Delhi District Court
State vs . Poonam on 17 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV KATARIYA METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI STATE VS. POONAM FIR NO. 668/2015 PS. Jahangir Puri U/S. 289/337 IPC NEW CASE NO. 5295180/2016 JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission : 29.07.2015
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Manbir
3) The name & parentage : Poonam W/o Sh. Dayanand
Of accused
4) Offence complained of : 289/337 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Convicted
7) Date of Institution : 27.04.2016
8) Judgment reserved on : 17.01.2023
9) Judgment announced on : 17.01.2023
FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 1/18
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV KATARIYA
KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18
18:04:09 +0530
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution is that, on 29.07.2015, at about 02:30 PM, in front of Jhuggi No. D - 846, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangir Puri, accused omitted to take proper care of the dog as sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life and on the aforesaid date, time and place by omitting to take proper care, caused simple hurt to child Vaishali. Investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed under Section 289/337 IPC. After filing of charge sheet, documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
2. Notice was framed against the accused under Section 289/337 IPC vide order dated 20.10.2016 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 08 Witnesses : List of witnesses and the documents alongwith exhibits:
PW Name Documents proved Ex. No. Sr. No. PW1 W/Ct. Anita Copy of Rojnamcha Ex.PW1/A containing DD No. 82B FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 2/18 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18 18:04:17 +0530 PW2 Sh. Manbir His statement Ex.PW2/A Site plan Ex. PW 2/B photographs of his daughter Ex. PW 2/C PW3 Dr. Neeraj MLC No. 102031 Ex. PW 3/A Chaudhary PW4 Dr. Deepak MLC No. 102031 Ex. PW 3/A PW HC Balaji Shinde Nil Nil 4A PW 5 ASI Raj Kumar Endorsement on the Rukka Ex. PW 5/A Copy of FIR Ex. PW 5/B PW 6 Ms. Vaishali NIL NIL PW 7 Retd. SI Suresh Rukka Ex. PW 7/A Chander Seizure memo of Vet Card Ex. PW 7/B Notice u/s 41.A Cr.P.C Ex. PW 7/C Pabandinama of the accused Ex. PW 7/D PW 8 Dr. Swapnil Copy of the entry of the Ex. PW 8/A Register bearing the particulars of Anti Rabies FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 3/18 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18 18:04:23 +0530
4. PW 1 is W/Ct. Anita, No. 2720/SW, PS Bindapur, Delhi. She deposed that on 29.07.2015, she was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as Duty Officer from 08:00 am to 04:00 pm. On that day, at about 03:08 pm, she received a call from wireless operator regarding biting of girl by dog which he entered into rojnamcha vide DD entry No. 82B and informed ASI Suresh Ranga on telephone to take necessary action on the same. The true copy of rojnamcha containing DD No. 82B is exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A. Opportunity was given to cross examine the said witness, however, the same was not availed by Defence.
5. PW 2 is Sh. Manbir S/o Sh. Jagdish R/o Jhuggi No. B - 846, behind ITI, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. He deposed that on 29.07.2015, he was at his job and on that day, at about 03:00 pm, he received a call of his wife that my daughter was bitten by the dog when she was going to tuition. The dog belonged to Poonam. He straight away went to BJRM Hospital. His daughter was referred to Hindu Rao Hospital. That dog has bitten many persons earlier also including his daughter. He had requested accused many times to tie the dog but they did not pay any heed. The dog used to wander untied. His statement was recorded at PS which is exhibited as Ex. PW 2/A bearing his signatures at Point A. The distance between his house and house of the accused is 2025 steps away and there was only one jhuggi between my jhuggi and jhuggi of accused. The site plan which is Ex. PW 2/B was prepared by the IO at his instance. Photographs which are Ex. PW 2/C are of his daughter, taken just after the treatment. The witness is cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 4/18
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA
KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18
18:04:28 +0530
6. PW 3 is Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO BJRM Hospital, Delhi. He deposed that he had been deputed by MS BJRM Hospital to depose in MLC No. 102031 on behalf of Dr. Narender. Dr. Narender already left the hospital and his whereabouts are not known. He had also gone through the MLC which is Ex. PW 3/A bearing signatures of Dr. Narender at Point A to D. Final Opinion has been given by Dr. Narender as simple. Opportunity was given to cross examine the said witness, however, the same was not availed by Defence.
7. PW 4 is Dr. Deepak, CMO, BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. He deposed that he had appeared on behalf of Dr. Yogesh Tekwani who was not available. He could identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Yogesh Tekwani as he had worked with him. He had gone through the MLC No. 10231 already exhibited as Ex. PW 3/A and the same has been prepared by Dr. Vishal under the supervision of Dr. Yogesh Tekwani which bears signatures of Dr. Yogesh Tekwani at Point E. According to the MLC, nature of injury was simple. Opportunity was given to cross examine the said witness, however, the same was not availed by Defence.
8. It is pertinent to mention that inadvertently, Witness Dr. Deepak and HC Balaji Shinde both have been given Sr. No. PW04, therefore, to avoid any confusion, witness HC Balaji Shinde be read over as PW4A.
9. PW - 4A is HC Balaji Shinde, No. 7502, PCR, Outer North Zone. He deposed that on 29.07.2015, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as Constable. On FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 5/18 GAURAV Digitally signed by GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18 18:04:33 +0530 that day, he was on emergency duty with the IO ASI Suresh Chander. On receipt of DD no. 82B already Ex. PW1/A, he alongwith IO went to the BJRM Hospital, where IO collected the MLC of injured Soni aged about 7 years. On inquiry, they came to know that Soni was shifted in the Hindu Rao Hospital and no Complainant/ eye witness was found in the hospital. IO ASI Suresh Chander contacted the complainant namely Manbir (father of injured) through mobile phone. Complainant Manbir came to the PS and IO recorded the statement of complainant Manbir and handed over same to DO for registration of FIR and thereafter, IO alongwith complainant went to the spot. After registration of case, duty officer of PS handed over to him copy of FIR and original rukka to further hand over to IO. Accordingly, he went to the spot i.e. in front of Jhuggi no. D846, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO ASI Suresh Chander. IO ASI Suresh Chander tried to search the accused but she was not found. IO recorded his statement. Opportunity was given to cross examine the said witness, however, the same was not availed by the Defence.
10. PW 5 is ASI Raj Kumar, No. 193/NW, PS Maurya Enclave. He deposed that on 29.07.2015, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as HC and was working as duty officer from 04:00 pm to 12:00 am (midnight). On that day at about 07:00 p.m., he received one rukka from ASI Suresh Chander and on the basis of the said rukka, he registered the FIR bearing FIR No. 668/15. The said FIR was registered in the computer installed at CIPA room on his dictation and direction. The contents of FIR was fed in this computer in which FIR is registered in routine manner. The print out were obtained. One print out was kept in the registered maintained at the FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 6/18 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18 18:04:38 +0530 police station. He had also made the endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. The original rukka and copy of FIR were handed over to Ct. Rameshwar for further transmission to ASI. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW5/B bearing his signatures at point A. He certified that the FIR bears the true contents of the rukka. Thereafter, the FIR was sent to HC Saroj Kumar for further investigation. Opportunity was given to cross examine the said witness, however, the same was not availed by Defence.
11. PW 6 is Ms. Vaishali D/o Sh. Manveer R/o B - 846, Jahangir Puri, behind ITI, Delhi. She deposed that she was residing at the above mentioned alongwith her family. In the year of 2015, she was studying in 3 rd class. On 29.07.2015, at about 02:30 PM, she was going for tuition classes from her house. When, she came out from her house, one pet dog belonging to the accused Poonam was wandering in the gali. The pet dog of accused Poonam started biting her on her right cheek. She cried for help, her father came out from their house and rescued her from the pet dog. Thereafter, her father took her to the BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi for medical treatment. After that, she was referred from BJRM Hospital to Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi. IO recorded her statement. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
12. PW - 07 is Retd. SI Suresh Chander S/o Dr. Rameshwar Das R/o VPO Bhaini Surjan, Maham, Rohtak, Haryana. He deposed that on 29.07.2015, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as ASI. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 82B already Ex. PW 1/A, he alongwith Ct. Balaji Shinde went to the BJRM Hospital, FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 7/18 GAURAV Digitally signed by GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18 18:04:44 +0530 Jahangir Puri, Delhi where he collected the MLC of injured girl namely Soni @ Vaishali ( aged about 07 years). The injured girl was referred to higher medical centre from the BJRM Hospital. At that time, the girl Soni was not in position to give her statement. After treatment of the girl namely Soni, her father namely Sh. Manbir came to the PS and he recorded his statement which is already Ex. PW 2/A bearing his signatures at Point B. He prepared rukka which is Ex. PW 7/A bearing his signatures at Point B and handed over to the Duty officer for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, DO handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. After that, he alongwith the complainant Manbir Singh came back to the spot i.e. in front of Jhuggi No. B846, behind ITI, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. He prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is already exhibited as Ex. PW 2/B bearing his signatures at Point A. He obtained opinion of Doctor regarding the nature of injury sustained to the injured girl Soni. On 07.09.2015, he went to House of accused Poonam and asked her to give a ownership proof of the dog. On asking, accused Poonam handed over to him a Vet Card and he seized the same vide memo Ex. PW 7/B bearing his signatures at Point A. Now, Vet Card is marked as Mark A1. He asked the accused Poonam about the whereabouts of dog. Accused Poonam replied that the dog was beaten by the public persons/ neighbours, therefore, the dog had fled away from the house of the accused. He could not take the photographs of the dog as it was not found at the house of the accused.
On 07.09.2015, he served notice u/s 41.A Cr.P.C. to accused Poonam which is exhibited as Ex. PW 7/C bearing his signatures at Point A. He prepared FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 8/18 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18 18:04:49 +0530 pabandinama which is exhibited as Ex. PW 7/D bearing his signatures at Point A. During the investigation, he had recorded the statement of witnesses.
After completion of the investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same for trial in the court. This witness is cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
13. PW 8 is Dr. Swapnil, Veterinary Officer, VH Badli with additional charge of Bhalswa Dairy, Veterinary Hospital, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. He deposed that he was a summoned witness. He had brought OPD / Stock Register of the year 2015. As per the record, the pet dog of accused Poonam was vaccinated on dated 05.05.2015. The particulars of Anti Rabies vaccination was mentioned at Sr. No. 726 which is already verified by previously posted Dr. Dipesh Kumar. Copy of the Entry of the register is taken on record which is exhibited as Ex. PW 8/A. Further, he deposed that the Vaccination Certificate was issued by Dr. Rakesh Singh ( InCharge, Veterinary Hospital, Bhalswa Dairy) and the certificate was verified by Dr. Dipesh Kumar on dated 09.09.2015. The Vaccination Certificate is already marked as Mark A1 bearing the signatures of Dr. Dipesh Kumar at Point A. ( He had worked with Dr. Dipesh Kumar, therefore, he have seen his writing and signature during his duty working ).
14. Hereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 9/18
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV KATARIYA
KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18
18:04:54 +0530
Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.
15. After closure of prosecution evidence, S. A. u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused has stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Arguments
16. I have heard the arguments advanced at length by Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State. On the basis of the above oral and documentary evidence on record, learned APP requested for conviction of the accused.
17. On the other hand, learned defence counsel has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated. Further, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the statement of PW 2 and PW 4 are contradictory regarding the presence of PW 2 at the time of incidence and the identity of the dog is disputable. Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that IO did not know the timings of the offence. Thereafter, Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt. Accordingly, he prayed for the acquittal of the accused.
Points of determination
(a) Whether the accused did not take proper care of the dog as sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life.
FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 10/18
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA
KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18
18:05:01 +0530
(b) Whether by omitting to take proper care, the accused caused simple hurt to
victim/child Vaishali.
18. Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to discuss the essential ingredients of offences u/s 289/337 IPC and the position of law on the subject.
Section 289 IPC : Omitting to take order with any animal in his possession so as to guard against danger to human life, or of grievous hurt, from such animal.
Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, 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.
Section 337 IPC : Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
19. Having discussed the position of law on the subject, now let us discuss the important testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 11/18
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA
KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18
18:05:06 +0530
20. At the outset, it is apposite to analyze the testimony of the star and material witness of the prosecution i.e. victim / injured namely Vaishali ( PW - 06) : She deposed that she was residing at the above mentioned alongwith her family. In the year of 2015, she was studying in 3 rd class. On 29.07.2015, at about 02:30 PM, she was going for tuition classes from her house. When, she came out from her house and one pet dog, which belongs to the accused Poonam, was wandering in the gali. The said pet dog of accused Poonam started biting her on her right cheek and she cried for help, thereafter, her father came out from their house and rescued her from the pet dog. Thereafter, her father took her to the BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi for medical treatment and from there, she was referred to Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi for further treatment. IO had also recorded her statement. It is further paramount to mention that it is cogently stated by PW 06 that the dog which had bitten her belongs to the accused Poonam.
21. Moving ahead, it becomes imperative to examine the testimony of PW 02, who accompanied the injured to hospital, where it is clearly deposed by PW 02 that dog belonged to the accused Poonam. It is further deposed by him that he had requested accused several times to tie the dog but the accused did not pay any heed.
22. On corroborating the statement of PW 2 and PW 6 as regards to injuries caused to the victim by the attack of the pet dog of accused Poonam, both the witnesses have asserted that accused have a pet dog. It is pertinent to mention that nowhere the defence has even gave any suggestion that accused does not own or have a pet dog. Further, the ownership of the dog has also been proved by the FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 12/18 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18 18:05:11 +0530 statement of PW 7 where accused has handed over the vet card of the dog to the IO i.e. PW 7 and the same has been exhibited vide Ex. PW 7/B. Vet Card has also been marked as mark A1(OSR) by the Ld. Predecessor. On perusal of the copy of the vet card, it clearly reveals that the accused Poonam is the owner of the dog who had attacked the victim.
23. It is further noteworthy, that the defence has never gave any suggestion that, the injuries / attack was not caused by the accused's dog or the attack was caused by some other dog. This also reveals and confirms that identity of the dog is not disputed or the ownership of the dog is disputed.
24. Be that as it may, the allegations of the dog bite to the complainant has been consistent in the testimonies and has been duly corroborated by the MLC which is Ex. PW 3/A. On perusal of MLC which is Ex. PW 3/A, it shows the patient ( victim ) was administered anti rabies treatment and had injuries on face i.e. (1) lacerated wound of 6 X 1.2 cm on the right side of the face, (2) lacerated wound of 1.5 X 1 cm on the right side face, (3) Lacerated wound of 1 X 0.6 cm on right ear pinn. Further, during the examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused took plea that she had been falsely implicated, however, no credible defence evidence was led by her to substantiate her claim.
25. At this stage, it becomes necessary to state that Ld. Counsel for the accused has questioned the veracity of witnesses PW 02 and PW 06 depositions due to minor changes and contradictions, however, the witness could very much stand the litmus test of the cross examination. Also, the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the incident took place in July 2015 and PW 6 i.e. Victim was examined FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 13/18 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18 18:05:17 +0530 only in the year July, 2022 i.e. almost a gap of 07 years and in this purview, the possibility of witness not being able to recollect the exact details and nuances is highly probable and is inperishable. True witnesses are not expected to depose in parrot like manner and as per the normal human behaviour, the memory of witness is bound to fade with the passage of time. This Court places reliance on the case law pronouncement namely Bhanwari & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan 2002 (2) Criminal Court Cases114, wherein it has been held that, 'the minor variance in details which are not essential to the prosecution case would not be enough to discard or reject the testimony of eye witnesses. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details and a tutored witness can only successfully make his testimony totally non discrepant. With regard to the argument of interested witnesses, it is settled proposition of law that the merely because the witness is related to the deceased or injured, his testimony cannot be rejected and thrown out, unless there are material contradictions in his testimony. If the evidence is found to be consistent, true and reliable, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to effect the credibility of the witness. Reliance in this regard is placed on case law authority namely Raju @ Balachandran & others vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2012 SC.
26. In the case of State of "U.P. v. Naresh & Ors." (2011) 4 SCC 324, it was held that evidence of an injured witness cannot be doubted merely because there is a background of previous dispute enmity between the parties because this could well be the motive of giving assault by the accused on injured witnesses. The FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 14/18 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18 18:05:25 +0530 evidence of an injured witness has to be appreciated keeping in view that ordinarily a person, who has been assaulted by someone would not allow him to go Scot free and falsely implicate persons other than those who actually assaulted him. The evidence of an injured witness stand on different pedestal as compared to any other witness cited by the prosecution as eye witness, who claims to have seen the incident. Where an injured witness clearly names the person and the assault made on him by those persons which is broadly corroborated with what has been found in the medical report, even though there may not be any mathematical precision with regard to the manner of assault, the evidence of an injured eye witness cannot be lightly thrown aside only on certain minor contradictions and omissions. It cannot be a case of some exaggeration or it could even be some discrepancy in recollecting the whole incident with exactitude and certainty but on certain minor discrepancy disbelieving altogether the testimony of injured eye witness, would be against settled principle of appreciation of evidence.
27. In the case of "Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana"
( 04.07.2011), it was held that evidence of an injured witness has to be relied upon, unless the injuries are found to be superfluous or self inflicted just to create evidence against the other party. It was further held that if, the common object stands proved, trivial discrepancies become immaterial and insignificant. The testimony of an injured witness comes with a built inguarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone (Kailash & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 793; Durbal v. State of U.P. (2011) 2 SCC 676).
FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 15/18
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA
KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18
18:05:30 +0530
28. It is also noteworthy that even after getting opportunity the accused has never cross examined few witness to prove his innocence, whereas prosecution has clearly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
29. For the purpose of fastening criminal liability, the court has to see that who is directly responsible for the incident which resulted into injury sustained by victim.
30. Apart from the testimony of the above witnesses, the prosecution also examined other formal witnesses, but their testimony was also on the same lines and corroborated with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses and all the witness could very well with stand the litmus test of crossexamination.
31. Therefore, in the light of law reproduced as above and applying the same to the facts of the above case, it can be categorically stated, that the testimony of the injured witness in the present case is absolutely clear and cogent and free from any kind of discrepancies, embellishment and concoctions.
32. Thus, no ground is produced for brushing aside the testimony of the injured witness. There are no grounds for rejecting the evidence of star witness and other witnesses as discussed above unless and until there are no major contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of injured witness.
33. Thus, relying upon the law as well as the facts discussed above, it can be safely concluded that the accused had omitted to take proper care of her pet dog and due to which, victims suffered bite injuries. Though, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju and Others v. State of Kerala" (2004) 12 FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 16/18 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18 18:05:34 +0530 SCC 269 has categorically dealt with the question as to whether on the basis of a solitary evidence, conviction can be maintained. It was held that : " conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if he is reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the court is Satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth than on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained".
34. However, in the case in hand there is not only the untainted evidence of the star witnesses / eyewitnesses but the same stands duly corroborated with other ocular and documentary evidence.
35. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and as a sequel of above detailed discussion of law and facts, this court is of the considered opinion that cogent and material evidences have been adduced by the prosecution in order to prove its case and the credibility of the above said prosecution witnesses, could not be shaken or impeached on any material points.
36. The prosecution has established the identity of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and has further proved that the accused person is guilty of the offence charged for. Therefore, the accused Poonam is held guilty and convicted for offence committed under Section 289/337 of IPC.
FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 17/18
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV KATARIYA
KATARIYA Date: 2023.01.18
18:05:39 +0530
37. Put up for arguments on sentence pursuant to the compliance being done of the judgment of Karan Vs. State ( NCT of Delhi CRL. A . 352/2020, Delhi High Court).
38. This Judgment consists of 18 pages and all pages bear my signature.
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA
KATARIYA Date:
2023.01.18
18:05:44 +0530
Announced and dictated directly
into the computer in open court ( GAURAV KATARIYA)
on 17th day of January, 2023. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURT, DELHI,17.01.2023.
FIR NO. 668/2015 STATE VS. POONAM 18/18