analysis of all the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses shows that the story of the prosecution stands
demolished by the testimony of their own prosecution witness
PW11. Moreover, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is also
contradicted by the MLC report.
23. In this regard, it is important to mention the case of Rai Sandeep @
Deepu Vs. State reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21, wherein it has been
held that :
"15. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness'
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose
version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court
considering the version of such witness should be in a
position to accept it for its face value without any
hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the
status of the witness would be immaterial and what
would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement
made by such a witness. What would be more relevant
would be the consistency of the statement right from
the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when
the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately
before the Court. It should be natural and consistent
with the case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the version
of such a witness. The witness should be in a position
to withstand the cross-examination of any length and
strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should
give room for any doubt as to the factum of the
occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the
sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation
with each and everyone of other supporting material
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 14 of 18
such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the
manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence
and the expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of every other
witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to
the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence
where there should not be any missing link in the
chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of
the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of
such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all
other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held
that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness'
whose version can be accepted by the Court without
any corroboration and based on which the guilty can
be punished. To be more precise, the version of the
said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should
remain intact while all other attendant materials,
namely, oral, documentary and material objects should
match the said version in material particulars in order
to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the
core version to sieve the other supporting materials for
holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
24. In Tameezuddin Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 15
SCC 566, the Apex Court held as under:
"9. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of
the prosecutrix must be given predominant
consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be
accepted even if the story is improbable and belies
logic, would be doing violence to the very principles
which govern the appreciation of evidence in a
criminal matter. We are of the opinion that story is
indeed improbable."
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 15 of 18
24. In Dilip and Anr. v. State of M.P : AIR 2001 SC 3049, the Apex
Court held as under:
"The gang rape is alleged to have been committed at
about 2 p.m., in her own house, situated in a
populated village by the side of the main road where
people were moving on account of Holi festival. The
prosecutrix did raise hue and cry to the extent she
could and yet none was attracted to the place of the
incident. The prosecutrix is said to have sustained
injuries, also bladed from her private parts staining
her body as also the clothes which she was wearing.
This part of the story, is not only not corroborated by
the medical evidence, is rather belied thereby. The
presence of blood-stains is not confirmed by forensic
science laboratory or by the doctors who examined
the prosecutrix. Her own maternal aunt to whom the
story of sexual assault has been narrated by the
prosecutrix gives a version which does not tally with
the version of the prosecutrix as given in the Court.
The Court is finding it difficult to accept the
truthfulness of the version of the prosecutrix that
any sexual assault as alleged was committed on her
in view of the fact that her narration of the incident
becomes basically infirm on account of being
contradicted by the statement of her own aunt and
medical evidence and the report of forensic science
laboratory. Therefore, it is difficult to hold the
prosecutrix in the case as one on whose testimony an
implicit reliance can be placed."
25. Undoubtedly, minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies
should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable
prosecution case. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 16 of 18
victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime.
Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of
probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high
degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the
subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the Court finds
it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value,
it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend
assurance to her testimony.
26. Though, there is no bar in convicting the appellant on the basis of
sole testimony of the prosecutrix, but the same can only be done, if
it inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. If
there are infirmities present in the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix and she was contradicted by other evidence such as
the medical evidence, testimony of PW11 and FSL report, a
conviction would not be possible on such testimony of
the prosecutrix. In the instant case, the testimony of the prosecutrix
is not natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution. There
is no medical evidence to support the offence of rape. The case of
the prosecution appears to be highly improbable and undoubtful in
the light of the evidence and circumstances of the present case.
27. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
28. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside
and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
29. The jail superintendent is directed to release the appellant forthwith
if not required in any other case.
CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 17 of 18
Crl. M (Bail) 952/2017
In view of the order passed in the appeal, the present application is
rendered infructuous.
Application stands disposed of.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
th AUGUST 28 , 2017 gr// CRL.A. 44/2014 Page 18 of 18