Delhi District Court
Dhan Singh vs State on 24 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Cr Rev No. 81/2023
CNR No. DLSH01-001947-2023
1. DHAN SINGH,
S/o Lt. Sh. Kalu Ram,
R/o 12/235, Gali No. 10 to 17,
Budh Vihar, Mandoli Village,
Delhi-93.
2. SURESH,
S/o Lt. Sh. Kalu Ram,
R/o H.No. B-67, Street No. 3,
West Jyoti Nagar Enclave,
Shahdara, Delhi-93.
3. NAVEEN GAUTAM,
S/o Sh. Rohtash Singh,
R/o H.No. 404, Gali No. 15,
20 Futa Road, Budh Vihar,
Mandoli, Delhi-93.
4. MUKESH RANI ,
W/o Sh. Mansa Ram,
R/o H.No. B-220, Gali No. 13,
Budh Vihar, Mandoli Village,
Delhi-93. ....Appellants
VS.
1. STATE
Through SHO, Harsh Vihar, Delhi.
2. SARVESH,
W/o Sh. Bhikh Chand,
R/o B-219, Gali No. 13,
Budh Vihar, Mandoli,
Delhi-93. ...Respondents
Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 1 of 15
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2025.01.25
10:22:23
+0530
24.01.2025
Present:- Sh. S R Kundra, Ld. counsel for the revisionists
appeared through VC.
Sh. Sobit, Ld. Additional PP for the
State/R1.
Sh. Mohd. Yusuf, Ld. Proxy Counsel for R2.
ORDER
1. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the present revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.01.2023 passed by Ld. MM-07, Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide which revisionists were summoned as accused and charges were altered.
2. It is also submitted that complainant had filed the complaint case bearing no. 1317/2006 in PS Harsh Vihar, Delhi against Sharda, Mansa Ram (deceased), Mukesh, Chameli, Deepak, Ravi, Ravinder and HC Ravinder Kumar and Ld. MM (Mahila Court No. 3), SHD/KKD/Delhi had pronounced the judgment in the aforementioned case on 26.09.2018 vide which all the accused persons were acquitted. The complainant made the concocted story and got registered FIR no. 104/2011 against the accused persons to take revenge as one FIR no. 103/2011 was registered by the daughter of accused Rohtash Singh against the son of complainant namely Somesh on the same day and at the same PS u/s 509 IPC and complainant's statement was recorded before the Ld. Court as DW1 on 11.03.2019. Ld. MM vide judgment dated 27.04.2019 acquitted accused Somesh.
3. It is further submitted that R2 got registered FIR No. 104/2011 u/s 324/341 IPC in response to FIR No. 103/2011, wherein two persons namely Rohtash Singh and Rinku were Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 2 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.25 10:22:28 +0530 accused and the matter is pending before the Ld. MM (Mahila Court) and IO had already filed the charge-sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C.
against Rohtash Singh and Rinku and charge u/s 324/341 IPC has been framed against them. Complainant was examined as PW1 on 24.04.2018.
4. Ld. MM directed Ld. APP to file applications u/s 216 Cr.P.C. and 319 Cr.P.C. on account of statement of complainant in examination in chief, which were allowed on 07.01.2023. On the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM summoned the six new accused i.e. Mukesh Rani, Rohit @ Ravi, Mansa Ram (deceased), Dhan Singh, Suresh Kumar and Naveen Gautam and altered the charge against all the accused including six added ones. The summonses were received by new accused on 29.01.2023 and they were present before the Court on 31.01.2023 as directed by Ld. Trial Court. Another accused Rohit Chaudhary @ Ravi has already filed a separate revision petition against the impugned order dated 07.01.2023.
5. It is also submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to exercise the application of judicial mind by allowing the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to add the new accused persons in FIR No. 104/2011 on the mere statement of complainant and also allowed the application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. without hearing the petitioners. Ld. Trial Court ignored the statements of other witnesses in FIR No. 104/2011 and relied on the statement of complainant, who did not disclose the correct facts as she concealed that Mansa Ram had expired. In CC No. 1317/2016, Court considered that injury was self made and in FIR No. 103/2011, the complainant stated about the information of locker Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 3 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.01.25 10:22:35 +0530 of Mansa Ram and in FIR No. 104/2011, she herself watched that Mansa Ram was breaking the locker and took jewellery and cash. Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that there were lots of discrepancies in statement of PW1 complainant when she lodged FIR No. 104/2011 and her versions are different in FIR No. 103/2011. Son of Mansa Ram lodged various complaints against son of complainant.
6. No injury to the complainant could be proved in CC No. 1317/2006 filed against Mukesh Rani, Rohit @ Ravi, Mansa Ram and others and Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that there was no medical report of any family member and no knife or lathi was recovered. There is no witness who could describe the incident inside the room with the daughter and son of complainant and Dhan Singh is stated to be the relative of Mansa Ram and he had contested an election on BSP ticket and complainant did not disclose the name of Suresh, Mukesh, Ravi and Naveen in her complaint and accused Suresh was residing 5 kms from the place of incident and was not present at that time and there was no complaint registered by her daughter, son and husband against the accused and complainant later cooked up story regarding property destruction and snatching of purse by the newly added accused, but there is no evidence to the same.
7. FIR No. 104/2011 was registered by complainant against the accused and political competitor of accused Dhan Singh abetted complainant to falsely implicate him to destroy reputation and defeat him in elections. It is prayed that order dated 07.01.2023 be set aside.
Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 4 of 15Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.01.25 10:22:41 +0530 Ld. Counsel for revisionist has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1750/2008 dated 10 January, 2014.
(ii) Vikash Rathi Vs. State of UP & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 664/2023.
(iii) Juhru & Ors Vs. Karim & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 549/2023.
(iv) Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2017.
(v) N Manogar & Anr. Vs. The Inspector of Police & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 8696 of 2021.
(vi) Shridev Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor, S B Criminal Appeal No. 561/2017.
(vii) Periyasami & Ors. Vs. S Nallasamy, SLP (Crl.) N0. 208/2019.
(viii) Sagar Vs. State of UP & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 397/2022.
(ix) Naveen Vs. State of Harayan & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 3746/2022.
8. On the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. APP for State/R1 and Ld. Counsel for R2 that the order of Ld. MM dated 07.01.2023 has been passed judiciously and is legally sound as he has passed the said order after hearing the parties and considering the material on record including the testimony of PW1/complainant.
9. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 5 of 15Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.25 10:22:46
10. As per the revisionist, some of the accused persons along with others were acquitted in one complaint case filed by the complainant and daughter of accused Rohtash Singh got registered an FIR No. 103/2011 against the son of complainant at PS Harsh Vihar u/s 509 IPC and as a counterblast present FIR was registered by the complainant against the accused persons.
11. IO had charge-sheeted accused Rohtash Singh and Rajan @ Rinku u/s 324/34 IPC and charge against them was framed u/s 324/34 IPC by Ld. MM on 06.03.2014, but no speaking order was passed on the charge. Complainant was examined as PW1 on 24.04.2018 and her part examination in chief was recorded.
12. Then, Ld. APP filed an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused and after hearing the State and accused facing trial, Ld. MM vide order dated 07.01.2023 allowed the said application and summoned Dhanni, Mansa Ram, Suresh, Naveen, Ravi and Mukesh as additional accused apart from accused Rajan @ Rinku and Rohtash Singh already facing trial and also altered the charge against all the accused persons.
Section 319 Cr.P.C. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence-
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) xxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxx Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 6 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.25 10:22:52 +0530
13. Another application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. was also filed by Ld. APP for alteration of charge and charges of Rajan @ Rinku and Rohtash were ordered to be altered vide order dated 07.01.2023 and charges u/s 148/458/323/34 IPC and u/s 148/458/324/354/509/34 IPC were directed to be framed against accused Rohtash Singh and Rajan @ Rinku respectively.
14. The complainant had stated the role of Dhanni in her initial complaint and also elaborated role of accused Dhanni, Rajan @ Rinku and Mansa Ram and stated that 8-10 persons had entered her house forcibly and started beating her and Dhanni had put hand in her blouse and took out the purse having Rs. 200/- and gave key of locker to Mansa Ram, who opened the locker and on resistance, he picked up quarrel with daughter, aged 21 years and torn her cloths and he also caused beatings to her minor daughter 'V', aged 14 years and threatened to kill her son and accused Rajan @ Rinku had inflicted knife injury on her hand due to which she sustained injury.
15. Complainant has not elaborated the role of other accused persons, but she simply stated that the persons, who had caused beatings are Mansa Ram, Dhanni, Suresh, Rohtash Singh, Naveen, Ravi, Rinku and Mukesh, W/o Mansa Ram. Accused Mansa Ram has expired.
16. In Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 763/2017 dated 27.04.2017 Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon constitutional bench judgment of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. SC 2014 and held that
11. In Hardeep Singh's case, the Constitution Bench has also settled the controversy on the issue as to whether the word 'evidence' used Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 7 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.25 10:23:01 +0530 in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and indicates the evidence collected during investigation or the word 'evidence' is limited to the evidence recorded during trial. It is held that it is that material, after cognizance is taken by the Court, that is available to it while making an inquiry into or trying an offence, which the court can utilize or take into consideration for supporting reasons to summon any person on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court. The word 'evidence' has to be understood in its wider sense, both at the stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry. It means that the power to proceed against any person after summoning him can be exercised on the basis of any such material as brought forth before it. At the same time, this Court cautioned that the duty and obligation of the Court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers consciously on such material after evidence has been led during trial. The court also clarified that 'evidence' u/s 319 Cr.P.C. could even be examination in chief and the Court is not required to wait till such evidence is tested on cross-examination, as it is the satisfaction of the Court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the Court in respect of complicity of some other person(s) not facing trial in the offence.
12. The mood question, however, is the degree of satisfaction that is required for invoking the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and the related question is as to in what situations this power should be exercised in respect of a person named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted. These two aspects were also specifically dealt with by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh's case and answered in the following manner:
"95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. U/S 319 Cr.P.C. though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two Judge bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 3 SCC 321], held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be "arrested" or "summoned", as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 8 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.01.25 10:23:09 +0530 persons.
xx xx xx
105. Power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and an extraordinary power, it is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.
(emphasis supplied)"
13. In order to answer the question, some of the principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh's case may be recapitulated:
Power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court at any state during the trial, i.e. before the conclusion of trial, to summon any person as an accused and face the trial in the ongoing case, once the trial court finds that there is some 'evidence' against such a person on the basis of which evidence it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty of offence. The 'evidence' herein means the material that is brought before the Court Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 9 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date: RAJAT 2025.01.25 10:23:14 during trial. Insofar as the material/evidence collected by the IO at the stage of inquiry is concerned, it can be utilised for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. No doubt, such evidence that has surfaced in examination in chief, without cross-examination of witnesses, can also be taken into consideration. However, since, it is a discretionary power given to the Court u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge-sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.
14. When we translate the aforesaid principles with their application to the facts of this case, we gather an impression that the trial could acted in a casual and cavalier manner in passing the summoning order against the appellants. The appellants were named in the FIR. Investigation was carried out by the police. On the basis of material collected during investigation, which has been referred to by us above, the IO found that these appellants were in Jaipur City when the incident took place in Kanaur, at a distance of 175 kms. The complainant and others who supported the version in the FIR regarding alleged presence of the appellants at the place of incident had also made statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. to the same effect. Notwithstanding the same, the police investigation revealed that the statements of these persons regarding the presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence was doubtful and did not inspire confidence, in view of the documentary and other evidence collected during the investigation, which depicted another story and clinchingly showed that appellants plea of alibi was correct.
15. This record was before the the trial Court. Notwithstanding the same, the trial court went by the deposition of Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 10 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.25 10:23:21 +0530 complainant and some other persons in their examination in chief, with no other material 'evidence' recorded during trial was nothing more than the statements which was already there u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation of the case. No doubt, the trial court would be competent to exercise its power even on the basis of such statements recorded before it in examination-in-chief. However, in a case like the present where plethora of evidence was collected by the IO during investigation which suggested otherwise, the trial court was at least duty bound to look into the same while forming prima facie opinion and to see as to whether 'much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their (i.e. appellants) complicity has come on record. There is no satisfaction of this nature.
17. In Periyasami & Ors vs. S Nallasamy in Criminal Appeal No. 456/2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , held that:
15. The High Court has set aside the order passed by the Ld. Magistrate only on the basis of the statements of some of the witnesses examined by the complainant. Mere disclosing the names of the appellants cannot be said to be strong and cogent evidence to make them to stand trial for the offence u/s 319 of the Code, especially when the complainant is a husband and has initiated criminal proceedings against family of his in-laws and when their names or other identity were not disclosed at the first opportunity.
18. In Geeta Devi and another vs. State of Punjab and another, CRR-4871/2017, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, held that :-
6. Thus, merely for the reason that the petitioners have been named by the complainant, the power u/s 319 Cr.PC cannot be exercised unless and until the evidence on record satisfies 'test of more than prima- facie case'.
19. In Juhru & Ors. vs. Karim & Anr, in Criminal Appeal No. 549/2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , held Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 11 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.25 10:23:27 +0530 that:-
17. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning u/s 319 Cr.PC is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima-facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional accused. We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused u/s 319 Cr.PC, and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power u/s 319 Cr.PC ought not to be invoked.
20. In view of the above judicial precedents, it is manifestly clear that power is bestowed on the trial courts u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon any person as additional accused, who has not been charge-sheeted or put in column no. 12, if evidence has surfaced against him in the testimony of witnesses and it is not necessary for the court to wait till conclusion of entire testimony and accused can be summoned after examination in chief subject to recording of satisfaction of court, but such view must be more than a prima facie case against the accused and the accused should not be summoned in casual and mechanical manner just because the witness has named a person and made accusation against him and there has to be much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their complicity in crime.
21. In this case IO had recorded the statements of various persons residing in the nearby vicinity, who had claimed to be eye-witnesses, namely Sarla W/o Prem, Yogendra, Vinod Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 12 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.25 10:23:32 +0530 Kumar, Vijay Pal, Naresh, Shailesh, Rajesh, Sarla w/o Harishchandra, Deepak, Vijay, Kanchan Singh, Surendra, Indrapal and Sannu Ram. These witnesses stated that there was a quarrel between complainant and accused Rohtash and his son Rinku and some had also stated that complainant Sarvesh had self inflicted the injury on her hand. There are allegations of verbal abuse against the accused and Sarla had even not named Rohtash and some have stated that complainant was abusing accused Rohtash and his son. During her complaint before Police, the complainant has not elaborated the role of Suresh, Rohtash, Mukesh, Naveen and Ravi and Dhanni has not been named by the said witnesses and even not charge-sheeted.
22. Complainant/PW1 Sarvesh has been examined in chief, but she has made material omission and improvement in her testimony and her examination in chief was not concluded when the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. of Ld. APP was allowed and the Ld. MM acted in haste in allowing the said application of Ld. APP to summon Mansa Ram, Suresh, Mukesh, Naveen, Ravi and Dhanni as additional accused as there are lot of discrepancies in the prosecution evidence itself and the neighbors/eye witnesses have given different view as aforesaid and PW1 had made improvement/omission in her examination in chief and thus, Ld. Trial Court should have waited till the conclusion of the testimony of PW1 to have a broader picture and strong evidence against proposed accused, especially when no weapon as alleged has been recovered and there is no CCTV footage and witnesses have stated that she had self-inflicted the injury on her hand. The fact that IO has made only Surender, Inderpal and Sannu Ram as Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 13 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.01.25 10:23:37 +0530 witnesses though statements of various persons were recorded, which are part of record, does not make any difference and trial court may summon the other persons as witnesses during trial, if required. Even though the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is to be invoked sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances on the basis of evidence deposed during trial, but in the opinion of the Court, the material already available on record, which is contradictory to the examination in chief of complainant cannot be discarded while summoning accused, when her deposition is only partly recorded.
CONCLUSION
23. In view of the above discussion and considering the above judicial precedents, the order of Ld. Trial Court dated 07.01.2023 summoning the accused Mukesh Rani, Mansa Ram (deceased), Dhan Singh, Suresh Kumar and Naveen Gautam u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is set aside, however, Ld. Trial Court may decided the said application afresh after recording of examination in chief and cross-examination of PW1 Sarvesh.
24. As regards, the alteration of charge u/s 216 Cr.P.C., the said order dated 07.01.2023 qua accused Mukesh Rani, Mansa Ram (deceased), Dhan Singh, Suresh Kumar and Naveen Gautam, the same is also accordingly set aside.
25. Since, alteration of charge can be done at any stage before judgment on the material available on record or the new material i.e. brought before the court and that alteration of charge is not dependent upon evidence of witness as distinct from summoning of a person as accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C., the charge qua accused Rinku @ Rajan and Rohtash Singh is also altered Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 14 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.25 10:23:43 +0530 and further Section 458 IPC be added to the existing charge dated 06.03.2014 as they had forcibly entered the house of complainant/PW1 by breaking door after preparation to commit offence. The said order dated 07.01.2023 is upheld to this extent only.
26. Considering the above, the present revision is partly allowed.
27. The Criminal Revision Petition along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
TCR along with copy of this order be sent to the concerned Ld. Trial Court.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.25 10:23:48 +0530 (Kumar Rajat) ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi 24.01.2025 Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Dhan Singh & Ors.Vs. State & Anr. Page 15 of 15