Delhi District Court
Identity. In The Case Of Sheikh Hasib vs . State Of Bihar Air 1972 Sc on 20 October, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER DUDEJA : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 97/09.
FIR No. 209/03.
P.S: Keshav Puram
U/S: 394/397/411/34 IPC
STATE
Versus
1. Praveen @ Chilli,
S/o Nand Kishore,
R/o 1503/106, Tota Ram Bazar,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
2. Sanjay S/o Moti Lal,
R/o 362B/6, Narang Colony,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
3. Deepak S/o Devi Singh,
R/o A-1332, JJ Colony,
Wazir Pur, Delhi.
4. Dharmender,
S/o Nand Lal,
R/o House No. G-2/8,
Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 23.09.2003.
Date of Argument : 06.10.2010.
Date of Judgment : 20.10.2010.
JUDGMENT
1. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.06.2003, complainant Mukesh Aggarwal was going on his scooter and that at about 9.45 pm when he reached at Road No. 37, near bus stand, Tri Nagar, he stopped the scooter to vomit, he was caught by the accused FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 1 of 17 persons, given beatings and caused injuries with sharp weapons. Thereafter, they snatched gold chain weighing about two and a half Tolas from his neck and also snatched a black colour purse from his pocket which contained Rs. 1000/-, his driving license, an ATM card of Union Bank of India and some visiting cards. After robbing the complainant, accused persons fled away from the spot. FIR was registered under Section 394/34 IPC. Accused Praveen @ Chilli was arrested in case FIR No. 215/03 under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Keshav Puram. He gave disclosure statement with regard to his involvement in the present case. He was arrested in this case. On 27.06.2003, co-accused Deepak and Sanjay were arrested at the instance of accused Praveen @ Chilli. Accused Deepak and Sanjay also gave disclosure statements. Purse containing Rs. 375/- and some visiting cards, belonging to the complainant, were recovered from accused Sanjay. Accused Praveen @ Chilli was identified in TIP by the complainant. Accused Sanjay refused to take part in the TIP. Complainant could not identify the third accused Deepak. Accused Dharmender was declared Proclaimed Offender. The purse recovered from accused Sanjay was produced in court for TIP but the learned MM dismissed the TIP application on the ground that case property was produced in an unsealed condition. The knife recovered from accused Praveen @ Chilli was sent to FSL for opinion. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Praveen @ Chilli, Sanjay and Deepak under Section 394/397/411/34 IPC. The name of accused Dharmender was kept in Column No. 2 of the charge sheet. On receipt of FSL result, the same was filed in court. Accused Dharmender was later arrested in case FIR No. 150/04 under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Keshav Puram. He was arrested in the present case. He was identified in TIP by the complainant. On completion of investigation, supplementary charge sheet was filed against him under FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 2 of 17 Section 394/397/411/34 IPC.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC, case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 397/394/34 IPC was framed against all the four accused by my learned predecessor to which, they pleaded not guilty. Separate charge under Section 411 IPC was also framed against accused Deepak to which, he pleaded not guilty.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses. PW-1 is Mukesh Aggarwal. He is the complainant. He proved the statement given to the police which is Exbt. PW-1/A. He could not identify accused Sanjay. He could not identify the purse and the currency notes allegedly recovered from accused Sanjay. However, he identified the visiting cards Exbt. P-2/1 to 11.
PW-2 is ASI Babu Lal, Duty Officer. He proved the FIR Exbt. PW-2/B. PW-3 is Constable Harkesh. He is the witness of investigation. He deposed that in the night of 20/21.06.2003, he and SI Naresh reached at Road No. 37, bus stand Shanti Nagar where injured Mukesh Aggarwal met them. Constable Girdhar also joined them. He and SI Naresh took the injured to BJRM Hospital where he was got medically examined. His MLC was collected and a parcel duly sealed with the seal of the hospital was seized vide memo Exbt. PW-3/A. He stated that IO had recorded the statement of the injured and sent him with Rukka at the police station for the registration of the FIR.
PW-4 is HC Umed Singh. He had arrested accused FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 3 of 17 Praveen in case FIR No. 215/03 under Section 25 Arms Act and had recorded his disclosure statement Exbt. PW-4/A. He stated that accused Praveen had pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Exbt. PW-4/B. He deposed that accused Dharmender was arrested by ASI Dhanpat Singh on 25.03.2004 vide arrest memo Exbt. PW-4/C and on interrogation, he gave disclosure statement Exbt. PW- 4/D. PW-5 is Dr. Shipra Rampal. He had examined the X-Ray plate of the complainant. He proved her report as Exbt. PW-5/A. PW-6 is Dr. Sanjay Kumar from BJRM Hospital. He proved the MLC of complainant as Exbt. PW-6/A. PW-7 is HC Rajpal Singh. He had arrested accused Dharmender in case FIR No. 158/04 under Section 25/27/54 59 Arms Act. He had prepared the Kallandra under Section 41.1 Cr. PC which is Exbt. PW-7/A and informed the Duty Officer. He proved the arrest memo of accused Dharmender as Exbt. PW-7/B and personal search memo Exbt. PW-7/C. PW-8 is Constable Narender but he was given up by the learned Additional PP.
PW-9 is ASI Dhanpat Singh. He deposed that on 25.03.2004, HC Rajpal Singh produced accused Dharmender in court and that he and HC Umed Singh came and formally arrested accused Dharmender and recorded his disclosure statement. He further deposed that TIP of accused Dharmender was conducted on 02.04.2004 and that accused Dharmender was correctly identified in FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 4 of 17 TIP by complainant Mukesh Aggarwal. He further deposed that while in police custody, accused Dharmender pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Exbt. PW-9/B. PW-10 is Constable Girdhar. He is also the witness of investigation who assisted the IO in the investigation on 21.06.2003 and 27.06.203. He is the witness of arrest of accused Praveen @ Chilli in the present case. He deposed that accused Praveen @ Chilli had pointed out the place of occurrence and that accused Deepak and Sanjay were also arrested in the present case and they gave disclosure statements.
PW-11 is Constable Banwari Lal. He is also a formal witness of investigation. He is one of the witnesses to the pointing out memo Exbt. PW-4/B prepared at the instance of accused Praveen.
PW-12 is Constable Inderjeet Singh. He is also the witness of investigation. He deposed that accused Praveen led the police party to Mastana Park, Tri Nagar from where on his pointing out, co-accused Deepak and Sanjay, who were sitting in the park, were apprehended and gave disclosure statements Exbt. PW-10/A and Exbt. PW-10/B respectively. He further deposed that accused Sanjay had disclosed that he had concealed the purse containing some papers of the complainant at his shop at Main Road, Narang Colony and that he can get them recovered. After that, accused Sanjay led the police to his shop at the above mentioned place and got recovered one purse which contained some visiting cards and cash of Rs. 375/-. The purse containing cash and visiting cards was then seized by the IO vide memo Mark A. FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 5 of 17 PW-13 is SI Naresh Bhatia. He is the IO of this case.
During investigation, he went at the spot from where he rushed complainant Mukesh Aggarwal to BJRM Hospital and after medical examination, he recorded the statement of Mukesh Aggarwal and prepared the Rukka Exbt. PW-2/A and sent the same at police station through Constable Harkesh for the registration of the FIR. He prepared the site plan Exbt. PW-13/A of the place of occurrence. On 25.06.2003, he prepared site plan Exbt. PW-13/B at the instance of the complainant. On 27.06.2003, he apprehended accused Praveen @ Chilli in case FIR No. 215/03 under Section 25 Arms Act. Investigation of case FIR No. 215/03 was carried out by HC Umed Singh who informed SI Naresh regarding the disclosure given by accused Praveen @ Chilli about his involvement in the present case. He then arrested accused Praveen @ Chilli in the present case and arrested accused Sanjay and Deepak at his instance from Mastana Park, Tri Nagar. He then recorded the disclosure statements of accused Deepak and Sanjay and recovered a black colour purse containing 11 visiting cards and cash amount of Rs. 375/- at the instance of accused Sanjay. He had also filed an application for TIP of accused Sanjay, Deepak and Praveen but his application of TIP of purse was dismissed by the court as the purse was produced in an unsealed condition. He deposed that the knife recovered from accused Praveen @ Chilli along with clothes of victim were sent to FSL.
PW-14 is Smt. Archana Sinha, the then MM. She had conducted the TIP of accused Sanjay, Deepak, Praveen and Dharmender. She has proved the TIP proceedings as Exbt. PW-14/B to Exbt. PW-14/D and Exbt. PW-14/H. PW-15 is Sh. M.K. Nagpal, the then MM. He had FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 6 of 17 dismissed the application of TIP of case property with observation that case property was produced in an unsealed condition and therefore the purpose of conducting TIP stood frustrated.
PW-16 is HC Rajpal Singh. He had arrested the accused Dharmender in case FIR No. 150/04 under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Keshav Puram and prepared Kallandra under Section 41.1 Cr. PC.
4. Statements of all the four accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence put to them. They refused to lead defence evidence.
5. Arguments were heard from Sh. R.K. Rawat, advocate for accused No. 1, Sh. Shubham Asri, advocate, Amicus Curiae for accused Deepak, Sanjay and Dharmender and also from the learned Addition PP for the State. The learned defence counsels have argued that the testimony of the complainant does not inspire confidence. There is no recovery from accused Praveen, Deepak and Dharmender. Test Identification Parade of accused Praveen was not conducted in proper manner as the TIP proceedings does not bear his signatures. The learned Additional PP, however, argues that the testimony of PW-1 is straight forward and cogent and there is no reason to disbelieve him and the TIP proceedings were also conducted as per law.
6. I have carefully gone through the records of the case. PW- 1 Mukesh Aggarwal has deposed that on 20.06.2003, he was returning to his house on a two wheeler scooter and at about 9.45 pm when he reached near Shanti Street, Shastri Nagar/Tri Nagar, he felt uneasiness and therefore he stopped his scooter and tried to vomit. At that time, 4- 5 persons came there and started giving him beatings and also stabbed him. They snatched his gold chain weighing about 27 gms and his FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 7 of 17 purse containing his visiting cards, ATM card, Rs. 500/- - 1000/-, driving license and other documents from his possession. He stated that he was stabbed with knife like weapon. He then raised alarm. Accused persons ran away from the spot with booty. He further deposed that he went to the house of his brother in law Narender and from there, he went to police post Tri Nagar. He was taken to BJRM Hospital where he was got medically examined and his statement Exbt. PW-1/A was recorded by the IO. Complainant identified accused Praveen, Deepak and Dharmender. He further stated that he was called at Tis Hazari Court for the purpose of identification of his articles but they were not shown to him. When shown the recovered articles in court, he could not identify the purse, recovered currency notes and receipt. However, he identified the visiting cards Exbt. PW-2/1 to Exbt. PW-2/11. PW-1 was declared hostile on the point of identity of accused Sanjay and was cross examined by the learned Additional PP. He denied that he had identified accused Sanjay before the police. He denied that he had identified accused Sanjay in Tis Hazari Court and also denied that accused Sanjay had snatched his purse at the time of incident. Complainant was also cross examined by the learned counsels of the accused. In his cross examination, he admitted that accused Sanjay was not present at the spot and he was not involved in the present case. He stated that he identified accused Dharmender in TIP as he was having dim picture in his mind. He denied that photos of accused Dharmender, Praveen and Deepak were shown to him before identification. He stated that he did not lose his consciousness. According to him, house of his brother in law Narender was at a distance of one and a half kilometers from the spot. He stated that his pant got smeared with blood and that he has no knowledge if blood stained clothes were given to the police. He further stated that statement Exbt. PW-1/A was recorded by the police at his house on the FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 8 of 17 same night. He admitted that similar purses are easily available in the market. He admitted that none of the articles were recovered from accused in his presence but denied that police had shown him the photos of accused and that he had identified them at the instance of the IO.
7. The learned Additional PP has argued that accused Sanjay had refused to take part in Test Identification Parade and therefore his refusal to take part in TIP goes against him and is an incriminating piece of evidence against him. It is evident from the testimony of PW-1 that he has not been able to identify accused Sanjay in court. The evidence of TIP merely corroborates and strengthen the oral testimony in court which alone is the primary and substantive evidence as to identity. In the case of Sheikh Hasib Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the purpose of test identification is to test that evidence, the safe rule being that the sworn testimony of the witness in court as to the identity of the accused who is a stranger to him, as a general rule, requires corroboration in the form of an earlier identification proceeding."
8. In Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of J&K AIR 1972 SC 102, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"..... it maybe remembered that the substantive evidence of a witness is his evidence in court, but when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned then identification of the accused by the witness soon after the former's arrest is of vital importance because it furnishes to the investigating agency an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in court at trial."FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 9 of 17
9. In the case of Mohd. Kalam @ Abdul Kalam Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC 1813, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the purpose of TIP is to help the investigating agency with assurance that its progress is on right line. Test Identification Parade also helps in testing the veracity of witness. Identification during Test Identification Parade is not a substantive evidence but it strengthens the trustworthiness of evidence of identification given in court. Similarly, in a recent case of Mahabir Vs. State of Delhi AIR 2008 SC 2343, Hon'ble Court held that TIP does not constitute substantive evidence. It can only be used as corroborative of statement in court.
10. In the test identification proceedings Exbt. PW-14/B, accused Sanjay had refused to take part in the identification proceedings. By refusing to take part in TIP, accused Sanjay faced the risk of his identification for the first time in court by the witness. But, complainant has not identified him in court. The refusal to take part in TIP although an incriminating fact, is not sufficient to prove the identity of accused Sanjay once he is not identified in court. Thus, prosecution has failed to establish the identity of accused Sanjay as one of assailants.
11. The learned Additional PP has argued that prosecution is also relying on the evidence of recovery of purse containing currency notes and visiting cards at the instance of accused Sanjay. SI Naresh Bhatia (PW-13) and Constable Inderjeet Singh (PW-12) are the witnesses of recovery examined by the prosecution. SI Naresh Bhatia has deposed that accused Sanjay gave disclosure statement Exbt. PW- 10/B and led the police party to his shop from where, he got recovered one purse of black colour which contained 11 visiting cards and cash FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 10 of 17 amount of Rs. 375/- which were seized vide memo Exbt. PW-13/X1. Admittedly, the recovery was not affected from accused Sanjay in the presence of the complainant. There is no independent public witness of recovery. All the recovery witnesses are police officials. Statutory desirability in the matter of search and seizure is that there should be support from unbiased and neutral corner. The search before an independent witness imparts much more authenticity and credit worthiness to the search and seizure proceedings. Such safeguard is intended to avoid criticism of arbitrary and highhanded action against police officers. This is to lend credibility to the procedure relating to search and seizure. Indubitably, if the evidence of the official witnesses is found to be credible and coherent, same can alone prove to be foundation for conviction and normally, prosecution case cannot be thrown away straightaway merely because chief plank of evidence is that of official witnesses. However, it puts the court on guard and the testimony of such official witnesses is, in such a situation, liable to be scrutinized with extra caution and simultaneously prosecution has to offer satisfactory explanation for not associating independent witnesses. Since the alleged recovery was affected pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused, there was enough opportunity with the IO to join any public witness. There is no explanation as to why the public persons were not joined at the time of recovery. In cross examination, SI Naresh Bhatia states that the purse was recovered from a wooden safe but Constable Inderjeet states that the purse was lying underneath the cloth of press table. Thus, there is contradiction with regard to the place of recovery of purse which makes the recovery at the instance of accused Sanjay doubtful.
12. Admittedly, purse was not sealed. Thus the possibility of tampering of case property is also not ruled out. The same was FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 11 of 17 produced in TIP in an unsealed condition and therefore learned MM had dismissed the application for the TIP of case property. There is no prior identification of the case property through TIP. Complainant himself has not identified the purse and currency notes in court. Complainant has only identified his visiting cards but the possibility of planting the visiting cards on the accused also cannot be ruled out as the case property was not immediately sealed after its recovery. There is no other evidence against accused Sanjay except disclosure statement given to the police, which is not admissible in evidence. Hence in so far as accused Sanjay is concerned, prosecution has failed to prove its case against him.
13. The learned defence counsel has argued that in TIP proceedings, complainant could not identify accused Deepak but the learned Additional PP has argued that accused Deepak has been identified in court by the complainant and the evidence regarding the identification of accused Deepak in court cannot be disbelieved.
14. When the identity of the accused is not known to the eye witness, it is incumbent upon the investigating officer to get such suspect identified in Test Identification Parade which tests the memory of eye witness regarding the identity of the accused. It is a settled law that the identification of accused, not earlier known to the witness for the first time in court is no identification. In this case during TIP proceedings, complainant Mukesh Aggarwal could not identify accused Deepak. He identified him for the first time in court. The TIP was conducted only a few days after the occurrence. It is not understood how a witness, who is unable to identify the accused in TIP conducted after few days of occurrence, is able to identify the same accused after more than an year. There appears to be possibility that after TIP, FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 12 of 17 accused Deepak was shown to the complainant which enabled him to identify him in court. The identification of accused Deepak for the first time in court therefore carries no weight and therefore I refuse to rely on the evidence of such identification. No recovery has been affected from accused Deepak. Once the evidence of identification against accused Deepak is discarded, there is no other iota of evidence against him. Disclosure statement given by him to police is also inadmissible in evidence. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Deepak.
15. So far as accused Praveen and Dharmender are concerned, as per evidence, accused Praveen was arrested in case FIR No. 215/03 under Section 25 Arms Act PS Keshav Puram on 27.06.2003 and on the basis of disclosure statement given in the said case, he was arrested in the present case. Accused Dharmender was arrested on 21.03.2004 in case FIR No. 158/04 under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and on the basis of disclosure statement, he was arrested in the present case. Smt. Archana Sinha, the then MM (PW-
14) deposed that accused Praveen and Dharmender were correctly identified by complainant Mukesh Aggarwal during TIP proceedings. TIP proceedings have been proved as Exbt. PW-14/A and Exbt. PW- 14/H. Both these accused have also been identified in court by the complainant. Identification of accused Praveen and Dharmender during TIP corroborates the evidence of identification by complainant in court. The learned counsel of accused Praveen has argued that TIP proceedings Exbt. PW-14/D do not bear the signatures of accused Praveen and therefore it is not proved that accused Praveen had taken part in TIP. As per TIP proceedings Exbt. PW-14/D, accused Praveen was identified before the learned MM by Assistant Superintendent of the Jail. The proceedings prove that accused had joined nine other FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 13 of 17 persons of his choice in the identification proceedings. He was twice got identified from the complainant after change of place. Merely because the signatures of accused Praveen are not in the proceedings sheet, does mean that he was not present in the TIP proceedings. TIP proceedings are judicial proceedings conducted by a Magistrate. Accused has not cross examined the learned MM. There is no suggestion that accused Praveen did not take part in the TIP proceedings. I therefore refuse to believe that accused Praveen had not taken part in the TIP proceedings or that TIP proceedings were not conducted in a proper manner merely because it does not bear his signatures.
16. In his cross examination, PW-1 Mukesh Aggarwal deposed that some public persons had gathered at the spot on hearing his alarm. It is argued by the learned defence counsel that no other public witness has been cited by the prosecution which could corroborate the testimony of PW-1. It is a settled law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness. One credible witness outweighs the testimonies of indifferent character. Section 134 has categorically laid down that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In taking this view, I am supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308. Therefore, non-examination of other public persons, who reached at the spot on hearing the alarm of the complainant is not fatal to the prosecution case.
17. It has been argued by the learned defence counsel that there is contradiction in the testimony of the complainant and the IO, in as much as, complainant has deposed that he went from the spot to the FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 14 of 17 house of his brother in law Narender and from there, they went to Police Post Tri Nagar and then he was taken to BJRM Hospital. In cross examination, he stated that his statement was recorded at his house but SI Naresh Bhatia deposed that he had rushed the complainant to the hospital from the spot and had recorded the statement of complainant in the hospital. The learned defence counsel has pointed out that as per MLC Exbt. PW-6/A, complainant was brought to the hospital by Constable Harkesh, on the other hand, IO claims that he had got the complainant admitted in the hospital. It is thus submitted that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution case which makes the testimonies of the witnesses doubtful.
18. In the case of Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 209, the Supreme Court laid down that the conscience of the court can never be bound by any rule but that is coming itself dictates the consciousness and prudent exercise of the judgment. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of offence to be investigated. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent.
19. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as oppose to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. In the present case, admittedly, FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 15 of 17 there are few contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and the IO as has been pointed out above by the learned defence counsel but these contradictions cannot be regarded as material contradictions. Unless the discrepancies and contradictions are so material and substantial and that too in respect of vitally relevant aspects of the facts deposed, witnesses cannot be straightaway condemned and their evidence cannot be discarded in its entirety. Hence, in my view, in the present case, testimonies of the witnesses, in particular that of complainant, cannot be disbelieved merely because of contradictions on trivial aspects of the case. No previous enmity or ill-will has been alleged against the complainant for false implication of accused Praveen and Deepak, who have been duly identified by the complainant in court as also in the TIP and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1, which has been proved to be straight forward and cogent. It is argued on behalf of the accused that knife Exbt. P-7 recovered from accused Praveen was not shown to the complainant for confirming that the same was used in robbery and also there is no recovery of weapon from other accused and therefore Section 397 IPC is not made out. It is correct that there is no evidence which proves that knife Exbt. P-7 was used in the commission of robbery. It is also correct that weapon has not been recovered from the other co-accused but complainant has deposed that all the assailants had stabbed and caused injuries to him with knife like weapon. Dr. Sanjay Kumar has proved the MLC of the complainant. Non recovery of weapon of offence is therefore not fatal to the prosecution case.
20. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Sanjay and Deepak but has duly proved its case against accused Praveen and Dharmender. Accused Sanjay and Deepak are therefore acquitted and FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 16 of 17 accused Praveen and Dharmender are convicted under Section 394/34/397 IPC.
(RAVINDER DUDEJA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NORTH-WEST-03:ROHINI:DELHI. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 20.10.2010.
FIR No. 209/03 Praveen @ Chilli & Ors. Page 17 of 17