Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Hemraj @ Bhindi S/O Dharam Singh on 20 July, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DILBAG SINGH : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01
(E): KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
ID No. 02402R0137932007
SC No.38/07
Date of Institution: 05.3.2007
Date on which reserved for order:20.07.09
Date of delivery of judgment: 20.07.09
State v/s (1) Hemraj @ Bhindi s/o Dharam Singh
R/o 6/63, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
(2)Kaloo @ Bobbar s/o Sh. Bansi,
R/o 11/208, Kalyanpuri, Delhi.
FIR NO.653/06
PS Kalyanpuri
U/s 394/397/302/34 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1. Case of the prosecution as disclosed from the report u/s 173 Cr PC is to the effect that on 08.11.06 at about 9.15 pm duty Ct. Aadesh posted at LBS hospital telephonically informed the duty officer of PS Kalyanpuri about admission of deceased by his father. The duty officer recorded DD no. 25A. Copy of DD no. 25A was sent to SI Harpal Singh through Ct. Dushyant. SI Harpal reached LBS hospital and came to know that injured Naveen was got admitted in the hospital vide MLC no. 8906 and was thereafter taken to some other hospital. On the MLC of injured, history of assault stood mentioned. Nature of injury was not opined as injury was kept under 2 observation. It was mentioned that injury was sharp, fresh and was stabbed wound of 4 cm x 1.8 cm over umbilical region abdomen. SI Harpal Singh got the case registered vide FIR no. 653/06 through Ct.Dushyant. SI went to spot along with father of deceased.
2. SI Harpal Singh prepared the site plan and seized the motorcycle of injured Naveen bearing no. DL-7SAA-8797. Prior to this articles of injured Naveen i.e his purse and chain etc were given at LBS hospital to his father. I.O. recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr PC of Vijender at the spot.
3. In the morning of 09.11.06 Naveen Kumar died in Max Balaji hospital. Thereafter investigation was handed over to Inspector Rajesh. He got conducted the postmortem of Naveen in LBS hospital and handed over the dead body to Vijender Singh.
4. On 09.11.06 on the secret information, accused Hemraj @ Bhindi was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Hemraj @ Bhindi disclosed to the effect that on 08.11.06 at about 8.50 or 9.00 pm, he along with Kallu @ Boby s/o Bansi had wanted to rob one boy at near Sarvodya School, Block no. 1, Trilok Puri who was urinating after parking his motorcycle nearby. That Naveen was threatened on the point of knife. That on his objection a knife blow was yielded in his abdomen and a sum of Rs.110/- was looted from him. That he had handed over the knife to co- accused Kallu. That both had fled away thereafter. He 3 further disclosed that his shirt which had got blood stains of Naveen was concealed by him in a park of 11 Block, Kalyanpuri, Delhi.
5. It is further the case of the prosecution that Hemraj @ Bhindi pointed out the place of occurrence and had signed the required papers. That he was taken on police remand but accused Kallu could not be apprehended during the tenure of police remand. On 12.11.06 Inspector Rajesh Kumar had been to Punjab and UP and on this account the case file was handed over to Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar. On 17.11.06 in pursuance of secret information accused Kallu @ Bobby was apprehended and arrested. Knife was got recovered by accused Kallu who had signed the requisite papers. Scaled site plan was got prepared through SI Mukesh Kumar Jain. Sections 394/397 IPC were added. Ct. Sandeep Kumar was sent to mortuary of LBS hospital and the articles sealed by the hospital sealed with seal of MR were taken into police possession and were deposited in the malkhana. Postmortem report was collected along with inquest papers. Knife was sent to LBS hospital for establishing its correlation with injury. Cause of death was opined as hemorrhagic shock. As per the forensic medicine expert report wound sustained by Naveen was possible by the knife, got recovered at the instance of the accused. For the purposes of matching, blood of deceased, knife, clothes of accused, clothes of deceased etc were sent to FSL. After completion of requisite 4 investigation challan was filed.
6. After supply of copies to the accused persons as contemplated u/s 207 Cr PC, Ld. MM committed the case to the Ld. Sessions Judge who allocated it to my Ld. Predecessor.
7. Vide orders dated 10.07.07 charge was framed against the accused persons u/s 302 r/w seciton 34 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
8. Prosecution in support of its case has examined PW-1 HC Shiv Murti, PW-2 Ct.Dushyant, PW-3 Ct. Adesh Kumar, PW-4 Dr. Mukta Rani, PW-5 Vijender Singh, PW-6 Sandeep Kumar, PW-7 Ct. Jagdish, PW-8 Ct. Mohd Khalid, PW-9 Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar, PW-10 SI Harpal Singh, PW-11 SI Mukesh Kumar, PW-12 Dr. R.N.Dass, PW-13 Bhram Pal and PW-14 Dr. Ashok Sabbarwal.
9. PW-1 HC Shiv Murti is the duty officer who has proved the carbon copy of FIR Ex. PW-1/A.
10. PW-2 Ct. Dushyant has remained associated with the investigation of the case. He has testified about the manner in which the investigation of the case was carried out. He has proved the seizure of pulsar motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-7SAA8797 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A, seizure memo of clothes seized by the officials of Max hospital vide Ex. PW-2/B, handing over memo of dead body vide Ex. PW2/C, arrest memo of accused Hemraj @ Bhindi as Ex.PW-2/D, personal search memo of accused 5 Hemraj @ Bhindi as Ex.PW2/E, disclosure statement of accused Kallu as Ex.PW2/F and seizure of shirt from the park of 11 block as Ex.PW2/G.
11. PW-3 Ct. Adesh Kumar was the duty constable who has testified about admission of Naveen Kumar in injured condition in the hospital on 08.11.06 at about 9.15 pm.
12. PW-4 Dr. Mukta Rani has proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW4/A. She has also proved the sketch of the weapon of offence as Ex.PW4/B. Cause of death was opined by her as hemorrhagic shock consequent upon stab injuries. She has proved her opinion to the effect that injury no. 1 on the body of the deceased and cuts on the clothes no.2 and 3 could be produced by the questioned weapon of offence or a similar weapon. She has proved her opinion as Ex.PW4/C.
13. PW-5 Vijender Singh is the father of the deceased. He has interalia testified that on 08.11.06 at about 9.00 pm he was present at his shop and received a telephone call on his mobile phone no. 9868119584 from his son to the effect that he had been stabbed. That he reached at the informed place and on finding his son injured, removed him to LBS hospital. That his son gave him his mobile, gold chain, two rings, one purse containing Rs.5000/-. That his son was referred to GTB hospital. That he took him to Max hospital, Patparganj, Delhi. That on the way his son told him that he was stabbed by Beer Singh, Tara, Daya Chand, Rohtash, Manoj and Amit at the instance of Rachna (wife of 6 deceased). That SI Harpal, Inspector Rajesh and Inspector Rajeshwar reached the hospital who were requested to record the statement of his son. That statement was not recorded by them. That his son was taken to the operation theater and breathed his last. That the persons named by him (Naveen) are known to him being relatives of Rachna.
14. PW-6 Ct. Sandeep has collected the parcels from LBS hospital sealed with seal of MR. He has proved the seizure memo as Ex.Pw6/A.
15. PW-7 Ct.Jagdish has taken the samples vide road certificate no. 5/21 from PS Kalyanpuri bearing seal of MR and RK. He has proved the depositing of these parcels to FSL, Rohini.
16. PW-8 Ct. Mohd Khalid has testified about the manner in which he remained associated with Inspector Rajesh Kumar, in the investigation of this case. He has testified about the apprehension of accused Hemraj @ Bhindi at the instance of secret informer. He has also testified about recovery of blood stained shirt at the instance of accused Hemraj @ Bhindi. He has also testified about non availability of accused Kallu at his house on 09.11.06.
17. PW-9 Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar has testified about his taking over of the investigation on 17.11.06. He has testified that on receipt of secret information, accused Kallu @ Bobbar was apprehended. He has proved the arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of the accused as Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C 7 respectively. He has testified about the recovery of knife at the instance of the accused. He has proved the sketch of the knife as Ex.Pw9/D, seizure memo of knife as Ex.PW9/E and site plan of place of recovery as Ex.PW9/F.
18. PW-10 SI Harpal Singh has testified about assignment of DD no. 25A to him as well as about the manner in which he either conducted the investigation or remained associated with the investigation of the case. He has testified on the lines of other police officials concerning manner of conduct of investigation.
19. PW-11 SI Mukesh Kumar has proved the scaled site plan as Ex.PW11/A.
20. PW-12 Dr.R. N. Dass has testified about admission of injured at LBS hospital. He has proved the MLC as Ex.PW12/A.
21. PW-13 Sh. Bhram Pal is a witness concerning the identification of the dead body and has proved the statement as Ex.PW13/A in this regard.
22. PW-14 is Dr. Ashok Sabbarwal from Max Balaji hospital. He has proved report of the hospital as Ex.PW14/A.
23. Statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr PC without oath to give an opportunity to the accused persons to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. Accused persons have pleaded ignorance with respect to the questions about which they could have pleaded ignorance. With respect to other questions, they have denied their involvement in the commission of the 8 offence and have submitted that no disclosure was made by them and no recovery was got effected from them or at their instance. With respect to arrest and personal search memos, it has been stated that it is a matter of record. It has been submitted that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
24. Initially, the accused persons had preferred to lead defence evidence but later on no defence witnesses were examined.
25. Arguments were heard at the bar. Ld defence counsel has submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. That recovery in this case has been planted upon the accused persons. That testimony of police officials alone cannot be said to be sufficient to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence.
26. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand has refuted the submissions made by Ld defence counsel and has submitted that from the testimony of police officials, offence against the accused persons has been proved.
27. I have carefully perused the records of the case and considered the submissions.
28. I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish its case in the present case and accused persons have become entitled to acquittal. First and foremost reason for observing so is the non supporting of the case of the prosecution by none other than the father 9 of the deceased.
29. In the report U/s 173 Cr PC case of the prosecution was to the effect that PW Vijender Singh had got his son admitted in LBS hospital. It was also the case of the prosecution that PW Vijender met SI Harpal Singh in the hospital and he accompanied SI Harpal Singh to the spot. It was also the case of the prosecution that on 08.11.06 SI Harpal Singh had taken out from the body of Naveen Kumar a wrist watch, mobile set, gold chain, purse, two gold rings and brown color bag and had handed over the same to Vijender Singh father of the deceased in the presence of Ct Dushyant Singh. In the statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. shown to have been recorded on 08.11.07 PW Vijender Singh went to the place of occurrence at School I Block, Trilok Puri chowk. It was also the case of the prosecution that motorcycle Pulsar was seized by SI Harpal Singh in the presence of PW Vijender.
30. When this above referred version of the prosecution, attributed on the part of father of the deceased, is read in juxta position with the solemnly affirmed version of PW-5 Vijender, then no other conclusion except the conclusion of acquittal of accused persons is possible.
31. In his statement on oath, PW-5 Vijender Singh has testified that he had removed his son to LBS hospital, Khichri Pur. That his son had given him his mobile phone, gold chain, two rings and one purse containing Rs. 5000/-. This version is in complete contrast with the version of 10 the prosecution u/s 161 Cr PC viz a viz PW Vijender Singh. PW Vijender Singh has not been cross examined by the State on this aspect and it has to be observed that prosecution admits this version as correct. PW-5 in his examination in chief nowhere mentioned that SI Harpal Singh met him at LBS hospital. He nowhere mentions that SI Harpal Singh had given the articles of his son to him. He nowhere mentions that he had been to the spot and Pulsar motorcycle was seized in his presence. The above-mentioned omissions on the part of PW-5 are fatal to the case of prosecution as in order to succeed in the case, prosecution should have got testified from PW-5 Vijender Singh on the aforementioned lines. As it has not so happened, the option left is to acquit the accused persons.
32. PW-5 has stated in his examination in chief to the following effect:-
" Rajeswer Inspector, Rajesh Kumar Inspector and Harpal SI reached the hospital. I requested the aforesaid police officers that statement of my son may be recorded. However they were not in a hurry to record his statement".. The above extracted testimony of PW-5 which does not find place in the case set up by prosecution again strikes at the root of the veracity of the case of the prosecution and I am left with no alternative but to acquit the accused persons.
33. In second para at page first of examination in chief, PW-5 has testified that his statement was not recorded by 11 police at any point of time. He has also testified that his son had disclosed the names of the assailants. He has also testified that assailants were related to Rachna, the wife of the deceased. He has also testified that he had filed a complaint before ACMM. He has proved this complaint as Ex.PW5/B.
34. This version of PW-5 Vijender Singh, demolishes the edifice setup by the prosecution against accused persons and substantiates the arguments of Ld defence counsel to the effect that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case and recovery has been foisted upon them.
35. Ex.PW5/B goes to show that it was the case of Vijender Singh that his son was murdered by the relatives of Rachna (wife of deceased) at the instance of Rachna. Version of PW-5 Vijender Singh in Ex.PW5/B has not been challenged by the prosecution. This brings on record two versions in one case of prosecution.
36. The above going discussion of testimony of PW-5 goes to show that father of the deceased has setup an entirely different story than the story put up by the prosecution and thus I have no hesitation in awarding the benefit of doubt to accused persons on testimony of PW-5 Sh. Vijender alone.
37. Despite above mentioned conclusive and clinching blow giving testimony of PW-5, I have gone through the testimonies of police officials as well and have found 12 that there are unfilled holes in the testimonies and case of the prosecution has become shrouded in the clouds of mystery.
38. In Ex.PW10/B SI Harpal Singh mentions that injured was declared LAMA (Left against medical advice) by the doctors. When this was so, question of handing over of the articles by the deceased to his father through SI Harpal Singh does not arise. First priority for PW-5 Vijender was to get the best possible treatment and I have no hitch in my mind that SI Harpal Singh cooked up this version in order to show his over indulgence. The versions in this regard are irreconcilable.
39. Looking of the version from another angle also supports my conclusion. PW-2 Ct Dushyant Singh who is shown as a witness in "Raseed hawalgi samaan" (receipt concerning handing over of articles) has not testified about handing over of articles to PW Vijender in his examination-in- chief. This strikes at the veracity of the case of the prosecution and it again shows that story of handing over of articles was cooked up by the IO as otherwise PW-2 Ct. Dushyant would have testified about the same.
40. It is not appealable to reason that PW-5 Vijender would have gone to the spot for pointing out of the spot when his alone son was at death bed as so put forth by PW-10 SI Harpal Singh. When PW-5 Vijender could have ignored the advice of LBS hospital to remove his son to GTB hospital, he could have equally refused to go to spot along with the 13 IO. So on the ground of conduct of a reasonable prudent man also the possibility of PW-5 going to the spot is not at all there and this again strikes at the veracity of case of prosecution.
41. At this juncture itself, I deem it pertinent to mention that possibility of version of PW-5 concerning assaulting of Naveen at the instance of Rachna his wife, through her relatives cannot be ruled out. I am saying so for the reason that assailants had not robbed the valuable articles from deceased Naveen which they would have done, had it been a simple case of robbery. To say at the least accused persons have raised a possibility of plausibility in this regard.
42. In Narain Singh and Ors Vs State of Haryana reported in 2008 (VII) Apex decision (SC) 245, it has been held that accused have to show his defence from the standard of preponderance of probabilities as is to be done in a civil case. In the present case there is no hitch in saying that two versions have emerged on record.
43. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a large number of cases in general and in State of Haryana vs Shish @ Shivnarain and Ors., 2008 VIII AD (SC 537) in particular has held that golden thread which runs through the web of administration of criminal justice is that if accused is in a position to raise a possibility of plausibility of two views in the case of the prosecution, then he is entitled to benefit of doubt. 14
44. PW2 Ct Dushyant has not supported the case of the prosecution in appropriate manner and has given evasive replies. His testimony is in contrast on many points with the testimony of other Pws. He has not been in a position to tell the description of the shirt. He was not in a position to tell the description of the seal. He was not in a position to identify the shirt allegedly got recovered by accused Hemraj @ Bhindi. He stated that his son had died recently and he was upset. In view of the testification of PW2 Ct. Dushyant, concerning he being mentally upset, testimony of PW2 cannot be made the basis of conviction. It cannot be also made the basis of conviction as in doing so testimony of PW-5 shall have to be ignored for which there are no reasons with me.
45. During cross examination PW-2 has given false explanation concerning SI Harpal Singh calling various persons for joining of investigation. This I am saying for the reason that in the statement u/s 161 Cr PC of Ct. Dushyant dated 09.11.06 there is no mention about making of efforts for joining of public witnesses. Had the story of joining of public witnesses been true, it must have found mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr PC. This witness went a step further and testified that he can identify those public persons who refused to join the investigation at spot. This was not at all possible on the part of the PW-2, to vouch for identification of refusing public persons. When further cross examined, he relied on 15 the plea of forget fullness and avoided most of the questions under this pretext. Can such a witness be relied. Answer to the same is an emphatic no.
46. PW-2 on the third page of cross examination has given a version concerning secret informer which is not inconsonance with the version of other police officials. He has stated that informer had not passed on information to the effect that he had witnessed the accused persons committing murder and had told that Hemraj @ Bhindi had committed similar incident earlier. After two three lines he testified that informer passed on information to the Io and IO informed him about the contents of the information. He also testified that informer had passed on information to SI Harpal Singh at LBS hospital Khichripur.
47. When this testification is read in juxta position with the testimony of PW-8 Ct. Mohd Khalid, it emerges over the record that he gives another version about secret information. In examination in chief he testifies informer met them at Chand Cinema. Thus versions of PW2 and PW8 are at variance.
48. In his cross examination dated 28.3.08 PW-8, in first para testifies that they had reached at the jhuggi of the accused at noon time in the absence of secret informer and informer had met them on a road near Chand cinema just by the side of that road. PW-2 on the other hand has testified in the fourth line from top to bottom of his examination in chief to the effect that informer had 16 accompanied them to the house of the accused. Both the versions thus become irreconcilable.
49. PW 10 SI Harpal Singh gives another version in his examination in chief concerning secret informer. He testified on 31.3.08 that inspector Rajesh had received a secret information about a suspect namely Hemraj @ Bhindi and they had reached the house of Hemraj @ Bhindi. He has further testified that accused Hemraj @ Bhindi was apprehended at the instance of the informer. Versions of PW 10,PW-2 and PW8 are thus completely irreconcilable concerning secret information and this fact also inclines me to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
50. I deem it pertinent to mention that PW 10 has testified that house of accused Hemraj was not known to him whereas PW 8 Ct. Mohd Khalid has categorically testified that accused Hemraj @ Bhindi was BC of the area and SI Harpal had identified him to be Hemraj @ Bhindi as he was the beat officer of the area. Both these versions are completely irreconcilable.
51. Another reason to discard the testimonies of PW-2,PW-8 and PW-10 is that recovery shown to have been effected at the instance of the accused persons appears to be doubtful. According to the case of the prosecution accused Hemraj led the police party to 11 block Kalyanpuri in a park. According to PW2 Ct Dushyant accused has produced a shirt by picking up the same from under the ballies. PW-8 Ct Mohd Khalid testifies that accused had taken out a 17 shirt having checks of different color. PW-10 SI Harpal Singh testifies that accused picked up a shirt which was lying under bamboos in that park. There is a difference between bamboos and ballies and thus version of the prosecution concerning recovery becomes doubtful.
52. Another reason to say so is that place of recovery has been shown to be a park available to all and sundry. Non joining of public witness as per the statement u/s 161 Cr P.C. makes the recovery doubtful. Importance of joining public witnesses has been emphasized time and again. Although it is not a rule of law but it is a rule of prudence. In the present case, in view of testimony of PW5, this rule of prudence gains great importance.
53. Same reasons apply concerning recovery of knife at the instance of accused Kallu being doubtful. PW Ct Anil Kumar and SI Harpal Singh have been shown to be the witnesses concerning recovery of knife. Ex.PW9/C and Ex Pw9/E are the relevant memos in this regard. Ct. Anil has not been examined for which an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. PW-10 SI Harpal Singh has testified that accused had picked up a knife which was lying under a stone in 'safeda wala park'. Story putforth by the prosecution in this regard, on the face of it does not appear plausible as it was in the knowledge of accused Kallu that police was after him and would not have kept the knife in a park at a place which was available to each and everyone. Recovery from such a public place and that 18 too belatedly will compel a reasonable prudent man to doubt the veracity of the recovery version. Moreover, Versions of PW-9 and PW-10 are irreconcilable concerning recovery of knife. PW-9 has testified that accused had picked up a knife which was lying on a stone in that park. Whereas PW-10 SI Harpal Singh has testified that accused had picked up a knife which was lying under a stone.
54. Last but not the least I deem it pertinent to place on record that PW 9 Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar has testified that secret informer had seen the occurrence but he had not come forward to give a statement. This version is in complete contrast with the version of PW-2 who has testified that informer had not passed the information to the effect that he had witnessed the accused persons committing murder. He has further testified that informer had told that Hemraj @ Bhindi who resided in H. no. 6/63 had committed similar incident earlier. Thus both the versions are completely irreconcilable and incline me to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
55. The contradictions can be multiplied but I am not doing so for the sake of brevity as well as for saving of precious public time which is very scares.
56. After discussion of oral evidence the next aspect which requires to be considered is the circumstantial evidence. I have no hitch in observing that chain of circumstantial evidence in this case stands completely broken. The first and foremost reason for saying so is the report of FSL. 19 FSL reports have been exhibited as Ex.P-X and P-Y. A minute perusal of Ex.PX and PY in juxta position with the seizure memos of the case goes to reveal that blood gauze concerning deceased has showed 'no reaction'. I have observed earlier also that hospital authorities should ascertain the blood group of injured and accused in medico legal cases, on their part independent of grouping on the part of FSL. In the present case the blood gauze of deceased had shown no reaction and this makes the circumstantial evidence useless. Ex.3 and Ex. 4 are the shirt and knife. Shirt Ex.3 is one which was allegedly got recovered by accused Hemraj @ Bhindi. No reaction was there and this establishes no connection of the accused with the commission of offence. Thus circumstantial evidence in the form of FSL report Ex.PX and PY do not lead the case of the prosecution anywhere and I have no hesitation to award the benefit of doubt to the accused persons with respect to circumstantial evidence as well.
57. Another piece of circumstantial evidence is in the form of testimony of PW Dr. Mukta Rani. She has observed that injury no. 2 and 3 could be produced by the knife allegedly got recovered by accused Kallu. This piece of evidence in my considered view is not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of offence particularly in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
20
58. I am of the opinion that IO/ SI Harpal Singh and other investigation officers namely PW-9 Rajeshwar Kumar and Insp. Rajesh Kumar (not examined) are guilty of dereliction of duty as they have not carried out investigation diligently and in the right perspective SI Harpal Singh has failed in his duty to record the statement of injured Navin which could have helped in most appropriate decision of the case. Had some sincere efforts been made SI Harpal, version of injured would have come on record which would have helped this court in properly accessing the version of PW 5 who has alleged that his son was assaulted by the relatives of Rachna (wife of deceased). This brings the conduct of the IO under suspicion.
59. Similarly non conduct of the investigation on the lines as put forth by father of the injured brings the conduct of Insp. Rajesh and Rajeshwar Kumar under the ambit of suspicion. No reasons have been given in the report U/s 173 Cr.PC as to why the investigation was not carried out on the lines as put forth by the father of the injured. In view of allegations of the father of the injured concerning role of Rachna and her relatives in the death of deceased advertance to the same was required. Advertance is not so there. Thus, conduct of Insp. Rajeshwar and Rajesh Kumar also comes within the arena of suspicion.
21
60. In view of the same I deem it expedient to direct DCP East to conduct an inquiry against IO/SI Harpal Singh, Insp. Rajeshwar and Insp. Rajesh Kumar. DCP East is also directed to evolve ways and means by virtue of which occurrences of the incident of the nature like the present one are prevented. A copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner of Police as well for doing everything needful. Action taken report be transmitted to this court.
61. In view of the above going discussion the accused persons are awarded benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the offences charged with. Bail bond of the accused persons are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court (Dilbag Singh) on this 20th day of July, 2009 Additional Sessions Judge-
01 (East),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi