Delhi District Court
Sh. Dharmender @ Ramu vs The State on 8 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 166/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-005870-2019
In re:
Sh. Dharmender @ Ramu
S/o Sh. Sita Ram
R/o H.No. 283/24B,
West Block Khyala,
Delhi ...... Appellant
Versus
The State
(Govt of NCT of Delhi) ....... Respondent
Date of filing of appeal : 27.07.2019
Date of hearing arguments : 02.09.2021
Date of judgment : 08.09.2021
Appearances:
S/Sh. Arun Sharma and Vishnu Kumar, Advocates for the appellant.
Sh. Atul Kumar Shrivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
JUDGMENT
1. This Judgment shall decide a Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant in terms of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the judgment dated 21.05.2019, whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, followed by order on sentence dated 27.06.2019 in case FIR NO. 112/2008 under Section 377 IPC PS Tilak Nagar titled as 'State v. Dharmender @ Ramu', vide Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 1 of 14 which he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years besides sentencing him to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,00/- to the victim child.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 16.03.2008 DD No. 46B Ex.PW-10/A was recorded at PS Tilak Nagar to the effect that a minor boy had been sexually assaulted in house No. 283/38, Village Khayala, near School. The investigation was marked to ASI Srikishan, who reached the place of occurrence along-with Ct.
Satish (PW-5) and statement of the mother of the victim child was recorded Ex.PW-4/A, referred by the pseudonym 'M' in order to protect her identity in Hindi language, which goes as under:-
"बययन ककयय कक मम सपररवयर कक ककरययक पर रहतत हह ह और घरकलल कययर करतत हह ह मकरक 6 बचचक हह जजनमक 4 लडकक व 2 लडकक हह व xxxx ('A' examined as PW-1) उम 4 सयल सबसक छछटय लडकय हह जछ दस द रत ककय मम पढतय हह मकरय पकत नयई कक दक ल यन ककशवपलर कडपछ कक पयस करतय हह आज समय 5.30 बजक शयम मम मयककरट मम समयन लकनक गई थत जब मम वयकपस घर आ रहत थय तछ मकरय लडकय xxxx ('D' examined as PW-2) उम 12 सयल नक मलझक आवयज दककर कहय कक मममत रकछ भयई 'A' कक सयथ कलछ हह आ हह जछ रछ रहय हह मम घबरय गई और अपनक लडकक 'A' कक पयस आई जजसनक रछतक हह ए मलझक बतलययय कक मममत मकरक सयथ इसत मकयन मम एक लडकक नक गलत कयम ककयय हह जछ बडक लडकक 'D' नक बतलययय कक रयमद @ धमरनर द नक 'A' कक सयथ गलत कयम ककयय हह। जजसकछ मम पहलक सक जयनतय हह ह जछ सयमनक पडछस मम रहतय हह। जजसकछ ममनक अनदर जयकर मकयन मम जयकर पकड जलयय जछ मकरक सक छलडवय कर भयग गयय जजसकछ सयमनक आनक पर पहचयन सकतत हह ह व जयनतत हह ह रयमद कक जखलयफ कयनदनत कययर वयहत कय जयवक बययन सलन जलयय ठतक हह।"
3. On the basis of said complaint, rukka endorsement was made and the same was sent to the Police station, where endorsement Ex.PW-6/B was received and the present FIR Ex.PW-6/A was recorded at 17:30 hours on 16.03.2008. It is the case of the prosecution that during investigation, medical examination of the victim child was conducted vide MLC Ex.PW-7/A and sexual assault was confirmed.
Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 2 of 14The appellant was also medically examined at DDU Hospital vide MLC Ex.Pw-9/A. The victim child (referred by the pseudonym 'A' in order to protect his identity) was then produced before the then Ld. MM, Rohini, whose statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.AD-1 was recorded. Needless to state, during investigation statement of other witnesses were recorded, site plan Mark 'X' was prepared and the present charge-sheet was filed on 05.08.2008, on which date cognizance of the offence was taken. The appellant was then charged for committing offence under Section 377 IPC to the effect that on 16.03.2008 at about 5.30 p.m. at house No.1, ground floor, Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, he committed carnal intercourse with a minor child 'A' against the order of nature in terms of Section 377 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
4. During the course of trial, the victim child was examined as PW-1. At the cost of repetition, he has been referred by the pseudonym 'A' in the Judgment. PW-2 was the elder brother of the victim child and has been referred by the pseudonym 'D' in the impugned Judgment;
PW-3 was father and PW-4 was mother of the victim child, who have been referred by the pseudonym 'R' and 'M' respectively in order to protect their identity. It may be stated that during the relevant time full names and details of the witnesses have been indicated during recording of their testimony but pseudonym have been used by the Ld. MM while passing the impugned judgment to protect the identity of the victim child and his parents. PW-5 was HC Satish, who was accompanying the Investigating Officer at the spot. Unfortunately the Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 3 of 14 Investigating Officer could not be examined as he has expired in the meanwhile. PW-6 was ASI Banwari Lal, who made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW-6/B and recorded the FIR Ex.PW-6/A. PW-7 was Dr. Nishu Dhawan, Senior Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, who deposed about the remarks on the MLC prepared by Dr. Rajiv Tyagi, who had examined the victim child and she also identified the handwriting and the remarks of Dr. Rajiv Tyagi on the MLC and proved the MLC as Ex.PW-7/A. PW-8 was HC Babu Lal, who deposed that he took the appellant to DDU Hospital where semen samples were taken and collected vide seizure memo Ex.PW-8/A and the accused was medically examined. PW-9 was Dr. Rishi Kumar deposed about the MLC of the appellant/convict with regard to his medical examination vide MLC Ex.Pw-9/A and his detailed report is Ex.PW-9/B, upon which I shall delve upon later on in this judgment. PW-10 was HC Manoj Kumar, who deposed regarding recording of DD No. 46B Ex.PW-10/A at 6.41 p.m. PW-11 was Ct. Manoj Kujmar, who was malkhana Incharge and deposed that ASI Srikishan deposed two sealed pullandas in the Malkhana vide Sr.4682 and 4886 that are Ex.PW-11/A.
5. On the close of prosecution evidence, the appellant- accused was examined in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on being confronted with the incriminating facts and circumstances brought on the judicial record by the prosecution during the trial against him, the appellant stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated. No evidence in defence has been led by the appellant-accused.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT:
6. The Ld. MM vide the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2019 found that the testimony of PW-1 'A' was without any blemish and Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 4 of 14 inspiring confidence besides the same getting corroborated by his elder brother PW-2 and mother PW-4. Finding the inconsistencies in the their testimonies to be natural and their versions appearing to be truthful and credible, the Ld. MM returned a finding holding the appellant guilty of committing offence under Section 377 IPC which was followed by impugned order on sentence dated 27.06.2019, whereby relying on decision in State of U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar, (2012) 8 SC 537 it was observed that the appellant was a young boy at the time of incident and thus, he has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the victim child within a month of the judgment, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for nine months. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was accorded to the appellant.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AT BAR:
7. In the present appeal, the impugned judgment on conviction and order on sentence are assailed inter alia on the grounds that Dr. Rajiv Kumar, who had medically examined the victim child was not produced in evidence, and therefore, medical examination with regard to sexual assault cannot be relied upon in law; and Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate material contradictions emerging in the cross-
examination of the witnesses, particularly as regards testimony of PW-4 that she was not present at home; and that while PW-2 stated that he was playing with the victim child, same was denied by the victim child; and that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that PW-2 and PW-4 were interested witnesses and they improved their version in the Court by testifying that the victim child came crying out of the room with his Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 5 of 14 pant down and faeces coming out; and that the case of prosecution that the accused had absconded is wrong as he himself surrendered before the Ld. MM on 07.06.2008.
DECISION:
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. I have also gone through the instant appeal file as well as evidence brought by the prosecution on the judicial record during the trial of the case.
9. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Codes provides as under:-
"Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Explanation - Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
10. The main ingredient of the aforesaid provisions is that accused committed carnal intercourse with a man, woman or animal and that such intercourse was against the order of nature and there must be penetration. The instant case is one of committing sodomy with a child of tender age and this Court has to examine if such unnatural offence was committed voluntarily, which is defined by Section 39 of the IPC, to mean when a cause is done by means whereby offender intended to cause it or by means which at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.
Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 6 of 14PROPOSITION OF LAW ON APPRECIATION OF TESTIMONY OF A CHILD WITNESS
11. It is well settled that in criminal jurisprudence that the sole testimony of the victim of sexual assault can be relied upon to convict the accused without independent corroboration provided that the testimony is of "sterling quality" leaving no shadow of doubt over its veracity. In the case of State v. Wasim, 2017 SCC On Line Del. 8502 wherein the Bench had while finding that the testimony of the prosecutrix therein could not be relied upon, observed that "the testimony of the prosecutrix must be unimpeachable and beyond reproach precluding any shadow of doubt over her veracity." In Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170, it was held:
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony."
12. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Babu Meena, (2013) 4 SCC 206 it was observed that:
"oral testimony can be classified into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In case of wholly reliable testimony of a single witness, the conviction can be founded without corroboration. This principle applies with greater vigour in case the nature of offence is such that it is committed in seclusion. In case prosecution is based on wholly unreliable testimony of a single witness, the court has no option than to acquit the accused.Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 7 of 14
13. Further, the Apex Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 reversed the conviction of the Trial Court and its confirmation by the High Court finding contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix and that the same was inconsistent with the remaining evidence of the prosecution. While doing so, the Supreme Court examined as to when the prosecutrix can be called to be a "sterling witness‟ as under:
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre 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 truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes 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 persons 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. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 8 of 14 witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged." {italic bold sentences emphasised}
14. In the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Master, (supra), it was observed that:-
"Before appreciating evidence of the witnesses examined in the case, it would be instructive to refer to the criteria for appreciation of oral evidence. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. {paragraph 15} If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless the reasons are weighty and formidable, it would not be proper for the appellate court to reject the evidence on the ground of variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Small/Trivial omissions would not justify a finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 9 of 14 criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. {paragraph 16} In the deposition of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies, howsoever honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence and threat to the life. It is not unoften that improvements in earlier version are made at the trial in order to give a boost to the prosecution case, albeit foolishly. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to separate falsehood from the truth. In sifting the evidence, the court has to attempt to separate the chaff from the grains in every case and this attempt cannot be abandoned on the ground that the case is baffling unless the evidence is really so confusing or conflicting that the process cannot reasonably be carried out. In the light of these principles, this Court will have to determine whether the evidence of eyewitnesses examined in this case proves the prosecution case. {paragraph 17} {italic bold sentences emphasised}
15. In the same case State of U.P. v. Krishna Master, (supra) in paragraph (24 & 37 ) it was cautioned however that:
"The basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole. The rustic witness as compared to an educated witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened more particularly when his evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. Further, a witness is bound to face shock of the untimely death of his near relative(s). Therefore, the court must keep in mind all these relevant factors while appreciating evidence of a rustic witness.
This Court is of the firm opinion that it would be doing injustice to a child witness possessing a sharp memory to say that it is inconceivable for him to recapitulate facts in his memory witnessed by him long ago. A child of tender age is always receptive to abnormal events which take place in his life and would never forget those events for the Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 10 of 14 rest of his life. The child would be able to recapitulate correctly and exactly when asked about the same in future. Therefore, the specious ground on which the reliable testimony of PW 2 Madan Lal came to be disbelieved can hardly be affirmed by this Court." {italic bold sentences emphasised}
16. In view of the aforesaid preposition of law, reverting back to the instant case, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of PW-1, child witness goes as under:-
"मम अपनक मममत पयपय कक सयथ कवषणल गयडर न मम रहतय हह ह। कलछ कदन पहलक शयम कछ करतब 5 बजक मकरत मममत ऱयशन लकनक गई थत और मकरक पयपय अपनत नयई कक दक ल यन पर कयम करनक गए थक। घर मक मकरत बडत बहन और मकरत एक छछटत बहन थत। मम अपनक दछसतछक कक सयथ गलत मम गलबबयरछक सक खकल रहय थय। इसत ददरयन Dharmender @ Ramu Uncle आए और मलझक एक कमरक मक लक गए। उस कमरक मक अरधकरय थय वहयह Dharmender @ Ramu अरकल नक मकरत पमट कनकयलत और अपनत पकशयब करनक वयलत चयज मकरत टटत करनक वयलत जगह मक डयलत थत। मलझक बहह त जछर सक ददर हह आ और मम कचलयनक लगय, पर इतनक मम Dharmender @ Ramu अरकल नक मकरय मदहह अपनक हयथ सक बरद कर कदयय। इसकक बयद Dharmender @ Ramu अरकल नक मलझक वहयह सक भगय कदयय"
17. PW-1 child witness in his testimony recorded before the Ld. Trial Court on 27.09.2008 reiterated the initial version to the effect that he was playing with water balloons, and on correctly identifying the accused, he further testified that accused gagged his mouth and took him inside the room where he removed his pant and inserted his penis inside his anus - उसकक बयद इसनक मकरत पकनट खछल दत और मकरत लकटरतन करनक वयलत जगह मम अपनत पकशयब वयलत गरदत चतज डयल दत। मलझक कयफक ददर हछनक लगय मम बयहर भयगनक लगय कलनडत खछलनक कक जलए मम कचलययय थ लकककन मकरय मदहह दयब जलयय थय।
18. There was a short cross-examination of PW-1 and it would be expedient to reproduce the same in toto, which goes as under:-
"जब मम गलत मम खकल रहय थय तछ मकरक सयथ कछई नहह थय। अककलक थय। मकरत मममत घर पर थत। मममत सबजत लकनक गयत थत आधक रयसतक तक गयय थय। यहत अरकल मलझक लककर गए थक। कछई ओर अरकल नहह थक। अरकल कय भत घर आगक जयकर हमयरक घर Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 11 of 14 सक दरद हह। जब मम गलबबयरक मम पयनत भर रहय थय। तछ वहयर पर कछई और नहह थय। जजसकय गकट झलक रहय थय। मलझक वहयर सक थछडत दरद तक हत लक गयय थय। घर मम अरधकरय थय। मलझक पतय नहह वह ककसकय घर थय। मलझक छछड कर वह भत बहयर चलय गयय थय। जब ममनक मममत कछ बतययय थय तछ इसकछ गलत कक बयहर पकड जलयय थय। पलजलस भत इसत कदन आयत थय। ममनक सयरत बयत पलजलस कछ बतय दत थत और नयम भत बतय कदयय थय। मलझक आज नयम ययद नहह हह। मकनक मममत कछ इसकय नयम नहह बतययय थय। यह कहनय गलत हह कक महनक अपनत मममत कक कहनक पर इसकय नयम जलखवययय थय। यह कहनय गलत हह कक मम झदट बछल रहय हह ह।"
19. A bare perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1 would show that he revealed a consistent story that he was playing with water balloons; and that his elder brother 'D' was around but the appellant took him away, gagged his mouth and thereafter sexually assaulted him, as result of which he experienced pain. Indeed, Dr. Rajiv Tyagi was not examined and PW-7 Dr. Nishu Dhawan identified the handwriting, remarks and signatures of Dr. Rajiv Tyagi and the MLC clearly suggests that linear abrasion was present at 6 O'clock position in anal canal approximately 0.5 cms x 1.0 cms. It is pertinent to mention that the child witness was medically examined without any delay at about 8.05 p.m. on the date of the incident, in which he stated to the attending Doctor that he was sexually assaulted. Thus, there is medical corroboration to the version of the incident testified by PW-1.
20. Further, PW-2, the elder brother of the victim child also corroborated the version that his younger brother 'A' was playing with water balloons and his brother went to the house of the appellant for filling water in the balloons and after sometime he heard his cries and as he rushed towards the house of accused and his brother disclosed that the appellant had done some wrong thing with him (which is recorded as internal intercourse against order of nature by the Ld. Trial Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 12 of 14 Court on translation from Hindi version to English language) which should read as anal intercourse against order of nature. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW-2 to disbelieve his version of incident except that he as also his mother examined as PW-4 improved their version that 'A' came out of the room of the appellant where the alleged incident occurred "crying with his pant down below his knees and latrine coming out". Indeed the said version testified by PW-2 and PW-4 do not find any mention in the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, however, the said improved version does not dislodge the root of the prosecution case. Further, there is nothing in the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 so as to suggest that they had any ulterior motive to falsely implicate the appellant/convict. It is also in the testimony of PW-4 that she confronted the appellant but he attempted to escape and though she caught hold of him, he managed to escape. It is un-impeached version of PW-1 that he disclosed the incident to his brother and they then disclosed the same to their mother, which was corroborated by PW-2, boy 'D'. It is also a grave circumstance against the appellant that he ran away from the spot, evaded arrest and finally surrendered before the Ld. MM and on such surrender was arrested on 07.6.2008 at 2.30 p.m.
21. The sum total of the aforesaid discussion is that the testimony of PW-1 is of 'sterling quality' and same can be believed without any corroboration. There is nothing on the judicial record to suggest that the child witness was tutored in any manner by any one. However, in the instant case the facts and circumstances brought out Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 13 of 14 in the testimony of PW-1 stands corroborated by the version given by PW-2 as well as PW-4. At the cost of repetition it is relevant fact under Section 6 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act that the appellant was identified at the spot and that an attempt to apprehend him was made but he managed to escape and then the appellant was on a run surrendering before the Court after about 2 ½ months. There is no substance in the plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant that non- examination of the Investigating Officer shall demolish the entire case of prosecution. The IO could not be examined as he died before he could be summoned as a witness. There is no missing link when the prosecution stood their grounds firmly in their testimony. At the cost of repetition, there is nothing to suggest from the testimony of the witnesses including the suggestions given to them in cross-examination that PW-1 or his parents and his brother PW-2 'D' had any ulterior motive to falsely implicate the appellant.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the appeal and same is accordingly dismissed and the conviction under Section 377 IPC is upheld. Let the appellant be heard on the point of sentence. Digitally signed by DHARMESH DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.09.10 16:13:48 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) th on 8 September, 2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi Criminal Appeal-166/2019 Dharmender @ Ramu v. State Page 14 of 14