Delhi District Court
State vs Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 1 Of on 10 August, 2015
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 73/2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
State
versus
Mr.Ramandeep Singh,
Son of Mr. Harcharan Singh,
Resident of 2/209, G-Floor, Subhash Nagar, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 734/13
Police Station : Rajouri Garden
Under sections 452, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 09.05.2014
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal : 07.07.2014.
Arguments concluded on : 10.08.2015.
Date of judgment : 10.08.2015.
Appearances: Ms.Madhu Arora, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State on leave.
Mr. Rakesh Mehta, Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel, Mr. Mahesh Patel.
Mr. Puneet Batra, complainant and injured with Mr. Dev
Dutt Sharma, proxy counsel for Ms. Sonia Arora, counsel
for complainant/injured Mr.Puneet Batra.
Injured Mr. Arjun Singh with counsel, Mr.Manoj Mittal.
Injured Mr. Sanvir Sharma with counsel, Mr.N.P.Vaish.
Injured Mr.Rohit Joshi with counsel, Mr. Pujya Kumar Singh.
Ms. Shubhra Mehndiratta, counsel for Delhi Commission for
Women.
IO HC Hansraj is also present.
Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden
Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 1 of
16 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
***********************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Ramandeep Singh, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi for the offences under sections 452, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that on 23.11.2013 at about 9.30 pm at first floor of house number-2/209, ground floor, Subhash Nagar within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajouri Garden, he along with two associates (since not arrested), in furtherance of their common intention, committed house trespass by entering into the house of the complainant Mr. Puneet Batra having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and gave beatings to Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Rohit Joshi, Mr. Arjun Singh and Mr. Sanveer Sharma with base ball bat.
2.After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 09.05.2014 and after its committal, the case has been assigned to this Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for 07.07.2014.
3.After hearing arguments, vide order dated 02.06.2015, charge for offence under sections 452, 323 B and 34 of the IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 2 of
16 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Mr.Puneet Batra, complainant/injured as PW1; Mr. Arjun Singh, injured as PW2; Mr. Rohit Joshi, injured, as PW3; and Mr. Sanveer Sharma, injured as PW4.
5.The complainant/injured, as PW1, has deposed that about two years ago, flat no. 2/209, first floor, Subhash Nagar, Delhi was taken on rent by Mr. Sanveer Sharma and it was agreed between Mr. Sanveer Sharma, Mr. Rohit Joshi, Mr. Arjun Singh and himself that they shall run a production house from the said flat. Accused Ramandeep knows the owner of the rented flat but he did not remember his name today. He also did not remember the name of the wife of the owner. On 23.11.2013 at about 9.30 p.m all four of them i.e Mr. Sanveer Sharma, Mr. Rohit Joshi, Mr. Arjun Singh and this witness were in the flat. Two unknown men came into the flat and started beating them with baseball bat and wooden stick which is used for exercise and then, they ran away. They called the police. The police arrived and made inquires from them and wrote their statements. He had signed on the statement (Ex.PW1/A) without reading the same. Whatever he had deposed today before the Court, had been told by him to the police. He was first taken to Guru Gobind Singh Government hospital and then to DDU hospital for his medical examination. He was medically examined vide MLC of Guru Gobind Singh Hospital (Ex PW1/B). He cannot identify those two men as he did not know them. He cannot identify them today if they are shown to him. He has seen accused Mr.Ramandeep Singh present in the Court today. He is not the culprit who had assaulted him on 23.11.2013. Witness has not identified the accused. Accused Ramandeep is innocent. Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 3 of
16 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
6.As the complainant/injured was hostile and had resiled from his earlier statement, the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined him.
7.In his cross examination by the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for State, PW1 Mr.Puneet Batra, after seeing the complaint (Ex. PW1/A), has admitted that the owner of the said house was not residing in the said premises which was constructed upto third floor. The house was taken on rent by all of them jointly on a monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/- through Mr.Om property dealer having its office at Tilak Nagar. The rent was paid in cash by Mr. Sanveer Sharma after fixing the meeting with landlord. He did not know the full name of landlord but he was addressed as Baba. He had never met the landlord. He has admitted that Ramandeep Singh present in the Court resides on the ground floor with his wife (name mentioned in file and withheld to protect her identity). He has denied that he had told the police the name of accused Ramandeep Singh as a culprit. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that accused Ramandeep Singh had come along with others to the flat and had assaulted Arjun Singh, Sanveer Sharma, Rohit Joshi and him. He was confronted with the complaint Ex. PW1/A where it is so recorded. He has admitted that the wife of the accused (name mentioned in file and withheld to protect her identity) lodged complaint against him and his friends Mr.Arjun Singh, Mr.Sanveer Sharma and Mr.Rohit Joshi and case vide FIR number 733/2013 in Police Station Rajouri Garden was registered. He voluntarily stated that he has been Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 4 of
16 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
acquitted in the said case today itself. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that the wife of the accused (name mentioned in file and withheld to protect her identity) used to exchange messages with him or that when this fact came into the notice of her husband Mr. Ramandeep Singh he had come to his room along with his two associates for beating him and his friends. He was confronted with the complaint Ex. PW1/A where it is so recorded. He has admitted that one application (Ex.PW1/X1) dated 01.05.2014 which was filed in the Court of Mr.Dhirender Rana, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Tis Hazari Courts on 02.05.2014. He voluntarily stated that he is not aware about the contents of the application and his lawyer may have drafted it. He has denied the suggestion that application (Ex.PW1/X1) was drafted on his instructions by his lawyer and filed in the Court on his instructions. He has admitted that he pointed out the place of incident and at his instance site plan was prepared by the police. He has denied the suggestion that accused present today in the Court was arrested by police on his identification. He has denied the suggestion that as the wife of the accused has turned hostile in case FIR number 733/2014 PS Rajouri Garden which is against Mr.Arjun Singh, Mr.Sanveer Sharma, Mr. Rohit Joshi and himself, he is resiling in the present case as both the cases have been settled between them. He denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused.
8.The complainant Mr.Puneet Batra has also been cross examined by accused. In his cross examination he has admitted that he knows the accused present today in the Court being resident of the same premises. He has Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 5 of
16 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
admitted that accused had not attacked upon him and his friends. The statement made by him to the police was not read over to him or that he signed the same without going through the contents written therein.
9.Mr. Arjun Singh, injured as PW2, has deposed that his friend Mr. Rohit, Mr. Puneet and Mr. Sanvir Sharma were residing at house no. 2/209, First floor, Subhash Nagar, Delhi on rent. He used to visit that house to meet them. On 23.11.2013 at about 9-10.00pm while he was present in the said house along with his aforesaid friends, some one knocked the door. The door was opened by one of his friend, immediately four persons entered in the house. All of them started beating them. He himself and his friends sustained injuries and after beating them, all of them were fled away from the house. He along with his friends went to police station and lodged complaint. His statement was not recorded by the police. He himself also not made any statement to the police. He can not identify any of the offenders who had come to the room and beaten them due to lapse of time.
10.As the injured, PW2, was hostile and had resiled from his earlier statement, the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined him.
11.In his cross examination by the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for State, the injured PW2 has denied the suggestion that he along with his friends namely Mr. Puneet, Mr. Rohit and Mr. Sanvir Sharma had taken the aforesaid house on rent. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 6 of
16 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
police that on 23.11.2013 he along with his friend Mr.Rohit and Mr. Sanvir Sharma had gone out for some work and his friend Mr. Puneet was alone in the house. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW2/PX1 where it is so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that when they returned, they heard noises coming from their house and they rushed to the first floor and saw Ramandeep Singh, resident of ground floor in their building was inside their house along with other associate having baseball bat in his hand and beating his friend Mr. Puneet. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW2/PX1 where it is so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that when they tried to save their friend Mr. Puneet, all the culprits left Mr. Puneet and they started beating them. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW2/PX1 where it is so recorded. He did not know if accused Ramandeep is present in the Court today is residing on the ground floor of the same building. He has admitted that the wife of the accused (name mentioned in file and withheld to protect her identity) had lodged complaint against him and his friends Mr.Puneet Batra, Mr.Sanveer Sharma and Mr.Rohit Joshi and case vide FIR Number. 733/2013 in police station Rajouri Garden was registered. He voluntarily stated that he has been acquitted in the said case today itself. He has denied that as the wife of accused has turned hostile in case FIR number 733/2014 police station Rajouri Garden which is against Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Sanveer Sharma, Mr. Rohit Joshi and himself, he is resiling in the present case as both the cases have been settled between them. He denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not telling the true facts of the case.
Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 7 of
16 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
12.Mr.Arjun Singh, PW2, the injured, has also been cross examined by accused. In his cross examination, he has admitted that accused had not attacked upon him and his friends. He has admit that he had not made any statement.
13.Mr. Rohit Joshi, injured as PW3, has deposed that his friends Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Puneet and Mr. Sanvir Sharma were residing at house no. 2/209, First floor, Subhash Nagar, Delhi on rent. They all were working in production line having its office at Tilak Nagar. On 23.11.2013 at about 10.00-10.30 pm while he was present in the said house along with his aforesaid friends, some one knocked the door. The door was opened by one of his friends, immediately four persons entered in the house. All of them started beating them. He himself and his friends sustained injuries and after beating them all of them were fled away from the house. He along with his friends went to police station and lodged complaint. His statement was not recorded by the police but his signatures were obtained on the blank papers by the police. He can not identify any of the offenders who had come to the room and beaten them due to lapse of time.
14.As the injured PW3 was hostile and had resiled from his earlier statement, the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined him.
15.In his cross examination by the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for State, PW3, the injured has denied that he had told the police that on Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 8 of
16 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
23.11.2013 he along with his friend Mr. Arjun and Mr. Sanvir Sharma had gone out for some work and his friend Mr. Puneet was alone in the house. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW3/PX2 where it is so recorded. He has denied that he had told the police that when they returned they heard noises coming from their house and they rushed to the first floor and saw Ramandeep Singh, resident of ground floor in their building was inside their house along with other associate having baseball bat in his hand and beating his friend Mr. Puneet. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW3/PX2 where it is so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that when they tried to save their friend Mr. Puneet, all of them i.e. the culprits left Mr. Puneet and they started beating them. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW3/PX2 where it is so recorded. He has admitted that accused Ramandeep is present in the Court today is residing on the ground floor of the same building. He admitted that the wife of the accused (name mentioned in file and withheld to protect her identity) lodged complaint against him and his friends Mr.Puneet Batra, Mr.Sanveer Sharma and Mr.Arjun Singh and case vide FIR Number. 733/2013 in police station Rajouri Garden was registered. He voluntarily stated that he has been acquitted in the said case today itself. He has denied the suggestion that as the wife of accused has turned hostile in case FIR number 733/2014 police station Rajouri Garden which is against Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Sanveer Sharma, Mr.Arjun Singh and himself, he is resiling in the present case as both the cases have been settled between them. He has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not telling the true facts of the case.
Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 9 of
16 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
16.PW3, the injured Mr.Rohit Joshi has also been cross examined by accused. In his cross examination, he has admitted that accused had not attacked upon him and his friends. He has admitted that he had not made any statement.
17.Mr. Sanveer Sharma, injured as PW4, has deposed that his friends Mr. Arjun Singh , Mr. Puneet and Mr. Rohit Joshi were residing at house number 2/209, First floor, Subhash Nagar, Delhi on rent. They all were working in production line having its office at Tilak Nagar. On 23.11.2013 at about 9.00-9.40 pm while he was present in the said house along with his aforesaid friends, some one knocked the door. The door was opened by one of his friend, immediately four persons entered in the house. All of them started beating them. He himself and his friends sustained injuries and after beating them, all the culprits fled away from the house. He along with his friends went to police station and lodged complaint. His statement was not recorded by the police. He can not identify any of the offenders who had come to the room and beaten them due to lapse of time.
18.As the injured was hostile and had resiled from his earlier statement, the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined him.
19.In his cross examination by the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for State, PW4, Mr.Sanveer Sharma, the injured has admitted that he had told the police that on 23.11.2013, he along with his friend Mr. Arjun and Mr. Rohit Joshi had gone out for some work and his friend Mr. Puneet was alone Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 10
of 16 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
in the house. He has admitted that when they returned they heard noises coming from their house and they rushed to the first floor and saw Ramandeep Singh, resident of ground floor in their building was inside their house along with other associate having baseball bat in his hand and beating his friend Mr. Puneet. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW4/PX3 where it is so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that when they tried to save their friend Mr. Puneet, all the culprits left Mr. Puneet and they started beating them. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW4/PX3 where it is so recorded. He has admitted that accused Ramandeep is present in the Court today is residing on the ground floor of the same building. He admitted that the wife of the accused (name mentioned in file and withheld to protect her identity) lodged complaint against him and his friends Mr.Puneet Batra, Mr.Rohit Joshi and Mr.Arjun Singh and case vide FIR Number. 733/2013 in Police Station Rajouri Garden was registered. He voluntarily stated that he has been acquitted in the said case today itself. He has denied the suggestion that as the wife of accused has turned hostile in case FIR number 733/2014 police station Rajouri Garden which is against Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Rohit Joshi, Mr.Arjun Singh and himself, he is resiling in the present case as both the cases have been settled between them. He has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not telling the true facts of the case.
20.The injured Mr.Sanvir Sharma has also been cross examined by accused. In his cross examination, he has admitted that accused had not attacked upon Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 11
of 16 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
him and his friends. He has admitted that he had not made any statement.
21.The complainant/injured (PW1) as well as all the injured persons (PWs 2 to 4), have not deposed an iota of evidence of the accused along with others trespassing into their house or beating them with base ball bat. They all have deposed that accused had not attacked upon them nor trespassed into their house
22.In the circumstances, as the complainant/injured (PW1) as well as all the other injured persons (PWs 2 to 4), who are the star witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case and more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to the accused and have not deposed anything incriminating against him, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record the testimonies of other witnesses, who are formal or official in nature. The precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the complainant/injured as well as injured persons themselves, the most material witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case and are hostile.
23.The statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of the accused Mr. Ramandeep Singh, is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the complainant/injured (PW1) as well as the other injured persons (PWs 2 to 4) are hostile and nothing material has come forth in their cross examination by the prosecution.
Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 12
of 16 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
24.I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
25.In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the complainant/injured (PW1) as well as the other injured persons (PWs 2 to 4), who happen to be the most material witnesses, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable and conviction cannot be based on their evidence which is unreliable as it has changed with their retracting from their earlier statements. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
26.Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
27.In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 13
of 16 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
28.If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness-complainant was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
29.Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused along with two associates (since not arrested) has committed house trespass by entering into the house of complainant and gave beatings to the complainant/injured (PW1) as well as the other injured persons (PWs 2 to 4) with a base ball bat.
30.Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the complainant/injured (PW1) as well as the other injured persons (PWs 2 to 4) have themselves claimed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
31.Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mr. Ramandeep Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 14
of 16 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
Singh is guilty of the charged offence under sections 452, 323 and 34 of the IPC. There is no material on record to show that accused Mr. Ramandeep Singh along with two associates (since not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention committed house tresspass by entering into the house of the complainant Mr. Puneet Batra having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant and gave beatings to Mr.Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi with base ball bat.
32.From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offence against accused Mr. Ramandeep Singh that he had committed house trespass into the house of complainant for causing hurt and gave beatings to the complainant/injured (PW1) as well as the other injured persons (PWs 2 to 4). The evidence of the complainant/injured (PW1) as well as the other injured persons (PWs 2 to 4) makes it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place. They have categorically deposed that accused has not committed any offence.
33.Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused Mr.Ramandeep Singh for the offence under sections 452, 323 and 34 of the IPC.
34.Consequently, accused Mr.Ramandeep Singh is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offences under sections 452, 323 and 34 of the IPC. Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 15
of 16 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
35.Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
36.Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
37.One copy of the judgment be given to the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
38.After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 10th day August, 2015. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************* Sessions Case Number : 73 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0218172014.
FIR No. 734/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 452, 323 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ramandeep Singh -:: Page 16
of 16 ::-