Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Mukesh on 7 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No.89/13
Unique Case ID No. 48/2016
FIR No.315/12
U/S: 308/323/34 IPC
P.S: GTB Enclave
State Versus 1. Mukesh
S/o. Sh. Surender Pal Singh
R/o. 340, Janta Flats, GTB Enclave,
Delhi.
2. Jitender Pal @ J.P. @ Pappu
S/o. Sh. Surender Pal Singh
R/o. 340, Janta Flats, GTB Enclave,
Delhi.
3. Komal Verma
W/o. Late Sh. Rajesh Arora
R/o. 169, 3rd floor, Janta Flats,
GTB Enclave, Delhi.
_________________________________________________________________________
_FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 1 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc.
Date of Institution : 31.08.2013
Date of Arguments : 16.05.2018
Date of Judgment : 07.06.2018
JUDGMENT
Case of Prosecution
1. Criminal law was set into motion on 16.12.2012 at about 5.30 pm, on receiving a call regarding quarrel at PS GTB Enclave, which was recorded vide DD No.21A and was assigned to SI Ajay Kumar, who alongwith Ct. Jaswant reached at the spot i.e in front of flat no. 169, Janta Flats, GTB Enclave, Delhi, where they came to know that injured were already taken to the GTB Hospital by PCR. Thereupon, after leaving Ct. Jaswant there to guard the spot, SI Ajay Kumar reached at GTB Hospital and obtained MLCs of injured Gajender Nath Rai & his wife Sandhya Rai. SI Ajay Kumar recorded the statement of Gajender Nath Rai and on the basis of statement of complainant Gajender Nath Rai, present case FIR was registered. Accused persons were arrested Further investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
2. On appearance copies were supplied to the accused _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 2 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. persons u/s 207 Cr.P.C. and as section 308/34 IPC is triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to Session Court.
Charge framed against the accused persons
3. All the accused persons were charged u/s. 308/323/34 IPC, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses examined
4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case.
The brief summary of the deposition of prosecution witnesses is as under:
5. PW1 is complainant Sh. Gajender Nath Rai, who deposed that accused Komal resides at the third floor of the building in which he is residing at first floor. He deposed that on 16.12.2012 in the morning time, accused Komal threw dirty water from the third floor on the clothes, which were lying at the first floor for drying and when he objected, accused Komal said that she would do so and also abused him. He ignored her abuses as on previous occasions also she had done so. He deposed that they lifted their clothes from there quietly and _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 3 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. went inside. PW1 further deposed that at about 5 pm, he got down from his house for buying milk from the market, suddenly a brick fell in front of him and he barely survived. He saw that accused Komal was standing at the third floor and she said that she had thrown the brick and it was his good luck that he survived. Thereafter, Karan son of accused Komal (Juvenile), accused Mukesh & Pappu came there alongwith one more person and started beating him. In the meanwhile, accused Komal also came down from her house and asked other accused persons to catch hold of him while saying that she would set him right. Accused Mukesh & Pappu caught him and gave beatings while accused Komal lifted a brick and gave multiple blows on his head till he fell down. On hearing his noise, his wife Sandhya Rai came down to rescue him, however, she was also beaten with leg and fist blows and was also caused injuries with brick, due to which she started bleeding profusely. Thereafter, accused persons left the spot. PW1 further deposed that his wife Sandhya Rai informed the police at 100 number. Police came to the spot and rushed them to GTB Hospital, where his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. He deposed that his daughter also accompanied them to the hospital. He was discharged from the hospital next morning and on that day, he had shown the place of occurrence to the police, whereafter site plan was prepared by the police. He deposed that accused Mukesh had come to the hospital on 16.12.2012 perhaps to seek pardon and was arrested by the police from _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 4 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. the hospital. He deposed that he had handed over his gray colour jacket and green colour Tshirt having blood to the police. He deposed that on 18.12.2012, he saw accused Pappu moving around the road near his house and then informed the police telephonically. PW1 further deposed that on 28.12.12 accused Komal, her son Karan (juvenile) and 12 other boys surrounded his wife and threatened that this time they have survived and asked her to withdraw the case, failing which they will not be spared. A complaint regarding the same was made at 100 number. He deposed that on 28/29.12.12 accused Komal and her son banged the door of his house with flower pot; broke the flower pot; hurled abuses and threatened them to withdraw the case, regarding which complaint was again made at 100 number but no action was taken by the police.
6. PW2 is Dr. Akshay Bhandari, who had prepared MLC of injured Sandhya Rai. He proved the MLC of Sandhya Rai as Ex.PW2/A.
7. PW3 Ms. Jyoti Rai is the daughter of complainant, who deposed that on 16.12.2012 at about 5 pm, she alongwith her mother and younger brother Shobit was watching T.V at her house while her father had gone out to buy milk. Suddenly, they heard the noise of quarrel from outside. She alongwith her mother came in the gallery _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 5 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. outside the house and saw that two persons including Mukesh Uncle had caught her father; accused Komal, who resides on the third floor above their flat, was hitting brick on the head of her father and accused Jitender was giving leg and fist blows to her father. She deposed that her mother went down stairs to rescue her father and when she followed her, she was stopped by her mother, therefore, she alongwith her brother went inside the room of the house. She further deposed that after some time the noise from outside slowed down and then she came outside and saw that her mother and father were bleeding. Her mother informed the police at 100 number; the PCR Van came at the spot and rushed her parents to GTB Hospital. She also accompanied them to the hospital. She deposed that since after the incident, accused Komal and her associates have been threatening them to withdraw the case and they also broke their flower pot & locked their door.
8. PW4 is Dr. Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Senior Resident, Neuro Surgery Department, who had given opinion on the MLC of injured Sandhya Rai from Neuro Surgery point of view.
9. PW5 W/HC Indu Bala is the duty officer, who had recorded DD No.21A Ex.PW5/A. She had also registered the FIR Ex.PW5/B on the basis of rukka received from Ct. Jaswant and proved her endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW5/C. _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 6 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc.
10. PW6 is injured Sandhya Rai wife of complainant Gajender Nath Rai. She deposed that her house is on the first floor while accused Komal lives on the third floor. She deposed that accused Komal had been quarreling with them from time to time regarding which they had made many complaints to the police. PW6 further deposed that in the night of 15.12.2012 she had put the clothes in the balcony for drying. Next morning accused Komal threw water on the clothes, due to which the clothes became wet. She informed her husband and then they lifted their clothes from there. She asked accused Komal as to why she was troubling her, at which, she abused her and they quietly went inside their house. She deposed that at about 5 pm, her husband Gajender Nath Rai had gone outside to buy milk and after sometime she heard the noise and abuses from outside. She alongwith her daughter went out in the gallery and saw that Karan son of accused Komal and accused Mukesh, who work as a property dealer alongwith some other boys were beating her husband on the road. She rushed down to save her husband. In the meanwhile accused Komal also came down and gave multiple blows on the head of her husband with brick. When she tried to apprehend Komal, Pappu and one other boy started beating her with leg and fist blows. She fell down, whereafter, accused Komal hit the same brick to her causing injuries to her. She deposed that lots of people then gathered at the spot and thereafter, accused and their associates left them and ran away. She _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 7 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. informed the police at 100 number from the mobile phone of her husband. PCR Van came at the spot and rushed them to GTB Hospital. She deposed that accused Mukesh came at the hospital and threatened her not to lodge the FIR, failing which, she would be killed. She raised the noise and then he fled away from there. She further deposed that even after the registration of FIR, on 28.12.2012 at about 2 am, she and her family members were intimidated by banging the door of her house. She deposed that on 28.12.12 at about 9.15 am, accused Komal banged the door of her house and gave filthy abuses. At that time, she was not present in the house and was informed on telephone by her son. She informed her husband about the same, who called the police at 100 number.
11. PW7 is Dr. Ravi Sriniwasan, Sr. Orthopedics, who on the basis of clinical record and Xray of injured Sandhya Rai, gave his opinion that injuries were simple in nature.
12. PW8 is Ct. Jaswant, who on 16.12.2012 was posted at PS GTB Enclave and was on emergency duty between 8 am to 8 pm. He deposed that at about 5.30 pm, on receipt of DD No.21A regarding a quarrel at H.No.169, Janta Flat, GTB Enclave, he alongwith SI Ajay Kumar went to the spot, where they came to know that injured had already been rushed to GTB Hospital. He deposed that some brick _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 8 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. pieces were lying on the road near the spot. After deputing him at the spot, SI Ajay Kumar went to GTB hospital and at about 7.15/7.30 pm, returned to the spot. He deposed that brick pieces were lifted from the spot and were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW8/A. He deposed that injured Gajender Nath Rai and his wife injured Sandhya Rai had handed over their blood stained clothes, which were seized by the IO. He was sent to the PS with rukka for registration of FIR and he accordingly, got the FIR registered.
13. PW9 HC Bhola Nath is the MHC (M), who deposed about depositing of parcels by IO at the malkhana on 16.12.2012 and 18.03.2013 and proved the relevant entries in this regard as Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B. He deposed that on 21.03.2013 he sent the parcels to FSL Rohini through Ct. Neelam Singh.
14. PW10 is Dr. P.K.Phukan, who proved the MLC of complainant/injured Gajender Nath Rai, prepared by Dr. Chirag as Ex.PW10/A.
15. PW11 is SI Ajay Kumar, IO of the case. He deposed that on 16.12.2012, on receipt of DD No. 21A, he alongwith Ct. Jaswant reached at the spot and found some brick pieces lying in front of Flat No. 169. He deposed that it appeared that some quarrel had taken place _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 9 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. there. He came to know that injured had already been rushed to GTB Hospital by PCR van. No eye witness was present at the spot. After deputing Ct. Jaswant at the spot, he went to GTB Hospital and collected the MLCs of injured Gajender Nath Rai and Sandhya Rai. Since injured Gajender Nath Rai was fit for statement, he recorded his statement, made his endorsement and then returned to the spot. He got the FIR registered through Ct. Jaswant. He also deposed about arrest of accused persons; preparation of site plan at the instance of complainant; steps taken by him during investigation and various memos prepared by him.
16. PW12 is Dr. Jaskaran, Sr. Neurosurgeon, AIIMS. He deposed that on 16.01.2013, he had examined CT Scan and other relevant documents of complainant Gajender Nath Rai and opined from the neurosurgery point that the nature of injury is simple. He proved his opinion as Ex.PW12/A on MLC Ex.PW10/A. He also proved the opinion Ex.PW12/B given by Dr. Praveen on the MLC of injured Sandhya Rai Ex.PW2/A. Statement and Defence of accused persons
17. Statement of accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C was _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 10 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. recorded, wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and pleaded innocence. Whereas accused Mukesh pleaded false implication at the instance of complainant, accused Jitender Pal @ J.P @ Pappu stated that after three days, he was called by the IO, who falsely implicated him. He stated that he also made a complaint against IO to DCP as he was demanding money from him. Accused Komal stated that the staircase of the house is very narrow and wife of complainant Sandhya used to switch off the light of the staircase during night hours, therefore, there was some altercation between them, due to which she was falsely implicated. She stated that no such incident occurred at the alleged spot. Two witnesses were examined by accused persons in their defence.
18. DW1 Sh. Gagan Jain deposed that he is working with accused Mukesh as a driver. He deposed that one day in the month of December 2012, he was present in the office of partner of accused Mukesh at Dilshad Garden. On that day, at about 8.30 pm, he came to the house of Mukesh, where he came to know that 34 persons were taken to GTB Hospital. Thereupon, he alongwith Mukesh went to GTB Hospital, where they saw that complainant was having dressing on his head. He deposed that they remained there for about 45 minutes. Thereafter, police officials came there and took accused Mukesh with them. He came back to the house of Mukesh and informed his elder _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 11 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. brother about taking of accused Mukesh by the police. He further deposed that he was having a civil litigation pending with the counsel for complainant Sh. Vijay Rana before the court of Dr. T.R.Naval, the then District Judge, Shahdara and due to that grudge, counsel for complainant got included the name of Mukesh in the FIR, although he was not present at the time of incident.
19. DW2 is accused Komal Arora, who was examined as defence witness u/s. 315 Cr.P.C. She deposed that she is residing at 3 rd floor of H.No.169, GTB Enclave, Delhi for last about 10 years alongwith her son Karan aged about 14 years and running her cloth shop on the ground floor in the same premises. Complainant also resides alongwith her family on the first floor. She deposed that there were grievances between her and the complainant & his family on account of the passage/stairs, which are very narrow and the complainant/his wife used to remove the bulbs and pour water upon the stairs only to harass her and her son and on this account verbal talks have been made a number of time but the complainant and his family did not reform themselves. She deposed that she had made number of complaints at 100 number against the complainant and his wife and that similarly complainant and his wife also had made several calls against her and her son on this account.
With regard to incident, she deposed that on 16.12.2012 at _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 12 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. about 5 pm, she was sitting at her shop and she saw that complainant and his wife sustained injuries as complainant was organising Shakha at Masjid Wala Park. She and other people heard the noise and then saw that Muslim persons were causing injuries to the complainant and his wife on account of Shakha as there was the time of Azan and he was creating hindrances. Later on, she came to know that complainant and his wife had lodged the case against her and her son alongwith other persons. She deposed that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to abovesaid grievances.
Arguments and conclusion
20. Arguments have been addressed by Sh. K.P.Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State assisted by Sh. Vijay Kumar Rana, Ld. Counsel for complainant as also by Sh. A.K.Pandey & Sh. R.S.Goswami, Ld. Defence Counsels for all the accused persons.
21. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Mukesh and Jitender Pal @ J.P argued that all the material witnesses examined by prosecution are interested witnesses being family members. It has been submitted that admittedly IO noted down the name and addresses of public witnesses who were present at the spot but their details have not been _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 13 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. provided. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that name of accused Jitender Pal @ J.P is not mentioned in the rukka and pointed out contradictions in the statement of complainant and IO regarding discharge of complainant from hospital.
22. Sh. R.S.Goswami Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Komal argued that the incident occurred due to sudden provocation and ingredients of section 308 IPC are not attracted. It has been submitted that nature of injuries is opined as simple and it is impossible that in a quarrel with complainant accused persons did not receive any injury. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that there is delay of two hours in registration of FIR.
23. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are consistent and sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty. He further argued that minor contradictions coming out in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are ignorable keeping in view the time gap between incident and their deposition before the Court. He further argued that there was no sudden fight and it was habit of accused Komal to throw dirty water on the first floor, where complainant was residing. It has been further submitted that MLC of the complainant supports his version as _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 14 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. concerned doctor noted seven lacerated wounds on the vital parts of his body.
24. In the instant case, complainant as well as another injured i.e his wife both have fully supported the case of prosecution on material aspects and have given consistent testimonies. Daughter of complainant and injured Sandhya Rai i.e PW3 Ms. Jyoti Rai also corroborated their version materially. As per testimony of complainant Gajender Nath Rai, during morning hours of 16.12.2012 accused Komal threw dirty water from the third floor on their clothes, which were lying at the first floor for drying and on his objection, accused Komal abused him. Later on, in the evening when complainant was going for buying milk, suddenly a brick fell in front of him and accused Komal, who was standing at third floor said that she had thrown the brick and it was his good luck that he survived. Thereafter, accused Komal came down and coaccused Mukesh and Pappu caught hold of him while accused Komal lifted a brick and gave multiple blows on the head of complainant. When PW6 Ms. Sandhya Rai wife of the complainant rushed to save her husband, she was also given beatings by accused persons. Accused Komal also hit her with brick.
25. PW1 in his testimony deposed that accused Komal had given multiple blows on his head till he fell down on the road. This fact _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 15 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. is corroborated by initial statement of complainant i.e Ex.PW1/A recorded in the GTB Hospital as also by his MLC Ex.PW10/A, which shows six injuries on the face and head of the complainant. Similarly, testimony of PW6 Ms. Sandhya Rai is also corroborated by her MLC Ex.PW2/A, which shows lacerated wound on nose and swelling over scalp.
26. A plea was taken by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Mukesh that he was falsely implicated as his driver DW1 was having a civil litigation pending with the counsel of complainant Sh. Vijay Rana, Advocate. There is no evidence to show that complainant was aware that his counsel Sh. Vijay Rana, Advocate was having a civil litigation with DW1 even otherwise this plea is not believable. Complainant has given the name of accused Mukesh in his initial statement given to police at GTB hospital and one full brick and one half brick were also got recovered from the spot at the instance of co accused Mukesh, who after the incident had also gone to GTB hospital. When these two bricks were examined in FSL, human blood was detected on these bricks as per FSL result Ex.PX, which also shows his presence at the spot and corroborate the version of complainant and his wife that they were caused injuries with the bricks.
27. The next contention of Ld. Defence Counsel was that the _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 16 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. material prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses being family members. Mere fact that witnesses cited by prosecution are related to complainant does not disqualify them to depose as a witness and does not render their testimony unreliable.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) SCC 614, wherein it was held that " a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term ' interested ' postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason."
As such, the contention of Ld. Defence Counsels that prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses being relatives of complainant is not sustainable and cannot be a ground to reject their testimony.
28. Complainant in his initial statement Ex.PW1/A stated that at the time of incident suddenly son of Komal namely Karan, Vijay Property Wala Mukesh and some other boys came there and started giving him blows of kicks and fist. It was plea of Ld. Defence Counsel that coaccused Jitender Pal @ J.P is the real brother of accused Mukesh, therefore, complainant should have also known his name and _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 17 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. told the same in his initial statement, if he was involved in the incident. In this regard, complainant in his crossexamination has clarified that he knew the name of accused Mukesh prior to the occurrence but did not know the name of accused Pappu and he came to know about his name after the occurrence. Only due to the reason that complainant had not disclosed the name of accused Jitender Pal @ J.P in his initial statement, although he stated that accused Komal alongwith Mukesh property wala and twothree other boys started beating him, it cannot be said that accused Jitender Pal @ J.P was not present at the spot.
29. Next contention of Ld. Defence Counsels is that as per complainant he was discharged from the hospital on the next morning of the incident while as per IO, he prepared rough site plan at the instance of complainant after 23 hours of the incident. In this regard, perusal of site plan Ex.PW1/DA shows that it was prepared on 17.12.2012 i.e on next day of incident, which fact has also been deposed by PW11 SI Ajay Kumar and thus, there appears no contradiction on this aspect.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2000 I AD (Cr) SC 49, State of HP Vs. Lekh Raj and another had, while distinguishing the "Discrepancies in evidence" from "contradiction", held as under:
'though latter could be fatal for prosecution case former _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 18 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. rather can be a proof of truthfulness of a witness'. In 1974 (3) SCC 767 Ousu Varghese vs State of Kerala also it was held that minor variations in the accounts of witnesses are often the hall mark of the truth of their testimony. With these judgments, the minor contradictions in the evidence of PWs can safely be ignored, they being not of vital nature. On the other hand, the testimony of the witnesses is corroborative on material aspects and the witnesses have stood by each other's version in the evidence as well as cross examination.
30. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Komal took the defence as also deposed by accused in her statement recorded u/s. 315 Cr.P.C when examined as DW2 that complainant was organising Shakha and on 16.12.2012 at 5 pm while sitting in her shop, she saw that some Muslim persons were causing injuries to the complainant and his wife as it was time of Azan and complainant was creating hindrance.
However, when complainant was in witnessbox, a suggestion was given only to the effect that being RSS member complainant used to visit the park in early morning and there some scuffle took place between complainant and some other boys, due to which complainant sustained injuries. This defence as taken by Ld. Defence Counsel during crossexamination of complainant is contrary to the statement given by accused Komal when she appeared in the witnessbox as _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 19 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. DW2.
31. Now the question comes for consideration is as to whether the act of accused persons in causing injuries on the person of complainant attracts ingredients of offence u/s 308 IPC. In order to constitute an offence u/s 308 IPC, it is to be proved that the said act was committed by the accused with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that the offence was committed under such circumstances that if the accused by that act, had caused death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide. The intention or knowledge on the part of the accused, is to be deduced from the circumstances in which the injuries had been caused as also the nature of injuries and the portion of the body, where such injuries were suffered.
32. Complainant in his statement has specifically deposed that accused Komal lifted a brick and gave multiple blows on his head till he fell down. This fact is also corroborated by the MLC of injured Ex.PW10/A, which shows four laceration over head and two on the face of the complainant. Although, the nature of injuries has been opined as simple but the injuries were caused on the vital parts of the body of complainant with the knowledge as required u/s. 308 IPC. MLC of PW6 Ms. Sandhya Rai Ex.PW2/A, also shows lacerated _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 20 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc. wound on nose and swelling over scalp.
33. The testimony of prosecution witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence appear to be reliable and trustworthy. Prosecution has successfully proved that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries on the head and other body parts of complainant with brick having knowledge that their act could have caused the death of complainant. Prosecution has also been able to prove that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention also caused injuries to Sandhya Rai, wife of complainant. In view of above, all the accused persons are held guilty and convicted under Section 308/323/34 IPC. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Announced in the open court Date: 2018.06.07 16:12:11 +0530 on 07.06.2018 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) ASJ/FTC/ECOURT Shahdara/KKD/Delhi _________________________________________________________________________ _FIR No.315/12, PS. GTB Enclave Page 21 of 21 St. Vs. Mukesh etc.