Delhi District Court
State vs Anju on 13 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ISRA ZAIDI: JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, NORTH EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
JUDGMENT
Cr. No. of the case 1437/2021
CNR Number DLNE020022082021
FIR Number 302/2018
Police Station Karawal Nagar
Name of the HC Sanjeev
Complainant/Informant
Name of the Accused, his ANJU,
parentage and address W/o Vinod,
R/o H.No. 6, Gali No. 1, A-Block,
Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar,
North-East, Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence 30.06.2018
Date of institution 20.04.2021
Offences complained of U/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act
Offences charged of U/s 33 of Delhi Excise Act
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of final arguments 13.05.2026
Date of pronouncement of 13.05.2026
Judgment
Final Order Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
01. The accused is brought to face trial under Section 33 Delhi Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is the case of the prosecution in Digitally signed by ISRA FIR No. 302/2018 Page 1 of 15 ISRA ZAIDI Date: State vs. Anju ZAIDI 2026.05.13 16:19:19 +0530 succinct that on 30.06.2018 at Yamuna Dairy, Karawal Nagar, Delhi one person namely Anju (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was found in possession of 73 quarter bottles of illicit liquor without any license or permit as required by Delhi Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Thereafter, the present FIR was registered u/s 33 of the Act.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
02. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and accused person was summoned. Mandate of Section 207 Cr.P.C was complied with and charge was framed against the accused u/s 33 of the Act on 10.02.2023. The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
03. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
Prosecution Witnesses
S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
01. PW1 W/HC Mamta
02. PW2 HC Sanjeev
03. PW3 HC Shyambir
04. PW4 SI Amit Kumar
05. PW5 HC Purushottam
05. PW6 HC Bijender
Documents relied upon by the prosecution
S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
01. Ex. PW1/A Seizure memo
02. Ex. PW2/A Tehrir
03. Ex. PW2/B Site Plan
Digitally
signed by ISRA
ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
FIR No. 302/2018 Page 2 of 15 ZAIDI 2026.05.13
16:19:27
State vs. Anju
+0530
04. Ex. PW4/A Arrest Memo
05. Ex. PW4/B Personal Search Memo
06. Ex. PW4/C Disclosure Statement
07. Ex. PW5/A Excise Result
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 313 Cr.P.C
04. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 27.02.2026. The accused stated that she is innocent. No recovery was effected from her and the same had been planted upon her. The police had called her to the police station and falsely implicated in the present case. She did not know anything about the present case. No defence evidence was led by the accused despite granting her an opportunity.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
05. During the course of final arguments, it has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the ingredients of relevant Section are complete and in view of the presumption under Section 52 of the Act the accused be convicted of the present offence.
06. On the other hand, the Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case, that there is no public witness of the incident and that the recovery is planted upon the person of the accused as no recovery was ever effected from her. He also pointed out to the contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. According to him, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 294 Cr.P.C
Digitally signed
ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
FIR No. 302/2018 Page 3 of 15 ZAIDI 2026.05.13
16:19:34 +0530
State vs. Anju
07. The accused had admitted the following documents without admitting its contents and hence the examination of the concerned witnesses were dispensed with.
S.No Exhibit No. Nature of Documents
01. Ex. A-1 FIR No. 302/2018
02. Ex. A-2 Certificate u/s. 65-B
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
08. It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
09. PW1 namely W/HC Mamta in her examination in chief deposed that on 30.06.2018, she was posted as W/Ct at PS Karawal Nagar. On that day, on the direction of DO of PS Karawal Nagar, at around 7:30 pm, she went to the spot Yamuna Dairy where HC Sanjeev and HC Shyamveer alongwith another person were present. HC Sanjeev told her about the formation of the raiding party and asked 4-5 passers-by to join the investigation but they denied stating their own reasons. She further deposed that no written notice could be served upon them due to paucity of time. She further deposed that they all four including the secret informer reached near H.No. 6, Gali No. 1, Ankur Enclave where the secret informer indicated towards a lady sitting in a vacant plot selling the illicit liquor and after indicating, he left the spot. She further deposed that HC Sanjeev checked the katta and found that it contained 73 quarters of the liquor. She did not remember the name of the label on the quarters, but it had orange colour cap. IO took out two sample bottles and covered their mouth with Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: FIR No. 302/2018 Page 4 of 15 State vs. Anju ZAIDI 2026.05.13 16:19:43 +0530 the doctor tape and sealed them with the seal of "SK". The seal was handed over to the Ct. Shyamveer.
10. PW1 further deposed that the case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, HC Sanjeev Kumar prepared the tehrir and sent Ct. Shyamveer for registration of FIR. In her cross-examination she testified that she went to the spot at about 06:35 to 06:40 PM and they left the spot at about 07:30 PM. She further denied all the other suggestions put to her by Ld. Defence Counsel.
11. PW2 namely HC Sanjeev in his examination in chief deposed that on 30.06.2018 he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar as Head Constable. On that day he alongwith HC Shyambir were on patrolling duty near Yamuna Diary, Karawal Nagar. At about 06:30 PM one secret informer came near to him and told that one lady namely Anju was selling illicit liquor at Gali No. 1, Ankur Enclave in front of her house. After some time W/Ct. Mamta came at the spot. He also deposed that in the meantime, he requested 3-4 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. He further deposed on the same lines as that of PW1. He further added in his examination in chief that quarter bottles of illicit liquor were labelled as "Charlie Santra Desi Sharab for sale in Harayana Only 180 ml each".
12. PW2 in his cross-examination testified that they were on patrolling duty on his personal bike. He did not remember the exact time when they reached at the spot but they left the spot at about 08:30 PM. He further testified that HC Shyambir went to PS alongwith Rukka on his personal bike but he did not remember the time. He further testified that he had prepared only one seizure memo prior to registration of FIR but he did not remember who had signed the seizure memo. He further testified that no seal handling over memo was prepared. He denied all the other suggestions put to him by Ld. Defence Counsel. Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date:
FIR No. 302/2018 Page 5 of 15 2026.05.13 State vs. Anju ZAIDI 16:19:52 +0530
13. PW3 namely HC Shyambir in examination in chief deposed on the same lines as that of PW1 and PW2. In his cross-examination he testified that they left the spot at about 7.30 PM. He admitted that the spot was public place as per the charge-sheet and that no public witness had joined the investigation. He further testified that the case property was seized prior to registration of FIR but he did not remember who had signed the seizure memo except him. He further testified seal handling over memo was prepared by the IO. He further testified that the site plan was prepared prior to registration of FIR and W/Ct Mamta and he had signed on the same. He testified that he and W/Ct. Mamta had signed the tehrir and he took the same to PS in rickshaw. He further denied all the other suggestions put to him by Ld. Defence Counsel.
14. PW4 namely SI Amit Kumar in his examination in chief deposed that on 30.06.2018 he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar as SI. He alongwith HC Shyambir reached at the spot i.e. Gali No. 01, A- Block, Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar where he met with W/Ct. Mamta & HC Sanjeev. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that HC Sanjeev handed over him the case property in seized condition. Further, he arrersted the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and prepared the personal search memo Ex. PW4/B.
15. PW4 further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW4/C. Thereafter, they brought the accused to the PS and he recorded the statement of W/Ct. Shivani. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he sent the sample quarter bottle of illicit liquor to the Excise Department. In his cross-examination he testified that on 30.06.2018 he had recorded the statement of witnesses only in the PS. He reached at the house of accused to arrest her at about 04:15 p.m. and they remained there for 25 minutes. He testified that they came to the PS after arresting the accused at Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
FIR No. 302/2018 Page 6 of 15 ZAIDI 2026.05.13 16:20:00 State vs. Anju +0530 about 05:00 p.m. through PCR van and he did not remember the name of the driver/staff of PCR van.
16. PW5 namely HC Purushottam deposed in his examination in chief that he received the Excise result Ex. PW5/A from the malkhana. He further deposed that he prepared the chargesheet and submitted the same before the Court. In his cross examination he admitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused.
17. PW6 namely HC Bijender in his examination in chief deposed that on 11.09.2018, he was called by the MHC(M) CP who handed him two samples and one road certificate no. 138/21/18 mark 'X' to deposit into the Excise Department. After the deposition in the Excise department, he handed over acknowledgement receipt i.e. mark 'X' to MHC(M) СР. In his cross- examination, he testified that he did not remember DD entry vide which he left the PS.
18. The allegations against the accused was that she was found in possession of 73 quarter bottles of illicit liquor bottles. The case of the prosecution is entirely based on the recovery allegedly effected from the accused person. The prosecution has relied heavily upon the presumption under Section 52 of the Act. To contend that in the present case, the burden was upon the accused to prove that she had not committed the offence under Section 33 of the Act and since the accused had failed to discharge the onus cast upon her, the accused should be found guilty in the present case. However, perusal of the Section 52 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 reveals that the presumption under the Section 52 can be raised only after the prosecution has discharged its initial onus as to the accused having been found in possession of illicit liquor. For the sake of convenience, Section 52 of the Act is reproduced herein under:
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
FIR No. 302/2018 Page 7 of 15 ZAIDI 2026.05.13 16:20:06 State vs. Anju +0530 "52. Presumption as to commission offence in certain cases: - 1) In prosecution under Section 33, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily.".
19. Hence, to avail the benefit of the presumption, it was still for the prosecution to prove that the illicit liquor was in fact recovered from the possession of the accused. The recovery was effected by police witnesses. All of the witnesses including the complainant are police witnesses. It is settled law, that when only police witnesses have been examined, their evidence must be thoroughly scrutinized.
20. In present case, prosecution was duty bound to prove the possession of the illicit liquor with accused. Same is sought to be proved by the recovery memo and testimony of the witnesses. But the manner of conducting inquiry, seizure and search etc. on the spot at the time of arrest of the accused and alleged recovery of liquor in this case, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. The incident is stated to have happened at about 07:30 pm and it is evident that none of the prosecution witnesses, could depose in their testimony that place of incident was not a public place and there was no public witness at that place at the time of alleged seizure and recovery of case property from the accused. Whereas perusal of site plan Ex. PW2/B reveals that place of seizure was a public place/public road. Further, these witnesses had failed to bring anything on record that they had tried to join independent public witness during the entire search and seizure proceedings. Therefore, it is clear that no efforts were made to join independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution and all these facts makes the alleged recovery very doubtful.
21. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on Anoop Digitally signed FIR No. 302/2018 Page 8 of 15 ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date:
State vs. Anju 2026.05.13 ZAIDI 16:20:13 +0530 Joshi v. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
Also, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e., Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions." [Emphasis supplied]
22. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the higher Courts, the omissions/failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and substantiates the defence version that there is false implication of the accused in the present case and that the recovery has been falsely planted upon the accused. Further, considering facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of ratio in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC, there was no Digitally signed FIR No. 302/2018 Page 9 of 15 ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date:
State vs. Anju 2026.05.13 ZAIDI 16:20:23 +0530 lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the above-mentioned facts create serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.
23. Further, as per evidence on record, the seal after use was not given to any independent public person. Even, no seal handing over memo is on record, though as per PW1 seal was handed over to Ct. Shyambir. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused, as tampering with case property in such a scenario cannot be ruled out. The reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramji Singh v. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.C. (Criminal) 452, wherein it is held that-
"7. The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out."
Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, held that -
"10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
24. PW3 testified that IO prepared the seal handling over memo, however, no seal handling over memo was on record. There appears to be discrepancies in the version of prosecution witnesses. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. These are the few principles which the Court has stated consistently and Digitally signed FIR No. 302/2018 Page 10 of 15 ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date:
State vs. Anju 2026.05.13 ZAIDI 16:21:15 +0530 with certainty. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of "Joseph v. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC".
25. It is evident that no seal handing over memo of the seal was prepared. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that link evidence concerning the seal movement was missing in this present case, which fact by itself is sufficient to cast a shadow a doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case. Further there is no independent witness to the sealing of the case property. The liquor was with the possession of police officials only and the chances of tampering with the seal cannot be ruled out. It was an imperative task for the police officials to engage any public witness while sealing the case property. Further neither the IO nor the witnesses had made any reflection regarding the handing over memo of the seal. The seal was with in the possession of the police officials only and there is no clarity as to when the seal was handed over and to whom it was handed over. Therefore, it can be very well said that there are fair chances of tampering with the seal. Hence, it can be very well said that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, when the case property was produced the seal was found to be in a broken condition and was also not legible. The chances of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out.
26. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry has been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of the arrival entry of the police officials their presence at the spot cannot be Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: FIR No. 302/2018 Page 11 of 15 ZAIDI 2026.05.13 16:21:24 State vs. Anju +0530 believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal v. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29. No arrival/departure entries have been placed on record to fortify the case of the prosecution by the IO. There is no independent witness to the seizure memo, which casts a serious doubt on story of prosecution.
27. For establishing the factum of recovery, the prosecution examined 06 witnesses out of which none were public witnesses. The public witnesses were not joined during the recovery of the alleged illicit liquor. The prosecution has failed to examine any public witness therefore, the version of the prosecution has remained uncorroborated by any independent material witness. The recovery witness examined by the prosecution in the present case are police witnesses who are interested in the success of the prosecution case and therefore, the probability of them being guided by the extraneous factors, other than truth, cannot be ruled out. The police witnesses cannot be straightaway termed as unreliable witnesses, however, when there is a possibility of joining any public witness in the investigation and still no genuine efforts are made to join the independent person as witness, then the testimony of the police witness does not lend sufficient credence/reliability, unless it is corroborated by independent material witness. In view of above discussion, it is duly established that genuine efforts were not made by the IO of the case to join the public witness. There is no independent witness to the seizure memo.
28. The non-joining of the public witness at the time of alleged recovery of the article creates doubt in the story of the prosecution as was held in Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1987 CC 585) Delhi High Court. In these circumstances, as despite the presence of public persons at/around the place of alleged recovery the investigating officer failed to join independent public persons as witness to the proceedings of the present matter, warrants an adverse inference to be drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that the evidence if produced would have been unfavourable to the case of the Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.05.13 FIR No. 302/2018 Page 12 of 15 ZAIDI 16:21:32 State vs. Anju +0530 investigating agency/prosecution and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery from the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance can be profitably placed on the judgment of Hon'ble SC of India in case of Pradeep Narayan vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1995 SC 1930) held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
29. Perusal of site plan reveals that it was not even signed by the complainant though IO has stated that it was made at the instance of the complainant. The evidentiary value of the spot map/sketch map prepared by the investigating officer is relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and since it is based on the actual observation of the officer at the crime scene, it is treated as direct evidence and is admissible u/s 60 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the case of Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana (2003)12 SCC 758 it was held that any defect in the site plan creates a doubt regarding the place of occurrence and accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The site plan prepared by the IO Ex. PW2/B was not even signed by the complainant. It is doubtful that the site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant.
30. One another fact which this Court considers necessary to discuss here is that as per the story of the prosecution 73 quarter bottles of illicit liquor were recovered. IO took one quarter bottle from the lot as sample. Therefore, at this stage prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that those remaining quarters were containing the liquor as in absence of any sample that fact that other quarters were containing illicit liquor remained unestablished. It was the bounden duty of the police to take out the samples from each of the bottle. There are serious lapses in the investigation conducted by the police which has made the story of prosecution more doubtful.
Digitally
signed by ISRA
ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.05.13
16:21:39
FIR No. 302/2018 Page 13 of 15 +0530 State vs. Anju
31. PW4 deposed in his examination in chief that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded. The disclosure statement was already Ex.PW4/C.
32. At this stage it is germane to mention section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
"Section 27 how much of information received from the accused may be proved- provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered may be proved.
In the case of Md. Inayatulla Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC483 it was held that for the application of section 27 of the IEA the statement must be split into its components and to separate the admissible portion. Only those components or portion which were the immediate cause of discovery would be relevant and rest must be rejected."
33. Disclosure statement cannot be admissible there is no recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement and there is no independent witness to the same. Moreover, there is a doubt as to the recovery of the alleged quarter bottles of illicit liquor from the possession of the accused persons. Derivative use of custodial statement is not permissible in law. Disclosure statement is admissible only in evidence if something is recovered from the accused which is not within the knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure statement of the accused persons. Hence, the same becomes inadmissible in law. In the present case, there is no recovery pursuant to the present case.
34. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovery and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI (178 (2011) Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: FIR No. 302/2018 Page 14 of 15 2026.05.13 State vs. Anju ZAIDI 16:21:52 +0530 DLT 529). It was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, the later one should prevail. Prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt complicity of accused. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
35. On perusal of the documents and consideration of submissions, it is the considered opinion of the court that prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Accused Anju is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under section 33 of the Excise Act.
Digitally signedPronounced in the open Court on 13.05.2026. ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date:
2026.05.13 ZAIDI 16:22:00 +0530 (Isra Zaidi) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 North-East/KKD Court/Delhi This judgment contains 15 pages and each page bears my signature.
FIR No. 302/2018 Page 15 of 15 State vs. Anju