Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikas Bisht on 13 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS RICHA SHARMA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 13913
U/s 279/338 IPC
PS: KNK Marg
State vs. Vikas Bisht
Date of Institution of case:26.07.2013
Date of Judgment reserved: 13.11.2019
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 13.11.2019
JUDGMENT
Ubuntu Number : 5284343/16 Date of : 13.04.2013 Commission of offence Name of the : Sh. Zubeen Goswami complainant Name and address : Vikas Bisht S/O Sh. Jagat Singh Bisht of the accused R/O H5/68, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi persons Offence : 279/338 IPC complained of Plea of accused : Not guilty Date of order : 13.11.2019 Final Order : 13.11.2019
State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 1. of22 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution shorn of unnecessary details is that on 13.04.2013, at about 8:15 p.m., at I & E Block, Divider Road, Sector16, Rohin, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS KNK Marg, accused Vikas Bisht was found driving maruti car bearing registration No. DL3CR 3434 in a rash and negligent manner and to endanger human life. Further, while driving the aforesaid maruti car in aforesaid manner, the accused hit against the scooty bearing registration No. DL11S 7929 and caused grievous injury to Zubin Goswami, the rider of the said scooty and thereby accused committed an offence punishable U/s 279/338 IPC. Thereafter, upon investigation statements of witnesses were recorded and an FIR was registered against the accused.
Investigation
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity. The accused was arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused and challan was State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 2. of22 presented in the Court.
3. Copies of challan and relevant documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
Charge
4. A prima facie case under Sections 279/338 IPC, was found to be made out against the accused. Notice was framed upon the accused, accordingly, by the then Ld MM on 05.04.2014. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. List of witnesses and documents proved
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses. PW1 Kuldeep Kumar was the registered owner of maruti car bearing registration NO. DL3CR3434 and deposed that he would not dispute the identity of the aforesaid vehicle during trial. He further deposed that at the time of alleged accident, accused Vikas Bisht was driving the said vehicle. He brought the photographs of the said vehicle and proved the same as Ex.P1 to P6. Despite opportunity, this witness was not crossexamined and the crossexamination of this witness was recorded as Nil.
6. PW2 Sh. Zuben Goswami was the complainant in the present case. He deposed that on 13.04.2013, he along with his friend namely Mridul Chauhan went to District Park through State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 3. of22 divider road of Sector16, Rohini, Delhi on his scooty and when they reached at Sector16, Rohini, Delhi and turned towards the District Park Road, one vehicle i.e. Maruti 800 came from front side and struck to divider and also hit against him. Thereafter, he fell down on the road, then some public persons asked him about the mobile number of his mother, after some time his mother came at the spot and took him to the hospital. He further deposed that he did not remember whether his statement was recorded by the police or not.
It is pertinent to mention here that this witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the court. During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, PW2 admitted that the incident took place due to rash and negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle. He correctly identified the accused and stated that accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of alleged incident. He also admitted that the incident took place on 13.04.2013 at about 8:15 a.m. and during accident he along with his friend Mridul fell down on the road. PW2 correctly identified the offending vehicle through photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel at length.
7. PW3 ASI Sri Kishan was the Duty Officer, who proved the copy of DD No.32 B as ExPW3/A. He also proved the computerized copy of FIR No. 139/13 as Ex.PW3/B and State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 4. of22 endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW3/C. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
8. PW4 Ct. Satyaveer deposed that on 13.04.2013 he was posted at PS KNK Marg as a constable. On that day on the receipt of the DD no. 32 B regarding the accident he accompanied IO SI Suresh Chand and reached at MGS Hospital, Punjabi Bagh. After reaching there IO SI Suresh Chand collected the MLC of the injured namely Zubeen Goswami. IO recorded the statement of injured Zubeen i.e. Ex. PW 2/A and IO made the endorsement on the complaint/rukka. He further deposed that on the instruction of the IO he went to the PS and got the present FIR registered. After the registration of the FIR he returned back at the spot, whereat IO SI Suresh Chand, accused Vikas Bisht, eye witness Mridul Chauhan and Kuldeep Tiwari, who was the owner of the car were already present there and he handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. He further deposed that IO had given notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of the offending car, namely Pradeep Tiwari and at that time, owner of the car had given written reply of the notice and stated that accused Vikas Bisht was driving the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 3CR 3434, at the time of incident. IO seized the accidental scooty bearing registration no. DL 11S 7929 and car bearing registration no. DL 3CR 3434 , vide seizure Ex. PW 4/A and Ex.PW 4/B, both bearing his signature at point State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 5. of22 A,respectively. IO seized the photocopy of the RC and insurance vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/C. IO also seized the DL of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/D. He further deposed that accused was arrested and his personal search was also conducted vide arrest memo Ex. PW 4/E and personal search memo Ex. PW 4/F, both bearing his signature at point A. IO prepared the site plan during the investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses. PW4 correctly identified the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration no. DL 3CR 3434 through photographs, which were available on record, Ex.P1 to Ex. P6. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
9. PW5 Retired SI Suresh Chand was the Investigating Officer of the present case, who deposed that on 13.04.2013, he was posted at PS KNK Marg as SI. On that day, he had received the information vide DD No. 32 B Ex.PW3/A and after receipt of the same, he along with Ct. Satyavir reached at MGS Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, whereat he collected the MLC of the injured namely Zubin Goswami, and he recorded his statement , as Doctor declared him fit for statement. He further deposed that he reduced the said information into complaint of the complainant Zubin i.e. Ex.PW2/A bearing my signatures at point B, and prepared the rukka and hand over the same to Ct. Satyavir and got the present case FIR registered at PS . He met State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 6. of22 the father of Mridul, who also sustained some minor injuries but his medical examination was not conducted. Thereafter, he reached at the spot along with father of Mridul, who called Mridul at the spot and at the instance of eye witness Mridul, he prepared the site plan Ex. D1. In the meantime, Ct. Satyavir also reached at the spot and handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further deposed that at the spot he seized the accidental scooty and maruti car and prepared the seizure memo of the scooty and car i.e. Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B, both bearing his signatures at point B. He recorded the statement of witness Mridul. He further deposed that accused Vikas also reached at the spot and he made inquiries from him. After interrogation he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/E and personal search memo Ex. PW4/F. Thereafter, accused was released on police bail and he brought the case property in the malkhana of PS KNK Marg. He obtained the nature of injury upon the MLC, mechanical inspection of the car and scooty, i.e. Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, both bearing my signatures at point A. After the completion of investigation, he prepared the challan sheet of the present case.
PW5 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the court as he was not disclosing the complete facts. During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the state PW5 admitted that he served the notice under Section 133 State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 7. of22 MV Act upon Kuldeep Tiwari, who was the owner of the car bearing registration No. DL3CR3434 and owner had given the reply to the said notice from portion A1 to A2, He further admitted that he seized the photocopy of the RC and insurance of the car, which were already Ex.PW4/C and also arrested the accused at the instance of the eye witness Mridul. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
10. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 04.10.2019.
Statement under section 313 Cr.PC
11. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All incriminating material brought on record was put to the accused to which he denied the allegations made against him and claimed himself to be innocent and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence and the same was closed. Arguments
12. On the basis of the above oral and documentary evidence on record, learned APP requested for conviction of the accused and severe punishment as per law.
Point for determination State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 8. of22
13. In the present case, accused was chargesheeted under Sections 279 and 338 IPC Hence, the points for determination are following :
1. Whether the accused was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. DL 3CR 3434 at a public place in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others?
2. Whether the accused by so driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner caused grievous injury to one Zubin Goswami?
Answers to point for determination:
I) No. II) No. Reasons for determination
14. The onus lies on the prosecution to prove these allegations against the accused.
15. In the present case, charges brought against the accused are under Sections 279/338 IPC for driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and thereby causing grievous hurt to the complainant Zubin Goswami. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined five witnesses in its evidence. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 9. of22 prove:
Firstly, that accident in question took place; Secondly, accused was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time and thirdly, accused was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle in question.
So far, question of taking place of accident is concerned, the same is not disputed. The injury sustained by the complainant is also undisputed in the present case.
16. The next question to be determined by the court is, whether accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident or not. In the present case, the identity of the accused is not in doubt as PW1 i.e. Kuldeep Kumar, being the registered owner of the offending vehicle stated vide his statement recorded on 08.09.2015 ,that he will not dispute the identity of the vehicle bearing No. DL3CR3434during the trial. Further, it is deposed by PW 1 i.e. Sh.Kuldeep Kumar that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 3CR 3434 and on 03.04.2013, accused i.e. Vikas Bisht was driving the said vehicle.
17. Now, since the identity of the accused stands undisputed, the only material question which is left to be determined is: State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 10. of22 Whether the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligence manner at the time when the alleged incident took place?
18. Before delving into the merits of this material issue, it becomes necessary to understand the emote of the term criminal negligence as defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bala Chandra Vs. State of Maharashtra 1968 SC1319;
"Criminal Negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen. Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputeability arises from acting despite the consciousness".
In deciding the question as to whether the accused was guilty of rash or negligent act within the scope of above sections, the court has to judge as to the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man is said to be having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
19. In the light of the above definitions, in the present State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 11. of22 case in order to sustain the conviction of the accused, testimony of injured / eye witness is most crucial and vital. According to the deposition of PW2 (injured), on the fateful day he along with his friend Mridul Chauhan was going to the District Park on his scooty and when he reached at Sector6, Rohini and turned towards the District Park, one vehicle i.e. Maruti 800 came from the side and struck to the divider and also hit him. He further stated in his examinationinchief that thereafter some persons from the public asked for his mother's mobile number and thereafter his mother came to the spot and took him to the hospital. Witness further stated that his statement was recorded by the police and the same is Ex.PW2/A. At this stage, it becomes vital to state that witness/ complainant nowhere states in his examinationinchief that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. Not only this, it further becomes pertinent to mention that there is no iota of whisper of any kind of rashness, negligence or laxity on the part of the accused resulting in the present accident. It is only after the Ld. APP crossexamined the witness and had put leading questions to him that the latter submitted that the incident took place due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL 3CR 3434. It is a settled proposition of law that simplicitor stating that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 12. of22 negligent manner does not suffice and the injured has to categorically mention the manner in which the accused was driving for it to be rash and negligent. It is further pertinent to mention that PW1 stated in his crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP for the State that at the time of the accident the accused was coming from Sector15 side but as per the site plan the direction of the offending car is shown to be moving towards Sector17. Thus, this depiction of the direction of the alleged offending vehicle by PW2 in his deposition is per se contradictory to the site plan in question. It is further material to mention that PW2 stated in his crossexamination that he along with his friend Mridul fell down on the road after the accident but in his crossexamination conducted by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness stated that he does not remember as to on which side of the road he fell down. It is further essential to state that the witness deposes in his crossexamination that they had crossed a distance of about 20 steps ahead of District Park when the alleged accident took place but in the site plan placed on record and exhibited as D1, no location of District Park is shown anywhere. It is also paramount to mention that PW2 deposed that the accident took place in a head to head collusion and so being the case, the victim ought to have specifically seen the vehicle and should have know the direction in which he fell but on the contrary he states that, ' I do not remember as to State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 13. of22 which side of the scooty I had fallen after the collusion'. This all the more becomes vital as PW2 himself states that neither he nor did his friend Mridul fell unconscious after the accident rather he states that they were in a conscious state.
20. It is crucial to mention that PW2 states in his cross examination that he remained in the hospital for 1 or 2 days and thereafter he came to his house and in his house he was on bed rest for about 6 to 7 months and he further deposed that he did not go to the spot where the accident took place after he being discharged from the hospital, implying thereby that the site plan in question was not made at the instance of the injured. PW2 further admits in his crossexamination that he did not go to the spot of accident from his house till he remained on bed rest, further implying that in the event of the site plan not being prepared at the instance of the witness, it ought to have been proved cogently and beyond doubts.
21. At this stage, the scrutiny of the site plan becomes vital because as per the site plan Ex. D1, the accident took place at point A but as per the deposition of PW2 in his cross examination the accident took place at point Z, implying thereby that there is a major discrepancy with regard to the actual spot/ point at which the accident took place. Further, if the version of the injured i.e. PW2 is believed to be gospel truth and the accident is believed to have taken place at point Z, then on the State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 14. of22 face of it, laxity and the negligence on the part of the injured is reflected because if, the accident had taken place at point Z then naturally the injured had taken a right turn from the crossing of EBlock and the same is a turn towards the wrong side of the road and thus on the face of it laxity, negligence and rashness is reflected on the part of the injured as he was driving on the wrong side of the road. This fact further gets credence and support from the aspect that PW2 stated in his cross examination that at the time of accident he was not having a Driving License and further no clarity is adduced with regard to the age of the accused being that of major at the time when the accident took place.
22. At this stage, it also become apposite to analyse the testimony of PW5 i.e. Retired SI Suresh Chand, who stated in his crossexamination that the accident as per the site plan took place a point X and so being the scenario as per the version of PW5 accident took place at point X and as per the site plan the accident took place at point Z but on the other had as per the version of injured the accident had taken place at point Z, implying thereby that there is major discrepancy and material contradiction with regard to the exact point at which the alleged accident took place and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish this aspect cogently. The only material witnesses, who could have thrown light on the aspect of the actual point of the State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 15. of22 occurrence of the accident are the injured himself i.e. PW2 and eye witness Mridul Chauhan, who was the pillion rider along with the injured on his scooty on the fateful day of the incident. The injured has stated that the accident had taken place at point Z and if the said version is believed to be true, the entire negligence is established on the part of the injured himself. The other and the only material witness, who could have actually adduced clarity with regard to the actual point of occurrence of the accident was PW Mridul Chauhan but he has not been examined by the prosecution. The examination of PW Mridul Chauhan was further virtal as it is categorically stated by PW5 in his crossexamination that the site plan was prepared at the instance of eye witness Mridul and in the absence of he being examined as one of the prosecution witnesses, the case of the prosecution stands punctured on most pivotal aspect . In Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansingh[5] the Court has opined that it is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not [pic] convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would obligethe State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 16. of22 court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case. In such a case the court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The court of facts must ask itself whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court ? If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the witness already examined and reliable and the testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the court can safely act upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of nonexamination of other witness.
23. Another angle which weakens the case of the prosecution is that the incident took place during the day time on a busy road but despite that no independent public witness has been examined by the prosecution, more so in circumstances where PW5 categorically states that the scooty of the injured was brought to the PS with the help of public persons and so being the case their statements ought to have been recorded and they ought to have been examined as prosecution witnesses but the prosecution has miserably failed to do the same.
24. Thus, one of the prime features of deposition of eye witness is the exact location of the accident and the same is in State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 17. of22 total contradiction to the site plan as well as the spot of accident stated by PW5. It may further be appreciated that according to the version of the injured himself the possibility of the accused being rash and negligent stands negated as the injured was the one driving on the wrong side of the road. He did not mention any specific speed of the offending vehicle. In the present case, it is not denied that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident but the line of argument harped upon by the defence is that the accident occurred because of fault and negligence on the part of the injured himself. It is noteworthy that there is no other independent public witness examined by the prosecution and no notice was given by the IO to the public persons. There are no specific photograph on record to show the respective position in which the vehicles were found at the spot. The testimony of the injured not only suffers from inter se contradiction but is also not supported by any other cogent evidence or independent witness and same has proved fatal to the case of the prosecution. Merely because a bigger vehicle has hit a smaller vehicle, the person driving the bigger vehicle cannot be held responsible for the accident.
25. I would like to place reliance on the judgment of Abdul Subhan v. State [133 (2006) DLT 562, Delhi High Court ] , wherein it was observed that, " merely coming to a conclusion that a vehicle was State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 18. of22 being driven at a high speed does not in itself mean the accused was driving a vehicle rashly or negligently. It laid emphasis upon many questions such as were the traffic lights working or not? What is meant by high speed? Why there is no evidence with regard to tyreskid marks? What was the speed of motorcyclist? It was held that in a criminal trial, burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests or the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exception. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor".
26. Now, I would like to refer to the judgment in the case of Devender v. State (185) (2011) DLT 655, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein it was held that:
"7. It is wrong proposition that for any motor accident negligence of the driver should be presumed. An accident of such a nature as would primafacie show that it cannot be a counted to anything other than the negligence of the driver of vehicle may create a presumption and in such a case the driver has to explain how the accident happened without negligence on his part. Merely because a passenger fell down from the bus while boarding the bus, no presumption of negligence State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 19. of22 can be drawn against the driver of the bus.
8. The principle of rest ipsa loquitor is only a rule of evidence to determine the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. The said principle has application only when the nature of the accident and the attending circumstances would reasonably read to the belief that in the absence of negligence, the accident would not have occurred and that the thing which caused injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the alleged wrong doer.
9. A rash act is primarily and over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still, a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with in difference as to the consequence. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution regarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt to such reasonable and proper care and caution.]
27. Further, I would also like to emphasis on judgment of Ram Avtar v. State of Rajasthan, II (2006) ACC 438, passed by Rajasthan High Court, wherein it is held that :
" thus, the essential ingredients for offence U/S 279 IPC is that the vehicle should be driven in rash and negligent manner. The concept of State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 20. of22 rashness and negligence is borrowed from the law of tort into the criminal law. But in criminal law for rashness the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference to the consequences. On the other hand, criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against the injury either to the public generally or to the individual in particular, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Hence, the prosecution has to prove the existence of these two elements to bring home the offence U/S 279 IPC. However, the mere fact that the accused was driving the vehicle at high speed may not attract the provision of Section 279 IPC. For, speed of vehicle is not always determinative of the question whether vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. One has to consider the surrounding circumstances of the case to conclude whether the driving was done in rash and negligent manner or not.
28. In the case of Badri Prasad Tiwari v. State (1994) ACC 476. the Hon'ble Orisa High Court has held that, ' in order to constitute an offence U/S 279 IPC it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or to likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person."
State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 21. of22
29. Therefore, after scanning the entire record and keeping in view the above discussions, this court finds no hesitation in holding that in the absence of compelling and persuasive testimony of the injured on record and the same being inter se contradictory and being uncorroborated by the site plan or testimonies of any other eye witness, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the present case against the accused and hence, the accused Vikas Bisht is hereby acquitted for offence punishable U/S 279/338 IPC File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
Announced in the open court SHARMA Date: 2019.11.14
12:05:03 +0530
on 13th day of November, 2019. ( Richa Sharma) MM08(N): Rohini Courts:Delhi State v. Vikas Bisht FIR No. 139/13 PS KNK Marg Page No 22. of22