Delhi District Court
State vs Aashish Kumar on 23 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ KUMAR SINGH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT020109452017
FIR No. 07/2016
PS: BHR
State Vs. Ashish Kumar
U/s: 186/353/365 IPC & 115 r/w 194 MV Act
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 5450/2017
(b) Date of offence In the intervening night of
06/07.01.2016
(c) Complainant Ct. Sanjeev Kumar
(d) Accused Ashish Kumar S/o Sh. Satya
Narayan, R/o Vill. Barah Kurva,
PS Simdi Bakhtyarpur, Distt.
Saharsa, Delhi.
(e) Offence 186/353/365 IPC & 115 r/w 194
MV Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Convicted u/s 186/353 IPC and
acquitted u/s 365 IPC & 115 r/w
194 MV Act
(h) Date of Institution 08.05.2017
(I) Date when judgment 23.02.2024
was reserved
(j) Date of judgment 23.02.2024
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present case u/s 186/353/365 IPC & 115 r/w 194 MV Act.
2. The story of the prosecution is that in the intervening night FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 1 of 17 of 06/07.01.2016 at about 11:55pm-12:05am, at DCM Chowk, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS BHR Delhi, accused voluntarily obstructed the complainant Ct. Sanjeev Kumar in discharge of his public duty and being a public servant in the execution of his duty beaten and scuffled with him and wrongfully confined him and accused while driving the vehicle No. HR 38S 2946 was directed by the complainant to stop the said vehicle but refused to stop the vehicle and thereby tried for the offence punishable under Section 186/353/365 IPC and 115/194 MV Act.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Copy of chagesheet and other scrutable documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under Section 186/353/365 IPC and 115/194 MV Act was framed against him vide order dated 29.01.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined nine witnesses:-
5. PW-1/Ct. Sandeep Kumar deposed that in the intervening night of 06/07.01.2016 he alongwith SI Niranjan Singh, HC Bhopal Singh, HC Joginder and Ct. Sohaib were on traffic checking duty at DCM Chowk from 09:00 PM to 04:00 AM. The blinkers were put on the barricade. At about 12:00 midnight, one truck bearing No. HR 38S 2946 came from the side of Filmistan and touched the barricade on the no entry. He climbed the truck FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 2 of 17 and asked driver for the documents of the truck. In the meantime, the driver hit the barricades and tried to run away, however, he was holding the door of truck and he was dragged by the driver towards Barafkhana Chowk. There was traffic at Barafkhana Chowk and the said truck got slow. The driver pushed him and he fell down from the truck and the mobile phone of driver also fell on the road. In the meantime, SI Niranjan called at 100 number. Police officials came to the spot. IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. He handed over mobile phone of driver to IO. He correctly identified accused in the court. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. He was taken to hospital by Ct. Vikram for MLC. IO recorded his statement. On 25.04.2016, he went to PS Bara Hindu Rao at about 02:00 PM and he identified the accused. Four photographs of the said mobile phone are shown to the witness and witness correctly identifies the same. The photographs are Ex. P1 (colly.).
During his cross examination he deposed that he was standing at a distance of 5-7 ft away from the barricade. The other staff members were also standing nearby the barricades. Total four barricades were put on the road. It is correct that the barricades were put in zig-zag manner. The speed of the truck was around 25-30kmph. He had signalled the accused to stop his truck and accused stopped his struck after touching the barricade. He denied the suggestion that accused showed the documents. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that the mobile phone of accused was taken away from accused forcibly. He denied the FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 3 of 17 suggestion that the accused did not run away from the spot alongwith truck. The barricades must have some impact when the accused hit against it while running away with the truck. The traffic challan of accused could not be made as he ran away after hitting the barricade and taking him with the truck. At the Barafkhana Chowk, the accused pushed him from the truck and ran away with the truck. He had seen only the accused sitting in the truck who was driving at that time. He denied the suggestion that accused did not push him however his jacket was torn. He did not hand over his jacket to the IO.
During re-examination by Ld. Ld. APP for State on the point of identity of the said truck, he deposed that he can identify the said truck if shown to him. However, Ld. counsel for accused submitted that the identity of truck bearing No. HR 38S 2946 is not disputed during trial.
6. PW-2/Retd. SI Niranjan Singh deposed that in the intervening night of 06/07.07.2016, he was posted as SI with traffic Sadar Bazar Circle. On that night, he alongwith Ct Sandeep, HC Bhopal Singh, HC Joginder and Ct Shoaib were on traffic checking duty at DCM Chowk from 09:00PM to 04:00AM. They had put the barricades and blinkers upon the barricades. At about 12:00midnight, one truck bearing registration no. HR38S 2946 came from the side of Filmistan and touched the barricade of no entry. Ct Sandeep signalled the truck driver to stop the truck and asked him to show the documents of the truck and not to proceed at no entry. The said driver asked Ct Sandeep to get on the truck and check the documents. Ct FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 4 of 17 Sandeep boarded the truck while keeping his feet on the plank built on the body of the truck of the driver side and asked for the documents of the truck. However, the truck driver hit against the barricades and took his truck towards burfkhana side. Ct Sandeep was hanging on the side of the truck. They signalled the driver to stop the truck but he did not stop the truck. The driver pushed Ct Sandeep at Burf Khana Red Light and due to push Ct Sandeep fell down and the mobile phone of driver also fell on the road. He called 100 number. IO came to spot however the driver whose name was later on revealed as Ashish Kumar managed to run away with the truck. He correctly identified accused in the Court. IO recorded statement of Ct Sandeep and handed over the truck to Ct Vikram for registration of FIR. After some time Ct Vikram returned to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO seized the said mobile phone vide seizure memo already Ex PW1/B. IO recorded his statement. The photographs of the mobile phone already Ex P1 (colly). Identity of the truck bearing registration number HR 38S 2946 was not disputed during trial. PW-3/ASI Joginder and PW-4/ASI Bhopal Singh also deposed on the same lines.
During their cross examination, they deposed that they were standing at a distance of 5-7 ft away from the barricade. The other staff members were also standing nearby the barricades. Total four barricades were put on the road. It is correct that the barricades were put in a zig-zag manner. The speed of the truck was around 25-30kmph. Ct. Sandeep had signalled the accused to stop his truck. It is correct that the accused stopped his truck after touching the barricade. They FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 5 of 17 denied the suggestion that accused showed the documents. They denied the suggestion that the mobile phone of accused was taken away from the accused forcibly. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not run away from the spot alongwith truck. The barricades must have some impact when the accused hit against it while running away with the truck. They did not know who else was present in the truck apart from accused. The traffic challan of accused could not be made as he ran away after hitting the barricade and taking Ct. Sandeep with the truck. At the Barafkhana Chowk, the accused pushed Ct. Sandeep from the truck and ran away with the truck. They had seen only the accused sitting in the truck who was driving at that time. They denied the suggestion that accused did not push Ct. Sandeep from the truck. They denied the suggestion that they deposed falsely.
7. PW-5/Dinesh Sharma deposed that on 09.05.2016, he came to PS Bara Hindu Rao alongwith Sanjay Dhama owner of truck bearing No. HR 38S 2946. On that day, the document of the above mentioned truck i.e. RC and insurance were seized in his presence vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. Truck bearing No. HR 38S 2946 was seized in his presence vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B bearing his signature at point A. On 16.05.2016, he also went to the PS Bara Hidu Rao alongwith Sanjay Dhama to take the above said truck on superdari. Panchnama was prepared in his presence which is Ex. PW5/C bearing his signature at point A. Photograph of the above said truck is shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same which is Ex. PX. IO recorded his statement in his FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 6 of 17 laptop.
8. PW-6/HC Shyob deposed that in the intervening night of 6/7th January, 2016, he was posted as Constable at Traffic Circle, Sadar Bazar. On that day, he was on duty with ZO SI Niranjan, Ct. Sandeep, HC Bhopal, Ct. Sandeep, and HC Jogender at DCM Chowk from 09:00pm to 04:00am. They were checking the vehicle after putting barricade. Blinkers light was also placed at the barricade. A truck bearing HR number came from Paharganj side towards DCM Chowk. Ct. Sandeep indicated the truck to stop and asked the driver to produce the document. Ct. Sandeep climbed to the pedestal (Payadan). Driver of the truck instead of producing the document accelerated the vehicle and fled away from the spot. Driver put the brake near Baraf Khana and pushed Ct. Sandeep and mobile phone of driver also fell down near the Baraf Khana. Ct. Sandeep got injured and came to ZO SI Niranjan. Call was made to 100 number. Police officials came from the PS Bara Hindu Rao and recorded statement of Ct. Sandeep and mobile phone was handed over to IO. Ct. Sandeep was send for medical examination. After recording statement of Ct. Sandeep, IO sent Ct. Vikram for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Vikram came at the spot and IO prepared site plan and seized mobile of accused. He correctly identified accused in the court.
During his cross examination he deposed that departure entry was marked in daily diary register however he did not remember the DD entry number. He was standing at the distance of 5-7mtrs from the barricade. It is correct that the other staff FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 7 of 17 about 5-6 official including ZO were standing near barricade. There were three barricades. It is correct that the barricades were placed in zig-zag manner. Speed of truck was around 15-20 kmph when it approached barricade. He denied the suggestion that truck was not signalled to stop. Only accused was seen at that time. He did not know which goods/articles were carried by accused as it ran away. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and he was a planted witness. He denied the suggestion that accused was beaten by police officials and mobile phone was also snatched/robbed by police officers. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present case as he could not satisfy the illegal demands of police officials.
9. PW-7/HC Vikram deposed that in the intervening night of 06/07.01.2016, he was posted as Ct. in PS Bara Hindu Rao. On that day, IO received DD No.4A and he alongwith the IO reached the spot i.e. DCM Chowk, Bara Hindu Rao where they met SI Niranjan Singh, HC Joginder, HC Bhopal, Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Shoib of Traffic Unit. IO recorded statement of Ct. Sandeep and prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. After sometime, he returned to spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to IO. IO seized the truck bearing no. HR38S 2946 vide seizure memo already Ex.PW5/B bearing his signature at point B. IO also seized the documents of the said truck vide seizure memo already Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point B. IO also seized the mobile of truck driver i.e. accused Ashish Kumar vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. Photographs of the case property are already FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 8 of 17 Ex.P-1 (colly.).
During his cross examination he deposed that he took rukka at about 01:05am and returned to spot with rukka and copy of FIR at about 01:30am. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot nor he took rukka for registration of FIR. He denied the suggestion that all the writing work was done while sitting in the PS. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
10. PW-8/SI Virender Pal deposed that on 16.05.2016, he was posted as MHC (M) (CP with PS Bara Hindu Rao). On that day, on the order of the Hon'ble Court, the said truck was released on superdari. IO prepared panchnama in his presence.
11. PW-9/Insp. Pankaj Kumar deposed that on 06.07.2016, he was posted as SI and was on emergency duty from 8:00pm to 8:00am at PS Bara Hindu Rao. On that day, a call was received at the PS wide DD No. 4A already exhibited as Ex. A-3 regarding hitting of police barricade by a truck and kidnapping of Police Constable. After receiving the above said DD entry, he alongwith Ct. Vikram went to the spot of the incident i.e. DCM Chowk where he met other traffic staff who narrated the whole incident to him and in the meanwhile Constable Sandeep (Kidnap Ct.) reached to the spot and a call was also received at the PS vide DD No. 5A that the kidnapped Constable Sandeep has been pushed by the truck driver at Azad Market traffic Light. Thereafter, he recorded the complaint of Constable Sandeep which is on record and already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 9 of 17 Thereafter, he made a Rukka on the complaint which is on record and exhibited as Ex. PW-9/A bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he sent the Rukka through constable Vikram to the PS for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he prepared site plans at the instance of Constable Sandeep as to the place where the accused person hit the truck at the barricade and kidnapped Constable Sandeep and also the place where Constable Sandeep was pushed by the truck driver after kidnapping. The said site plan are on record Ex. PW-9/B and Ex. PW-9/C bearing his signature at point A respectively. In the meanwhile, Constable Vikram came and handed over him the copy of the FIR already Ex. A1 and the original Rukka. Thereafter, Ct. Sandeep produced a Mobile Phone which fell down from the hand of the truck driver when he pushed Constable Sandeep and later on picked by him at Azad Market traffic light and it was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point C. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital where he was medically examined. Thereafter, the statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr PC. were recorded by him. The CDR details of the mobile numbers found in the seized mobile phone were obtained by him which showed the presence of accused Aashish (truck driver) at the place of the incident on that intervening night of 06/07.01.2016. During course of investigation, duty roster of posted staff was collected from Sadar Bazar Circle which shows presence of all staff. Thereafter, notice u/s 133 MV Act was served to the owner of the vehicle i.e. truck No. HR 38S 2946 to join the investigation alongwith the driver but the accused applied for anticipatory bail and was granted by the Hon'ble FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 10 of 17 Court on 01.02.2016. On 25.04.2016, accused Ashish Kumar appeared at the PS and after enquiry from the accused, accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW9/D and personal search memo of accused is Ex. PW9/E both bearing his signature at point A respectively. Thereafter, in compliance of order of Hon'ble Court the accused was released on bail. The disclosure statement of accused was also recorded vide memo Ex. PW9/F bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, accused was produced before Hon'ble Court in muffled face for TIP proceedings but the accused refused to undergo TIP. Thereafter, the truck involved in the present case was seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/B bearing his signature at point B and the papers of the truck were also seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point C. The said papers of the truck are on record which is Ex. PW8/G (colly). The truck was released on superdari and panchnama was prepared which is already Ex. PW5/C bearing his signature at point B and the photographs of the truck was also taken which are on record and the same are already Ex. P5. After completing the investigation and recording the statement of all the witnesses u/s 161 Cr. PC, sufficient evidence were found against the accused and therefore the chargesheet in the present case was filed before the Hon'ble Court. He correctly identified accused in the court.
During his cross examination he deposed that after receiving DD entry, he went to the spot on foot. The other staff members were also standing nearby the barricades. Total four barricades were put on the road. It is correct that the barricades were put in proper manner. He did not enquire from the police FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 11 of 17 officials regarding speed of truck when it hit the barricade. It is correct that the five police officials were present at the spot. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that the mobile phone of accused was taken away from accused forcibly. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not run away from the spot alongwith truck. The barricades must have some impact when the accused hit against it while running away with the truck. Mechanical inspection of truck was carried out and the report is filed with the chargesheet. No traffic challan of accused and truck was issued by the traffic police officials. It is correct that in the truck only accused Ashish was present. It is correct that the mobile phone of accused was handed over to him by Ct. Sandeep. It is correct that no police official sustained injuries except Ct. Sandeep. Damage/dent to the truck are mentioned in the mechanical inspection report. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated by Ct. Sandeep as accused did not give him Rs. 1,000/- as demanded. He did not know whether the truck could not speed due to overload of cement as accused fled away from the spot alongwith his truck. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of traffic police officials.
12. Record transpired that during course of trial, accused admitted FIR No.07/16 as Ex. A-1, Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. A-2, GD No. 4A as Ex. A-3, GD No. 5A as Ex. A-4, GD No. 4A as Ex. A-5, GD No. 5A as Ex. A-6, DD No. 1 traffic Sadar Bazar Circle as Ex. A-7, DD No. 26 as Ex. A-7, FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 12 of 17 duty roster of traffic officials for intervening night of 06/07.01.2016 as Ex. A-8, complaint u/s 195 Cr. PC dated 25.09.2016 of the then ACP Traffic North Distt, Delhi as Ex. A-9, CDR for the mobile number 8800627584 & 8800780273 as Ex. A-10 (colly.) and TIP proceedings of accused dated 28.04.2016 as Ex. A-11 vide his separate statement recorded u/s. 294 Cr.PC on 28.04.2022.
13. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 20.09.2023 and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded vide order dated 26.10.2023 to which he pleaded innocence and opted not to lead defence evidence.
14. I have heard the arguments addressed by Sh. Vishal Gupta, Ld. APP for state and Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
15. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that no public person was made witness by the IO despite the presence of public persons at and around the place of occurrence.
16. In order to prove the charge against the accused u/s 186 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove that:-
(i) There must be an obstruction;
(ii) the obstruction must be by the accused;
(iii) the obstruction must be voluntarily;
(iv) the obstruction must be of a public servant; and
(v) the obstruction must be in discharge of his i.e. the public servant's public functions.
17. In order to prove the charge against the accused u/s 353 FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 13 of 17 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove that:-
(i) That the accused assaulted or used criminal force to a public servant;
(ii) that the public servant at the time of offence was acting in the discharge of a duty imposed on him by law as such public servant;or
(iii) that the offence was committed with intent to prevent or deter the officer from discharging a duty imposed on him by law as such; or
(iv) that it was committed in consequence of something done or attempted to be done by the public servant in the lawful discharge of a duty imposed on his by law as such.
18. In order to prove the charge against the accused u/s 365 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove that:-
(i) That the accused kidnapped or abducted any person;
(ii) that he did so with the intent to cause that person to be confined secretly and wrongfully.
19. In order to prove the offence u/s 115/194 MV Act, prosecution needs to prove that use of vehicle was restricted by a notification on the officials gazette and vehicle was being driven having exceeding permissible weight.
20. The testimony of complainant Ct. Sandeep Kumar is important as well as crucial for deciding the present case. Complainant in his testimony before the Court deposed that in the intervening night of 06/07.01.2016 he alongwith SI Niranjan Singh, HC Bhopal Singh, HC Jogender and Ct. Shoab were on traffic duty at DCP Chowk from 09:00pm to 04:00am. Barricades were put with blinkers light. Accused came driving truck bearing No. HR 30S 2946 came from the side of Filmistan and touched the barricade on the no entry. Ct. Sandeep climbed the truck and asked accused/driver for the documents. Accused/driver hit the barricade and tried to ran away. However, complainant Ct.
FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 14 of 17 Sandeep caught hold of the door and dragged by accused/driver towards Baraf Khana Chowk. Due to traffic at Baraf Khana Chowk, truck got slowed and accused/driver pushed Ct. Sandeep who fell down on the road and mobile phone of accused/driver also fell on the road. His version was supported by the testimony of PWs Retd. SI Niranjan Singh, ASI Jogender and ASI Bhopal Singh, HC Shoab and HC Vikram. Testimony of above mentioned prosecution witnesses proves that accused obstructed public servant in discharge of public function and used criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duties.
21. In the present case the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are free from blemish or suspicion and duly impresses Court regarding truthfulness, same is also trustworthy, categorically free from any bias and there is nothing on record to suggest that prosecution witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the accused. This Court has no hesitation in recording the conviction of the accused. It has been held in Appa Bhai and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696 that prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. In para no.11 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed that:-
"it is no doubt true that prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There mus have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 15 of 17 the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused".
22. It is trite law that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of prosecution witness merely on the ground that they are police personnel as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karamjeet Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 2003 SC 1311. Para 8 of aforesaid judgment reads as under :
"8. testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down."
23. Prosecution has failed to prove that Ct. Sandeep was kidnapped or abducted with intention to secretly and wrongfully confine as revealed in the testimony of Ct. Sandeep that he himself caught hold of the door and was dragged by accused/driver towards Baraf Khana Chowk and regarding allegation that he was asked to stop the vehicle bearing No. HR FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 16 of 17 38S 2946 and he refused to stop the vehicle. Prima facie case u/s 32/177 MV Act is made out for which no charge/notice has been framed and prosecution failed to prove any official gazette showing restriction of entry on the road or that truck was being driven with excessive weight. Hence, accused is acquitted for offence u/s 365 IPC and 115 r/w 194 MV Act.
24. In view of the above said discussion, this court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved the offence u/s 186/353 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, accused Ashish Kumar is convicted for the offence u/s 186/353 IPC and acquitted for offence u/s 115 r/w 194 MV Act and 365 IPC.
25. Be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced and Signed in the Open Court ANUJ Digitally signed by ANUJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH on 23rd February, 2024 Date: 2024.04.19 SINGH 17:00:28 +0530 (ANUJ KUMAR SINGH) Adnl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02 Central/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi(A)
FIR no. 07/16 State Vs Ashish Kumar PS BHR Page No. 17 of 17