Delhi District Court
State vs . Lalman S/O Sh. Rajput R/O H. on 6 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(FTC)-02, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 1490-2016)
FIR No. 447/2011
Police Station Sun Light Colony
Charge sheet filed 186/353/333/279 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 186/353/333/279 IPC
Section
State Vs. Lalman s/o Sh. Rajput r/o H.
No. 484, Noorganj,
Barhampuri Murad Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U. P.
Also at Village Gangarwala
Nangla Math, Post Bhayeea
Bevar, PS Devar, District
Mainpuri, U. P.
Date of institution 09.07.2014
Arguments concluded on 01.04.2023
Judgment Pronounced on 06.04.2023
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 1 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman 28.11.2011 on receipt of DD No. 25, PP Sarai Kale Khan, IO HC Avdesh Kumar alongwith Ct. Ravinder reached at the spot i.e., Noida Mode, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi where he came to know that an altercation took place between ASI/ZO and accused Lalman, who was driver of Tempo No. DL1LP7377 and accused cut a small piece of ear of ASI/ZO. He also came to know that ASI had been shifted to Trauma Center, AIIMS by PCR van. After leaving Ct. Ravinder at the spot, IO went to AIIMS Trauma Center where he obtained MLC No. 287055/11 of injured on which doctor opined the nature of injury as grievous. IO recorded the statement of ASI Naresh Panwar, who stated that he alongwith Ct. Ajay Kumar, Ct. Jagjit and Ct. Sandeep Kumar were on duty below flyover in front of Akshardham Temple. At about 05:00 PM, one tempo Tata 407 bearing No. DL 1LP 7377 came from the side of Ghazipur in first lane in violation of guidelines and same was driven in rash manner. Upon the directions of ASI Naresh Panwar, Ct. Ajay tried to stop the said vehicle, however, instead of stopping the vehicle, accused accelerated the vehicle towards Nizamuddin Sarai Kale Khan. Ct. Ajay chased the vehicle on his motorcycle. After about 5-7 minutes, Ct. Ajay called him and stated that he had stopped the vehicle at Noida Mode, Sarai Kale Khan, and accused stopped his vehicle in middle of road due to which traffic jam is taking place. ASI Naresh Panwar also reached there and after much resistance, accused brought his vehicle towards the side of the road. ASI Naresh Panwar asked the accused to produce the documents of vehicle, however, accused failed to do so and started abusing ASI Naresh Panwar and gave a bite on his right ear and cut a small piece of his ear and spitted the same. ASI Naresh Panwar raised a hue and cry and informed senior officers. Ct. Jagjeet called at 100 number. PCR came at the spot and ASI Naresh Panwar took piece of his ear and went to AIIMS Trauma Center where after surgery separated piece of ear was attached. Upon the complaint of complainant, FIR was registered. Accused was arrested, site plan was prepared. IO also seized the blood stained uniform shirt of complainant ASI SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 2 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman Naresh Panwar as well as vehicle i.e., Tata 407 Tempo bearing No. DL 1LP 7377. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences u/s 186/353/333/279 IPC against accused Lalman was filed in the court.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 16.08.2014 charge u/s 186/353/333/279 IPC against accused Lalman was found to be made out. The formal charge was framed on the said date to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 11 witnesses in all.
FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW2 is Raju Ahuja. He got released the vehicle Tata 407 bearing No. DL-1LP-7377 on superdari vide superdarinama which is Ex. PW2/A and got released permit and insurance papers vide superdarinama which is Ex. PW2/B. He correctly identified the accused being the driver of offending vehicle.
5. PW3 is Dr. Sunil Kumar. On 28.11.2011, he conducted medical examination of Naresh Panwar, who was brought to hospital with alleged history of assault. He found separated piece of RT ear pinna of upper helix brought by patient in aseptic condition. On the basis of examination, he opined the nature of injury as grievous. He exhibited his report as Ex. PW3/A.
6. PW8 is Retd. ACP Sh. Amrik Singh. He gave complaint under section 195 CrPC which is Ex. PW8/A on the request of IO.
SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 3 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman
7. PW8 is Ct. Satyavir. Inadvertently, he has been examined as PW8 instead of PW9. He reduced the information regarding quarrel in writing vide DD No. 25 which is Ex. PW8/A. He also reduced information regarding admission of injured Naresh Kumar vide DD No. 32 which is Ex. PW8/B.
8. PW10 ASI Manveer Singh, being the duty officer, registered the FIR which is Ex. PW10/A. He made his endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW10/B. MATERIAL/EYE WITNESSES
9. PW1 is ASI Naresh Panwar, who is victim in this case. He deposed that on 28.11.2011, he alongwith Ct. Ajay Kumar, Ct. Sandeep Kumar and Ct. Jagjeet were doing duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM below the flyover opposite Akshardham Temple. At about 05:00 PM, one tempo Tata 407 bearing No. DL- 1LP-7377 came from the side of Ghazipur in first lane in violation of guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further deposed that on his instructions, Ct. Ajay Signalled the driver to stop the vehicle towards the road side but instead of stopping the vehicle, he accelerated the vehicle towards Sarai Kale Khan/Nizamuddin. Ct. Ajay chased the vehicle on motorcycle and after about 5-7 minutes, Ct. Ajay made a phone call that he got stopped the vehicle near Noida/Sarai Kale Khan mode but driver/accused stopped the vehicle in between the road due to which traffic jam was taking place and asked them to reached there. He further deposed that accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Jagjeet reached there and after much resistance, accused brought the vehicle towards road side so that traffic could be smoothened. He further deposed that he asked the accused to produce the documents of the vehicle, however, he failed to do so and he was explained that he was driving in a wrong lane in a rash manner and that is why challan was to be issued for which documents are required. He further deposed SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 4 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman that accused started abusing and all of a sudden, he gave a bite on his ear and cut/severed a small piece of upper side of ear and spitted the same. He raised alarm and Ct. Jagjeet made call at number 100. He further deposed that he informed his senior about the incident. PCR came at the spot and he lifted piece of his ear and went to Trauma Center where piece of his ear was attached by surgery. He further deposed that HC Awdhesh Kumar also reached at hospital where his statement which is Ex. PW1/A was recorded. IO also seized his blood stained shirt vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/B. He exhibited seizure memo of Tata 407 as Ex. PW1/C, arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW1/D and personal search memo as Ex. PW1/E. He correctly identified the accused and his blood stained shirt of traffic uniform which is Ex. P1 during his deposition.
10. PW4 is HC Jagjeet. He deposed on the lines of PW1 regarding the incident and conduct of accused. He exhibited two photographs of tempo bearing No. DL-1LP-7377 as Ex. PW4/P1 and Ex. PW4/P2. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition.
11. PW5 is HC Ajay Kumar. He also deposed on the lines of PW1 Naresh Panwar and correctly identified the accused during his deposition.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
12. PW6 is HC Ravinder Singh. He accompanied the IO HC Avdesh Kumar during investigation of this case. He deposed on the lines of IO HC Avdesh Kumar. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition.
13. PW7 is HC Avdesh Kumar. He is the IO in this case. He deposed that on 28.11.2011 on receipt of DD No. 25, he alongwith PW6 Ct. Ravinder went under Sarai Kale Khan Flyover on the road going towards Akshardham where SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 5 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman they met Ct. Ajay Kumar and Ct. Jagjeet. A tempo bearing No. DL-1LP-7377 and driver accused was also present there. He further deposed that ASI Naresh Kumar had already been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center by PCR van. Thereafter, after leaving Ct. Ravinder at the spot, he went to AIIMS Trauma Center where he collected MLC of injured ASI Naresh Panwar and recorded statement of ASI Naresh Panwar. He collected blood stained uniform shirt of ASI Naresh Panwar and seized the same. He made endorsement on statement of ASI Naresh Panwar which his Ex. PW7/A, prepared rukka, handed over the same to Ct. Ravinder, who got the FIR registered. He correctly identified the accused and blood stained uniform shirt of victim during his deposition.
14. PW9 is Inspector Sanjeev Kumar. On 28.11.2011 after registration of FIR, investigation was marked to him. He alongwith Ct. Ravinder went to the spot i.e., T-Point, Sarai Kale Khan, where he met HC Avdesh, Ct. Ajay and Jagjeet. HC Avdesh handed over accused to him. He prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Ajay which is Ex. PW9/A. He seized vehicle i.e., Tata bearing No. DL-1LP-7377, arrested the accused and conducted his personal search. He obtained complaint under section 195 CrPC from concerned official and filed the charge sheet before the court. He correctly identified the accused during his deposition.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
15. After closure of PE, statement of accused Lalman was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 06.03.2023, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidences put to him. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Police officials demanded money from him and when he refused, he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 6 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman
16. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
17. I have heard Dr. Prayag Dutt Pandey, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Faheem Alam, Ld. counsel for accused.
18. It was argued on behalf of State by Ld. Addl. PP for State that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused through credible testimonies of PW1, PW4 and PW5. All of them were present at the spot at the time of occurrence of incident. PW1 ASI Naresh is the injured in this case, who along with PW4 and PW5 have deposed categorically that accused drove away his tempo in a rash and negligent manner when he was signalled to stop the same. The tempo was chased by PW5 and was stopped at some distance. When PW1 asked the accused to produce his documents, else he would be challaned then accused attacked PW 1 and inflicted injury on his right ear by giving a teeth bite and severed upper portion of the ear. The injuries suffered by PW1 are duly proved through PW3 and it is also not in dispute that PW1 was not performing his duty as a police official, therefore, accused is entitled to be convicted for all the offences in which charge has been framed against him.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625.
19. Per contra, On the other hand Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Faheem Alam has argued that PW5 Ct. Ajay has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of prosecution in material aspects. It is further pointed out that prosecution has failed to prove the injury suffered by PW1 as it has been admitted by PW3 Dr. SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 7 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman Sunil Kumar that injury was not caused by biting. It was argued that police officials tried to extort money from the accused and when he objected for the same, he was beaten by them and was falsely implicated in this case. It was argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and accused is entitled to be acquitted.
20. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
21. The accused Lalman has been charged for the commission of offences punishable under Section 186/353/333/279 IPC.
22. The relevant Sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 186 IPC 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 279 IPC Rash driving or riding on a public way.--Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 8 of 15
PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman
SECTION 333 IPC
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.- Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in 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 ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 353 IPC 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 in 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.
23. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 9 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
24. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
MATERIAL WITNESSES 25.1 As per the prosecution story PW5 HC Ajay, PW1 ASI Naresh and PW4 HC Jagjeet and Ct. Sandeep were present on duty from 08.00 AM to 10.00 PM on NH-24 under flyover of Akshardham Temple. At about 05.00 PM, one tempo 407 bearing no. DL 1LP 7377 which was being driven by the accused came from Ghazipur border side and was going towards Kalkaji Road. The vehicle was being driven in 'no entry' time and was also being plied in first lane in violation of directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. PW5 signalled the accused to stop his vehicle but he tried to flee away from the spot. He was chased down by PW5. Accused stopped his vehicle in middle of the road and it caused a traffic jam. When PW1 and PW4 also reached at the spot, the vehicle was moved on the road side. PW1 asked the accused to produce the relevant documents i.e. RC, driving license and permit but accused refused to do the same and he started using filthy language against all of them. Suddenly, he gave a bite on the right ear of PW1 and severed upper portion of his ear and spitted the same. Therefore, PW1, PW4 and PW5 are material witnesses in this case.
25.2 Ld. Defence Counsel has tried to raised doubt over the presence of PW5 at the time of alleged incident. He has pointed out that his witness is not aware as to at what time PW1 came at the spot. He is not sure whether statement of PW1 SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 10 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman was recorded by the IO in his presence or not. He is not sure for what time he was with IO during investigation. He could not tell whether IO had informed the family member of the accused regarding the arrest or not. He could not tell as to who was present at the time of arrest of accused. He is not sure whether arrest memo was blank or not when he had signed the same. He could not tell as to what was the speed of the tempo. He is not sure whether PW1 and PW4 reached at the spot together or separately. He is not sure about the timing of no entry on that particular road. He could not tell the time when seizure memo of the vehicle was prepared by the IO. Therefore, the manner in which PW5 has deposed reflects that he was not present at the spot and he never participated in the alleged proceedings.
25.3 The concern raised by Ld. Defence counsel on the above mentioned aspects in the deposition of PW5 are found to be correct as per record. This witness has thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution in his examination-in-chief but he faltered on some aspects in his cross-examination but he stood firm to the fact that he signalled the tempo to stop and later on chased it down on his motorcycle and after chasing it about 2.5 kilometers, he was successful in stopping the vehicle. He has admitted his signatures on arrest memo of the accused, therefore, the credibility of this witness is under scrutiny but his deposition cannot be thrown away to the wind on the basis of vague answers given by him in his cross- examination. There are other material witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW4 who were present at the spot along with PW5. Both these witnesses have been thoroughly cross-examined by the accused and they have withstood the test of cross- examination successfully while maintaining their allegations against the accused. They have not only deposed about the conduct of the accused resulting in injury to PW1 but they also stated that PW5 was also present at the spot. Therefore, deposition of PW1 and PW4 is strong enough as an evidence to bring home the charge against him.
SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 11 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman 25.4 Law is settled that a person can be convicted on the basis of sole
testimony provide the testimony is reliable, credit worthy and unblemished. As per section 134 of Indian Evidence Act it is the quality of evidence which is important rather than the quantity. In the present case, all three material witnesses have deposed against the accused and narrated the whole incident which inspires confidence of this Court. Therefore, the contractions pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel in the cross-examination of PW5 have no bearing on the merits of this case and they do not go to the roots of this case. PW5 has supported the allegations on material aspects and he has been duly corroborated by sterile testimonies of PW1 and PW4. Therefore, the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel qua the doubtful presence of PW5 HC Ajay at the spot holds no water and accordingly, stands rejected.
NATURE OF INJURY 26.1 Accused has been charge-sheeted u/s 333 IPC as in the MLC of PW1 it was opined by the doctor that injury suffered by him were 'grievous' in nature. The MLC is proved as Ex. PW3/A and on the basis of this opinion of PW3, prosecution is seeking conviction of the accused u/s 333 IPC. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that PW3 Dr. Sunil Kumar has admitted in his cross-examination that the injury was not caused by biting. It was argued that if the injury was not caused due to biting then the whole case of the prosecution is under a serious doubt.
26.2 First of all, it has to be seen as to what was the nature of injury suffered by PW1 during the incident. 'Grievous" injury has been defined in Section 320 IPC which is re produced here as under section 320:
Grievous hurt.--The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":
--
SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 12 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman (First) -- Emasculation.
(Secondly) --Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. (Thirdly) -- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, (Fourthly) --Privation of any member or joint.
(Fifthly) -- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
(Fifthly) -- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
(Sixthly) -- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. (Seventhly) --Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. (Eighthly) --Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
26.3 As per section 320 (thirdly) an injury would qualify as a grievous hurt if it causes permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. There has to be permanent privation of the hearing capacity of the injured to cover that injury within the definition of grievous hurt. In the present case, it is alleged against the accused that he severed the upper portion of the right ear of PW1, giving a teeth bite and it is no where proved that the injury had any impact over the hearing ability of PW1 or not. Prosecution could have covered this injury of PW1 in Eighthly clause of 320 IPC by proving the fact that due to injury suffered by PW1 he remained in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for a time span of twenty days. There is no documentary or oral evidence on record which suggests that PW1 could not pursue his normal routine for twenty days.
Therefore, the injury, although, termed as grievous by PW3 in the MLC, is beyond the ambit of 'grievous injury' in terms of Section 320 IPC and resultantly, it has to be treated as a 'Hurt'.
26.4 As far as deposition of PW3 in his cross-examination is concerned, wherein he stated the injury was not caused by biting, is not going to help the accused in any manner. PW1 is the injured in this case and he has deposed in unequivocal manner that accused gave him a teeth bite and cut upper portion of SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 13 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman his right ear. In MLC of the injured the doctor opined that injury was caused by a sharp weapon. If someone is being bitten by any person or any animal with teeth then the impact would be of a sharp weapon and not a blunt one. Moreover, the opinion of PW3 in his cross-examination is mere an expert opinion u/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act which is of only persuasive value and not binding upon the court. Law is settled that injured is a stamped witness in any case and his version has to be given due weightage by the court. In Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of MP reported in 2010 AIR SCW 5701 and State of UP Vs. Naresh and Ors 2011 4SCC 324 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that evidence of an injured witness is genuinely considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he would spare the real assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he had sustained injuries at the time of alleged incident. The injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the spot. The deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence.
26.5 The testimony of PW1 is strongly pointing out towards the conduct of the accused and he has found corroboration from the testimonies of PW4 and PW5. All of them have deposed in unambiguous manner qua the injuries suffered by PW1 as it was caused by the accused by biting his ear and severing the same. Hence, the opinion of PW3 in his cross-examination is not binding upon the court and the injury of PW 1 stands proved on the basis of oral testimonies of PW1, PW4 and PW5 and through the MLC of the injured. Therefore, the effort on behalf of accused to seek shelter under the cross-examination of PW3, turns out to be a very weak effort and is of no help to the cause of the accused.
CONCLUSION
27. Considering the above discussion and material available on record I SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 14 of 15 PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman am of the first view that accused was driving his tempo 407 bearing No. DL 1LP 7377 in first lane of the road on 28.11.2011. He was signalled to stop his vehicle by PW5, he drove his vehicle in a fast speed with an aim to flee away from there and while doing so he drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. After being stopped when he was asked to produce RC, Permit and driving license by PW1, he assaulted him and severed one portion of his right ear by biting the same. While doing so he also obstructed PW1 to perform his duties as a public servant. As concluded above the injury suffered by PW1 is falling short of the definition of grievous hurt and it has to be treated as simple hurt. The person, who causes hurt to a public servant, commits an offence under section 332 IPC. The conduct of the accused and the injury proved by the prosecution, ingredients of section 332 IPC are fully satisfied. Accused was facing trial under section 333 IPC but he is convicted under section 332 IPC which is a minor offence of same category than 333 IPC. Prosecution has successfully proved complaint u/s 195 CrPC as Ex. PW8/A which is necessary to convict any person u/s 186 IPC. Hence, there is reliable and concrete evidence available on record to conclude that accused is guilty of committing offences u/s 186/279/332/353 IPC.
28. Put up for arguments on sentence after compliance of directions in case titled as Karan Vs. State of NCT Delhi Crl. A 352/2020.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2023.04.06
16:39:11 +0530
Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana)
Court on 06.04.2023 Addl. Session Judge-FTC-02
(running in 15 pages) (South East), Saket Courts/Delhi
SC No. 1490-2016, FIR No. 447/2011 Page No. 15 of 15
PS Sun Light Colony State Vs. Lalman