Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Kumar on 2 December, 2024
Dated: 02.12.2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANYA DALAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-I (N/W)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New Case No. : R-532663/16
Title of the case: : State vs. Raj Kumar etc.
FIR No. : 1475/2006, PS Sultanpuri
Date of institution : 01.06.2012
Date of reserving Judgment : 21.11.2024
Date of pronouncement : 02.12.2024
(a) The date of commission 13.09.2006
(b)The name of complainant Inspector Ravinder Singh, Addl. SHO
PS Sultanpuri.
(c) The name of accused 1. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Mangu Singh
R/o H. No. A-304, Budh Vihar Phase-
II, Gali No. 15, Shyam Colony, Delhi.
2. Ashwani S/o Sh. Desh Raj
R/o H. No. Y-12, Budh Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi.
3. Kulwant Rana S/o Late Sh.
Devender Singh R/o H. No. 7, Main
Bawana Road, Opposite DTU,
Shahbad Extension, Sector-17, Rohini,
Delhi.
(d) The offence complained of 186/353/506/34 IPC
(e)The plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 1 / 18
SANYA Digitally signed
by SANYA DALAL
Date: 2024.12.02
DALAL 16:32:33 +0530
Dated: 02.12.2024
(f)The final order Acquitted under Section 353 and 506
IPC.
Convicted under Section 186 IPC.
(g)The date of such order 02.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, facts in brief can be stated as that on 13.09.2006 at about 2.30 PM at H. No. 304, Gali No. 15, Shyam Colony, Budh Vihar, all of the accused persons namely Raj Kumar, Ashwani and Kulwant in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed a person namely Gurpratap alongwith the other staff who were discharging their official duty in the above mentioned area being the public servant and thus committed an offence under Section 186/34 IPC. Further, on the abovesaid date, time and place, all of the accused persons have used criminal force upon the persons who were discharging their official duties with intent to prevent/ deter them from discharging the same as well as have intimidated them with dire consequences, thus, committed offences under Section 353/506/34 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s 186/353/506/34 IPC, against the accused persons.
3. The cognizance for the offence u/s 186/353/506/34 IPC was taken on 29.09.2018 and the accused persons were summoned. Upon appearance of the accused persons, the compliance of Section 207 CrPC was carried out.
4. The material on record prima facie disclosed the commission of offences u/s 186/353/506/34 IPC. The FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 2 / 18 Digitally signed SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 16:32:46 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 charge was accordingly framed against the accused persons on 11.10.2019 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Hence, this Court conducted trial.
5. For proving its case, prosecution had examined 09 witnesses.
6. PW1 SI Dal Chand has deposed that on 13.09.2006, he was a duty officer and at 10:40 am, he lodged DD No. 13A for the departure of DDA Staff alongwith the police staff for a DDA Demolition at Mange Ram Park, Budh Vihar-II which is Ex. PW1/A. On the same day at about 03:00 pm, he had received the tehrir from Ct. Shripal sent by Inspector Ravinder Singh on the basis of which he registered the present FIR which is Ex. PW1/B.
7. PW-2 ASI Shripal has deposed that on 13.09.2006, he alongwith Ct. Deepak, Ct. Girdhari and other police staff from PS Sultanpuri went to Police Post Budh Vihar, where the police staff had gathered for some demolition work at H. No. 304, Gali No. 15, Budh Vihar Phase-II. At the demolition site, JE alongwith machines were present and the demolition started at about 12:00 AM to 12:15 PM. At about 12:30 PM, MLA Kulwant came there. At the time of demolition, many public persons had also gathered there and due to that the demolition work stopped due to a verbal dispute which happened at the spot. Inspector Ravinder was also present there and at about 2:40 pm, he prepared the tehrir which was handed over to him for the registration of FIR. He went to the PS for the same at FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 3 / 18 Digitally signed SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 16:32:51 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 about 03:00 PM and came back to the spot after the registration of FIR. Thereafter, he could not recollect or remember as to what happened at the spot. The witness could identify accused Kulwant due to lapse of time.
During cross-examination by the Ld. APP, the witness admitted that accused Raj Kumar was the owner of the house which was to be demolished and he was present at the spot. The witness admitted that the accused Kulwant alongwith accused Raj Kumar and their co-associates threatened the public persons while they were discharging their official duties and made hindrance in the demolition work. Thereafter, the witness correctly identified the accused Kulwant and Raj Kumar at the pointing out of Ld. APP.
However, the witness failed to identify accused Ashwani due to lapse of time.
8. PW-3 Retd. HC Gajanand had deposed that on 13.09.2006, he was posted in PS Sultanpuri as a constable and was working as a DD Writer. On that day, the officials from DDA, Land Management alongwith CRPF came in the PS at about 10:15 am and he made a DD No. 29B regarding the same, however, the Rojnamcha of the same was destroyed vide order which was marked as Mark A.
9. PW-4 Retd. ACP Ravinder Singh had deposed that on 13.09.2006, he was posted as Add. SHO at PS Sultanpuri and a person namely Gurpratap Singh (JE) from DDA came in the PS regarding the demolition programme at Shyam Colony, Budh Vihar Phase-II, Delhi. The said FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 4 / 18 SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 16:32:55 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 person requested for force to help in the said demolition programme. He alongwith the outer force and DDA Staff went to the above spot and found a person namely S.K. Goyal alongwith other staff officials from DDA as well as a truck and a JCB with 12 labours. The staff from DDA told him that they were going to demolish the house of Raj Kumar situated at A-304, Budh Vihar Phase-II, and they went there to get vacated the abovesaid house. At about 12:15 PM, the DDA officials initiated the process of demolition and at about 12:30 PM, accused Kulwant alongwith his associates Ashwani and Surender came there who intervened in the demolition programme. Accused Raj Kumar also joined the intervention of the demolition programme. Thereafter, the said witness called in the PS for the additional help to control the situation. Accused Kulwant was the MLA of the concerned area at that time and on his provocation, lot of public persons gathered at the spot. All of the accused persons started pushing and using force against the DDA Staff officials and they even started abusing as well as threatening them. Accused Kulwant and his associates stated that in case, they will come again for the demolition, then, they will have to lose their lives. Thus, while looking at over all circumstances, the DDA Officials stopped the demolition programme and left the spot. He prepared the tehrir which is Ex. PW4/A and got the FIR registered. The witness correctly identified all of the accused persons.
FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 5 / 18SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 DALAL 16:32:59 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024
10.PW-5 ASI Sajjan Singh had deposed that on 13.09.2006, after registration of the FIR, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. He prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW5/A and recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
11.PW-6 Retd. SI Roop Lal had deposed that on 18.04.2004, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him and he searched for the accused persons. On 27.08.2009, accused Raj Kumar and Ashwani were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B. Both the accused persons were released on furnishing of the bail bonds. The said witness searched for the accused Surender but could not find him. Accused Kulwant Rana could not be arrested as he was the MLA of that time.
12.PW-7 Retd. Executive Engineer Sh. R.S. Goyal had deposed that in the year 2006, he was posted as AE in DDA, Rohini Zone, Land Management. The witness deposed that he does not know anything about the present case due to lapse of time.
During cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness denied the suggestion that on 13.09.2006, he alongwith other DDA Staff / a JCB and 12 labours went for the demolition programme in the area of Budh Vihar. The witness denied the suggestion that about 12:30 PM, accused Kulwant, Surender and Ashwani came there. The witness denied the suggestion that he was threatened by the accused persons. The witness denied the suggestion that the demolition drive was stopped in the FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 6 / 18 Digitally signed SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 16:33:02 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 midway. The said witness failed to identify the accused persons.
13.PW-8 SI Kapil Dev had brought the record qua the permission under section 195 Cr.P.C. which is EX. PW8/A.
14.PW-9 Inspector Girijesh had deposed that on 13.09.2006, he was posted as Incharge Police Post Budh Vihar. On the said day, there was a demolition programme at H. NO. A-304, Gali No. 15, Shyam Colony, Budh Vihar, by the DDA Department. Inspector Ravinder Kumar alongwith the police staff and he alongwith the police staff of PP Budh Vihar had reached there with officials of the DDA. JE Gurpratap and other staff were also present there. The DDA Officials had brought the truck, JCB and other labours for the demolition of the abovesaid house. At about 10:30 am, the demolition programme started peacefully. At about 12:30 PM, MLA Kulwant, Surender, Ashwani and other public persons came at the demolition site. The house owner of the demolition site namely Raj Kumar also reached there. They stopped the demolition programme by creating hindrances and intervened in the said programme. All of them were threatened and it was stated that if they will start the demolition programme again, then, they will be killed. The demolition programme stopped and Inspector Ravinder Kumar got the FIR registered.
During cross-examination, the witness had deposed that the DDA Staff accompanied them to the spot and they were in their own vehicles. He did not make any departure entry. After reaching at the spot, the demolition FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 7 / 18 Digitally signed SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 16:33:07 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 programme commenced from the upper floor but the accused persons had reached thereafter on the spot. The witness denied the suggestion that no such incident had happened. The witness expressed the inability to identify the accused persons through their name but correctly identified all of the accused persons. The witness had deposed that the demolition programme had commenced at about 10:30 AM and continued till 12:30 PM. Some part of the upper floor was demolished. No physical assault was committed by any public person upon any staff of Delhi Police, DDA Staff and CRPF Staff. The witness deposed that he does not remember as to whether the IO had taken the photographs of the demolition site or not. The witness did not sign the site plan or any other documents.
15. The joint statement of accused persons was recorded U/Sec 281 r/w 313 Cr. P.C on 30.08.2024 and all the incriminating evidences were put to the accused persons who had denied the same and pleaded false impliction. Accused persons opted not to lead DE.
16. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments. The final arguments were heard into the matter. It was argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that the concerned witness from DDA was dropped from the array of prosecution witnesses and the other witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution. It was argued that nothing incriminating had surfaced against the accused persons, hence, they be acquitted of the offences alleged.
FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 8 / 18 SANYA Digitally signed
by SANYA DALAL
Date: 2024.12.02
DALAL 16:33:13 +0530
Dated: 02.12.2024
17. On the other, it was argued by the Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has examined 09 witnesses to support its case and all of the said witnesses except one i.e. PW-7 Retd. Executive Engineer Sh. R.S. Goyal, had supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the accused persons be convicted of the offences alleged.
18. I have carefully heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and have perused the records. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced.
19.Perusal of the record reflects that 09 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to support its case.
(a) PW-1 SI Dalchand had deposed only in respect of lodging of DD No. 13A and registration of the present FIR on 13.09.2006. The copy of the DD No. 13A is Ex.
PW1/A while the copy of the present FIR is Ex. PW1/B.
(b) PW-3 HC Gajanand had deposed only in respect of lodging of DD No. 29B which is Mark A.
(c) PW-5 Retd. ASI Sajan Singh had deposed only in respect of preparation of the site plan which is Ex. PW5/A.
(d) PW-6 Retd. SI Roop Lal had deposed in respect of arresting of accused Raj Kumar and Ashwani vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B.
(e) PW-7 Retd. Executive Engineer R.S. Goyal had not supported the case of the prosecution and had clearly turned hostile.
FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 9 / 18SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 DALAL 16:33:17 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024
(f) PW-8 SI Kapil Dev had produced the permission under Section 195 Cr.P.C. which is Ex. PW8/A.
20. A careful perusal of the testimony of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-9 would reveal that they were the star witnesses as well as the eye witness of the prosecution.
21. Culpability qua the offence under Section 506 IPC:
Now, it would be pertinent to reproduce the Section 506 IPC and 503 IPC:
503. Criminal intimidation.- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.-
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Now, as discussed hereinabove the testimony of all of the prosecution witnesses including the material putforth would reveal that it is only the testimony of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-9 which can be taken into consideration for deciding the culpability, if any, qua the offence under Section 506 IPC.
22. A perusal of testimony of PW-2 would reveal that as per the said witness:
FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 10 / 18SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 16:33:22 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 "It is correct that accused Kulwant Rana alongwith Raj Kumar and their co-associates Surender threatened the public persons while they were discharging their official duties.....".
Now, the said deposition is vague in the sense that by any stretch of imagination, the public persons cannot be presumed to be discharging official duties and it is vague in the sense that no details of the person/ persons threatened has been stated.
23. A perusal of testimony of PW-4 Retd. ACP Ravinder Singh would reveal that as per the said witness:
"All accused persons started pushing and started using force against the DDA Staff Officials. They all even started abusing them and threatening them...".
" Accused Kulwant and his associates stated that in case, they will come again for demolition then, they will have to loose their lives".
Now, no details in respect of the alleged threat and the alleged abuse has been given. The said details are missing in the initial tehrir as well as in the deposition. Now, it is very difficult to presume as to who all were included in the terminology 'them' and who was threatened. Further, no one has FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 11 / 18 Digitally signed SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 16:33:26 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 been specifically named and the specifications of the alleged threat are also lacking.
24. Further, as per testimony of PW-9 Retd. Inspector Girijesh would reveal that as per the said witness:
"All of them threatened us and the DDA Staff that if, we start the demolition, then, they will kill us."
Now, the perusal of the tehrir which is Ex.PW4/A would reveal that the alleged threat was given to the A.E. and J.E. of the DDA Staff and it nowhere suggested the extending of the alleged threat to the police officials. PW-9 was a police official and the said later averment of the said witness seems to be an improvement. Further, it has not been corroborated by the testimony of any other witness.
25.Hence, on the basis of above mentioned discussion, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to discharged its burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all of the accused persons had committed the offence under Section 506 IPC on 13.09.2006.
26. Culpability qua the offence under Section 186 IPC and 353 IPC It would be pertinent to reproduce the Section 186 and 353 IPC:
FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 12 / 18SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 DALAL 16:33:30 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 Section 186 IPC, 1860 Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions :- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 353 IPC, 1860 Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty :- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
27. As per a document which is Ex. PW1/A i.e. DD No. 13A dated 13.09.2006, it was recorded that at 10:40 AM, SI Girijesh alongwith various other police officials and while being accompanied with anti-riot equipments departed for a DDA Demolition Programme alongwith the outer force.
28.Now the said document is duly exhibited. As per the said document, it is clear that a DDA Demolition Programme was scheduled for 13.09.2006.
29. The court has now to see as to whether the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that all of the accused persons had committed the offences under Section 353 and 186 IPC. For the same, the crucial witnesses examined are again PW-2, PW-4 and PW-9.
30.A perusal of testimony of PW-2 would reveal that as per the said witness:FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 13 / 18
SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 DALAL 16:33:34 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 "At about 12:30 PM, MLA Kulwant Rana of the concerned area also came there who is the accused in the present case..." "....It is correct that accused Kulwant Rana alongwith Raj Kumar and their co-associates Surender threatened the public persons while they were discharging their official duties and also made hindrance in the demolition work at the spot.....".
31.Further, perusal of testimony of PW-4 would reveal that as per the said witness:
"At about 12:15 PM, the DDA Officials started the process demolition of the above mentioned property and at about 12:30 PM, accused Kulwant Rana alongwith his associate Ashwani and Surender also came there and they intervened in the demolition programme by DDA and accused Raj Kumar also joined the intervention of demolition programme...".
"All of the accused persons started pushing and started using force against the DDA Staff Officials...."
32.Also a perusal of testimony of PW-9 would reveal that as per the said witness:
"At about 10:30 AM, the demolition programme started peacefully. At about 12:30 PM, MLA Kulwant Rana, Surender FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 14 / 18 Digitally signed SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 16:33:37 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 Singh, Ashwani and with other public persons came at the demolition site. The house owner of the demolition site namely, Raj Kumar also came there. They stopped the demolition programme by creating hindrances and intervened in the demolition programme by DDA...."
33.A mere obstruction or resistance unaccompanied by criminal force or assault does not constitute an offence under Section 353. There must be in addition to obstruction, use of criminal force or assault to the public servant while he was discharging his duty.
34.Now, as per the material on record, the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-9 are completely silent in respect of the use of the alleged criminal force. While as per PW-4, it has been alleged that all of the accused persons had used force against the DDA Officials. However, the said averment has not been corroborated by the version of any other witness or material.
35.Further, it has been held in Judgment tilted as Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) Crl Appeal no. 2486/2009 decided on 07.08.2012 that:-
"the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulnesses of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 15 / 18 Digitally signed SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 16:33:41 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 point till the end namely, at the time when the witness make the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and howsoever, strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the person involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness."
36.In the instant case, the said averment of PW-4 has not been corroborated through the version of any other witness examined by the prosecution. Even otherwise, there is no other material to suggest that the criminal force was used by the accused persons on the alleged date of incident.
37.Hence, on the basis of above mentioned discussion, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to discharged its burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all of the accused persons had committed the offence under Section 353 IPC.
38. Now, qua the offence under Section 186 IPC, the prosecution must prove the following:
(a) that the person obstructed was a public servant;
(b) that at the time of obstruction, he was discharging his public functions;
(c) that the accused obstructed him in the same;
(d) that he did so voluntarily.FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 16 / 18 Digitally signed
SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL 2024.12.02 Date:
16:33:44 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024
39. In order to constitute an offence under the Section, the obstruction must be willful.
40.In the instant case as proved via a document in the form of DD No. 13A which is Ex.PW1/A, the demolition programme of the DDA at the designated place was to be conducted. It is further a matter of record that apart from the police officials, DDA Officials were present on the alleged date and time for abovesaid demolition programme. Meaning thereby that public servants (inculding DDA Officials) were present on the alleged date and time i.e. on 13.09.2006 at about 12:30 PM. The said public servants were conducting the demolition programme i.e. they were discharging their public functions.
41.Now, as hereinabove reproduced, it is evident through the testimonies of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-9 that they have remained consistent and have corroborated the version of each other in material particulars i.e. on the specified date i.e. 13.09.2006 while the demolition programme was being conducted by DDA, all of the accused persons voluntarily caused hinderance in the said work as well as caused intervention in the said programme. Meaning thereby that a voluntary obstruction was caused at the instance of the accused persons as per the three witnesses of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination of the said witnesses, nothing could impeach their credibility or on the aspect of lack of ingredients qua the offence under Section 186 IPC.
FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. PageDigitally No. signed 17 / 18 SANYA by SANYA DALAL DALAL 2024.12.02 Date:
16:33:48 +0530 Dated: 02.12.2024 Even otherwise, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-9 who had remained consistent and had even with stood the test of time, since their examination was conducted after very long interval.
42.Hence, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against all of the accused persons qua the offence under Section 186 IPC.
43.Accordingly, all of the accused persons namely, Raj Kumar, Ashwani and Kulwant are hereby convicted for the offence under Section 186 IPC.
44.Now, to come up for file the affidavit qua assets towards compliance of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Karan Vs. State, for 07.12.2024.
45.Simultaneously, the prosecution is also directed to file the affidavit in respect of the expenses incurred in the prosecution of the present case by the NDOH.
46.Since, all of the accsued persons have appeared through VC. Let three copies of this judgment be supplied to the Ld. Defence Counsel who shall receive the same on behalf of all of the accused persons.
Announced, dictated and signed in the open Court on 2nd December, 2024 SANYA Digitally signed by SANYA DALAL Date: 2024.12.02 DALAL 16:33:54 +0530 (SANYA DALAL) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01 NORTH-WEST/ROHINI / DELHI 02.12.2024 FIR No. 1475/2016 State vs. Raj Kumar etc. Page No. 18 / 18