Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Imran on 20 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUJ KUMAR SINGH,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT020045092014
FIR No. 58/13
PS: Bara Hindu Rao
State Vs. Mohd. Imran
U/s: 341/34 IPC & 3PDPP Act
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 296795/16
(b) Date of offence 09.08.2013
(c) Complainant Ct. Mupender
(d) Accused Mohd. Imran S/o Sh. Anwar Ali, R/o
H. No. 9132, Fourth Floor, Gali Zameer
Wali, Nawab Ganj, Azad Market, Delhi.
(e) Offence U/s 341/34 IPC & 3PDPP Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Convicted
(h) Date of Institution 08.08.2014
(i) Date when judgment was 20.03.2024
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 20.03.2024
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present case u/s 341/34 IPC and 3PDPP Act.
CASE OF PROSECUTION FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 1 of 18
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr. P.C.') is that on 09.08.2013 at about 11:45am, on Road toward Jangal Wali Masjid from Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS BHR, accused Mohd. Imran alongwith other unknown persons in further of common intention wrongfully restrained the driver and conductor of DTC buses including the said buses and damaged the buses which were public property and thus tried for commission of offence punishable u/s 341/34 IPC and 3PDPP Act.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. Upon completion of investigation, police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed and the accused was consequently summoned.
4. The copies of the police report and annexed documents were supplied to the accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court, charge for the offence punishable under Section 341/34 IPC and 3PDPP Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses:-
FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 2 of 18
7. PW-1/Ct. Mupendra Singh deposed that on 09.08.2013 at about 06:54am, one fatal accident took place in the area of PS Bara Hindu Rao. The relatives of the deceased were talking with SHO PS BHR namely Anil Kumar in his office. Meanwhile, 4-5 persons were started sloganing/agitating against the police. After hearing slogans, he alongwith Ct. Sanuj reached at the gate of the PS. They had requested them. He correctly identified accused in the court. Accused was also sloganing against the police. All the gathered persons were having dandas in their hands. Accused alongwith his associates moved towards Jangal Wali Masjid near Azad Market Chowk and started pelting stones on the DTC buses which were moving on the road. They had lifted the stones from the side of the roads. They had also broken the glasses of DTC buses by the dandas which were carrying by them. They had requested accused and his associates not to damage the buses but accused had not paid any heed towards the requests. Accused had broken/damaged total seven DTC buses. After damaging the buses, accused and his associates fled away from the spot. He had made complaint regarding the incident to the IO who recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A. IO prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW1/B. Photographs of the damaged buses were taken. He identified the case property through photographs Ex. P1 (colly).
During his cross examination he deposed that he was posted at PS Bara Hindu Rao one and half years prior to the incident. He had seen the accused during the course of his official duties at PS Bara Hindu Rao. He might have seen accused 8-10 times. Accused used to come to police station as representative of other persons of the locality. He was not the investigating officer or associated with the cases in which the accused had FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 3 of 18 come in the PS. On the day of the incident, there were 10-12 persons in the office of SHO talking to SHO at around 08:30am. There were total 70-80 police officials were posted at PS Bara Hindu Rao. At that time, 5-7 police officials were present in the PS. When the aforesaid persons were talking with the SHO. The mob present outside started shouting slogans. There were 5-7 persons who were present outside. At the same time, some people started pelting stones. These incidents happened around 09:00am after the altercation took place between himself and Ct. Sanuj with the persons present outside, SHO and other police officials came outside. The said persons left from the PS and went towards Azad Market and during the way they damaged the vehicles. They alongwith the SHO also followed accused. The incident of damaging the DTC buses went on for about 15 to 20 minutes. He did not remember whether any passenger, driver or conductor of the buses got injured in the incident or not. All persons who were damaging the different directions. When the said persons were damaging the vehicles, they were for a distance of about 40-50 meters from them. The persons who were damaging the buses were targeting different buses at the same time. He could not say what was the distance between them and the last bus which was damaged. He did not remember the exact time when the Io met him. He did not remember after how much time after the incident the IO met him. He had not informed ASI Kartar Singh. He had disclosed the details of the incident to ASI Kartar Singh. He recorded his statement. It took around five minutes to record his statement. He did not remember the exact time when rukka was sent to the PS for registration of FIR. He did not remember after how much time his statement was recorded by the IO after the incident. SHO was not present when his statement was recorded. SHO FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 4 of 18 was present on the said road at some distance from them. They remained at the said road for about one and half to two hours. He did not remember at what time they returned back at the PS. He remained at the spot only. He could not say whether Ct. Sanuj and ASI Kartar Singh left the spot or not. IO tried to apprehend the miscreants. He did not remember whether any document was prepared at the spot. At that time, CCTV camera were installed at the PS. He had learnt that Sh. Rajesh Jain, the then MLA had visited the PS. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Jagdish Titler had also visited the PS on that day. He denied the suggestion that on that day a mob of 5,000 to 7,000 had gathered. He denied the suggestion that accused Mohd. Imran was not present at the spot alongwith the mob on that day of the incident. He further denied the suggestion that since the accused was visiting the PS as representative of other persons and therefore the SHO was annoyed with him and therefore the SHO falsely implicated accused in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of SHO. He denied the suggestion that the actual culprits were released under pressure from politicians.
7. PW-2/Ct. Sanuj deposed that on deposed that on 09.08.2013, it was the day of festival Eid. At about 06:30-07:00am, they were present in the police station Bara Hindu Rao and SHO was discussing in the matter of fatal accident case. Some boys were raising slogans against the police outside the gate of police station. He alongwith Ct. Mupender came out side of the police station and boys raising slogan and started to sabotage (damage) the DTC buses coming from jungle wali masjid and leading towards Barafkhana. Those boys were also carrying sticks in their hands.
FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 5 of 18 They tried to stop them and tried to make them understand but they were continuously doing their act of sabotage the vehicles. On their protest, those boys ran away inside the gali and streets of area of Bara Hindu Rao. He and Ct. Mupender were identifying a boy amongst those boys who often used to visit police station. ASI Kartar Singh came at the spot were the DTC buses were damaged by those boys. ASI Kartar Singh prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR and he went to police station and gave the same to duty officer for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, copy of the same was handed over to him and the same was handed over by him to SI Sanjeev.
During his cross examination he deposed that on 09.08.2013, he joined the duty at about 04:30am as there was deployment for Eid festival. He was on patrolling duty alongwith SHO. They were patrolling in the area and came back to Police Station after the incident took place. He alongwith Ct. Mupender only tried to stop the persons who were protesting because the other staff was deployed for Eid festival. In his presence, extra force was not called to control the protesting persons. ASI Kartar Singh was on emergency duty on that day. He had gone till Azad Market to stop the protesters but he did not remember the exact time. He came back to the PS when the rukka was handed over to him. He could not tell the place where the rukka was prepared. He could not tell whether the rukka was prepared on the road, vehicle or in any office. The rukka was not prepared in his presence. He was only called by the IO and handed over the rukka for getting the FIR registered. He was controlling the mob at Azad Market Chowk when the IO called him and handed over the rukka to him. He could not tell the time when the rukka was handed over to him. He could not tell FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 6 of 18 the time as to w hen he reached the police station alongwith the rukka. He did not remember when he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO at the police station itself. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time, place and manner as deposed by him. He denied the suggestion that he had not participated in the investigation of the present case as deposed by him or that IO did not hand over the rukka to him or that he did not get the FIR registered as deposed by him or that he had become a false witness in this case at the instance of IO and the SHO. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
8. PW-3/Ganesh Kumar deposed that on 09.08.2013 he was on duty on DTC bus route No. 212 bearing registration No. DL1PC 8367 of Nand Nagri Depot. On that day at about 11:45am, when they reached at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao from Azad Market side, 4-5 boys came with sticks in their hands and started beating him and also damaged the all glasses of the bus. Thereafter, they ran towards the back side of the bus and also damaged the back glass of the bus. Those persons then ran away towards Azad Market side. He correctly identified the said bus through photographs Ex. P1 and Ex. P2.
9. PW-4/Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 09.08.2013, he was working as driver in DTC and his duty was at Rajghat Depot in a bus route No. 236 and registration No. DL1PC 3089. On that day, at about 12:00am when he alongwith his bus reached near red light Azad Market Chowk, 4-5 boys came there with stone and dandas and all of a sudden they damaged FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 7 of 18 the front and back glass of his bus including two left side mirror and then they ran towards the back side of the bus. Those boys were not known to him and he was not having idea as to why they had damaged the property. Later, he came to know that they had damaged 7 buses of DTC. He could not identify them as the alleged incident took place in few seconds and immediately ran away due to which he was unable to saw them properly. IO recorded his statement. He correctly identified the said bus through photographs Ex. P3 and Ex. P4.
10. PW-5/Manoj Kumar deposed that on 09.08.2013, he was working as driver in DTC and his duty was at Millennium Depot-1 in bus route No. 926 and registration No. DL1PC 9542. On that day, at about 12:00am when he alongwith his bus reached near red light Azad Market Chowk, 4-5 boys came there with dandas and all of a sudden they damaged the front glass of his bus 7 glasses of left side window and 5 glasses of right side window and then they ran towards the back side of the bus. Those boys were not known to him and he was not having idea as to why they had damaged the property. When he moved forward then he saw that two more buses of DTC were also standing in a broken condition. Later, he came to know that they had damaged 7 buses of DTC. He could not identify them as the alleged incident took place in few seconds and immediately ran away due to which he was unable to saw them properly. At that time, Neeraj was conductor in his bus and his number was CC334. IO recorded his statement. He correctly identified the said bus through photographs Ex. P5 and Ex. P6.
FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 8 of 18
11. PW-6/Dinesh Chand deposed that on 09.08.2013, he was on duty in Rohini Depot No. 4 and assigned the bus No. DL1PC 8525 on the route No. 100A. At around 12:00noon, when he reached Azad Market Chowk then 4-5 persons came and stopped the bus and they all were carrying stick in their hands and they had also pelted stone on the front glass/windshield. They have also broken three window glasses of left side and two window glasses of right side. At that time, Amit Kumar CC No. 30 was on duty with him as bus conductor. He could not identify the said persons as he had not seen them properly at that time. Thereafter, he become nervous and ran away from the spot. He also came to know that those persons have also ran away. He correctly identified the bus through photographs Ex. P7 (colly).
During his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he deposed that it is correct that those persons after hitting on the glasses of the bus ran away towards back side. It is also correct that later on he came to know that they have damaged total seven DTC buses from that day.
12. PW-7/Surender Singh deposed that on 09.08.2013 at around 12:00pm, he was driving the bus bearing No. DL1PC 9004 on route No. 721, when the bus reached at Azad Market, the bus was stopped due to heavy jam before the red light. In the meantime, some boys who were armed with dande and some of them were carrying stones and they started destroying the bus. After hearing the commotion, passengers of the bus ran away from their seats. He also ran away from his seat due to the attack by the said boys. The said boys broke the front window and three side window glasses of the bus. He cannot identify any of the boy but they destroyed 5-7 FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 9 of 18 buses which were already standing in the broken condition on the spot. At the time of incident, the bus conductor namely Ajay Hooda was also with him.
During his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he deposed that it is correct that the said boy broke front glass, one right side window glass and three left side window glasses. The bus was not stopped by the 4-5 boys but the said bus was stopped due to heavy jam. He denied the suggestion that the bus was stopped by the 4-5 boys or that same was not stopped due to traffic jam.
13. PW-8/Retd. SI Kartar Singh deposed that on 09.08.2013 he was present in the police station Bara Hindu Rao and heard some noises. He came out and saw that public persons were pelting stones upon DTC buses. He immediately went to road and saw seven DTC buses in damaged condition which were halted towards Jangal Wali Masjid. On the spot, he met Ct. Sanoj and Ct. Mupender. He immediately informed PS Subzi Mandi. Other staff persons came to the spot. He recorded statement of Ct. Mupender which is Ex. PW1/A. He endorsed the same at point B. He prepared rukka which is Ex. PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Sanoj for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct. Sanoj came to the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to SI Sanjeev as the further investigation was marked to SI Sanjeev.
During his cross examination he denied the suggestion that neither he went to the spot nor he prepared rukka. He denied the suggestion that he FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 10 of 18 did not see anything. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
14. PW-9/Mahender Singh deposed that on 09.08.2013, he was driving the bus bearing No. DL1PC 9974 on route No.937. At about 12:00pm, when they reached near Azad Market Chowk, he saw some bus with broken windows glasses. 4-5 persons came with the sticks, rods and stones and started pelting stones upon the bus and breaking the windows with stones and rods. Two windows from the right side and one window of the left side of his bus was broken. He did not see the assailants as the said persons attacked the bus in the seconds and ran away. He came to know that total seven buses were damaged by assailants.
15. PW-10/SI Sanjeev Kumar (inadvertently numbered as PW-9) deposed that on 09.08.2013, he was posted as SI with PS BHR. On that day, the present case was marked to him for further investigation. He alongwith Ct. Sanoj went to spot i.e. near Jangalwali Masjid, Azad Market Chowk. At the spot, he found seven DTC buses in damaged condition. The photographs of the buses was obtained by calling photographer. They tried to find the accused but all in vain. He prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B. He collected the documents of the buses and placed the same on record. On 26.08.2013, accused Mohd. Imran surrendered in the police station. He correctly identified accused in the court. He arrested accused vide memo Ex. PW9/A bearing his signature at point A. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/B and recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW9/C. He tried to find the rods/sticks/stones which were pelted FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 11 of 18 upon the buses and used to damage the same but nothing could be found. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. After completing the investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the Hon'ble Court. The photographs of the buses are already Ex. P1(colly).
During his cross examination he deposed that he had gone through the rukka as well as complaint when the investigation was marked to him. The deceased was Mr. Haider who was known to accused. However, he did not investigate the relationship between the deceased and accused. It came to his knowledge that the then SHO came to spot alongwith police team when the incident took place. He did not record the statement of SHO. He took over the investigation of the present case at about 03:00pm on that day. No CCTV cameras was installed in the PS on the day of incident. He denied the suggestion that CCTV cameras was installed at the PS on that day or that the same were exonerating the accused or that due to that reason the same were suppressed and not brought on record deliberately. He denied the suggestion that he had filed a wrong chargesheet against the accused as he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he had not fairly investigated the case. A total of 250-300 persons were gathered at the spot on the day of incident. The beat constable apprised him about the fact. He denied the suggestion that since the accused used to visit the PS as representative of other persons to raise their issues and therefore the SHO was annoyed with him and therefore the SHO falsely implicated him in the present case in collusion with him. He did not make efforts to arrest to rest of the accused who were involved in the present case.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 12 of 18
16. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 19.09.2023 and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded vide order dated 06.10.2023 wherein accused pleaded innocence and opted to lead defence evidence. However, vide order dated 06.11.2023, defence evidence was closed as accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
17. In order to prove the charge against the accused u/s 341 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove that:-
(i) that there was same voluntary obstruction caused;
(ii) that the obstruction was such as to prevent any person from proceedings in any direction;
(iii) that the person obstructed had a right to proceed in that direction.
18. In order to prove the charge against the accused u/s 34 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove that:-
(i) criminal act is done by several persons;
(ii) such act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all; and
(iii) Each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
19. In order to prove the charge against the accused u/s 3 PDPP Act, the prosecution needs to prove that Accused damaged public property i.e. DTC Bus, public transportation.
ARGUMENTS FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 13 of 18
20. Sh. Vishal Gupta, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State addressed pertinent arguments. He submitted that the accused as well as the case property have been correctly identified by the witnesses. He stated that link evidence is also available. He urged that the case has been proved beyond doubt against the accused and prayed for conviction of the accused.
21. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police. He submitted that the absence of public witnesses to the alleged incident is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He prayed for acquittal of the accused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
22. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused have been considered.
23. Before proceeding further, this court needs to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused.
FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 14 of 18
24. It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
25. In the present case, Ct. Mupendra Singh and Ct. Sanuj are police officials who deposed that on 09.08.2013 they were posed at PS Bara Hindu Rao. One fatal accident took place on the area of PS Bara Hindu and relative of deceased were talking with the SHO. Accused Imran was raising slogan against the police and all gathered persons were having dandas/sticks and they started pelting stones on the DTC buses and broken the glasses of DTC buses by the dandas/sticks. Both the witnesses clearly identified the accused Imran in the court. Restraining of DTC buses also proved by public witnesses namely Ganesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Dinesh Chand, Mahender Singh and Surender Singh. Witnesses SI Kartar Singh and SI Sanjeev Kumar deposed about the investigation. It has been held in Appa Bhai and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696 that prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. In para no.11 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed that:-
"it is no doubt true that prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There mus have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 15 of 18 that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused".
26. It is trite law that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of prosecution witness merely on the ground that they are police personnel as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karamjeet Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 2003 SC 1311. Para 8 of aforesaid judgment reads as under :
"8.testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down."
27. The testimony of Ct. Mupender Singh and Ct. Sanuj are of utmost importance as well as crucial for deciding the present case. Nothing substantial which is beneficial for the accused could be extracted in their cross examination. In the instant case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Ct. Mupendra Singh and Ct. Sanuj and drivers of DTC Bus i.e. Ganesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Dinesh Chand, Mahender FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 16 of 18 Singh and Surender Singh, are found to be without blemish. There is absolutely no material or evidence on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any reason to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, there is found to be no ground to disbelieve the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding restraining DTC buses, pelting stones, breaking of glasses of DTC buses. Testimony of the Ct. Mupendra and Ct. Sanuj are duly corroborated by the testimony of other prosecution witnesses.
28. In the case of Namdev Vs State of Maharashtra, Crl. No. 914/2006 decided on 13.03.2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:-
i. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweigh the testimony of number of other witnesses of indifferent character. ii. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, Court should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon, e.g. in case of a child witness or an accomplice or a witness of analogue character iii. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depend upon the judicial discretion of judge before whom the case comes.
29. In my humble opinion, prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and clearly proved that accused Imran with the other accused who had not been arrested restrained the DTC buses, pelted stones and broken the glass of buses.
30. In my humble opinion, this court is of the view that the prosecution FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 17 of 18 has successfully proved the offence u/s 341/34 IPC and Section 3 PDPP Act against the accused Mohd. Imran. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Imran is convicted for the offence u/s 341/34 IPC & Section 3 PDPP Act.
31. Be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed ANUJ Announced and Signed in the Open Court by ANUJ KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: on 20th March, 2024 SINGH 2024.04.09 17:01:05 +0530 (ANUJ KUMAR SINGH) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02 Central/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi(A) FIR No .58/2013 State Vs Mohd. Imran PS: BHR Page No. 18 of 18