Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul@Deepu on 21 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PADMA LADOL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04,
NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 364/2023
PS Inderpuri
U/S : 25/54/59 Arms Act
State V/s Rahul @ Deepu
Cr.C No. 676/2024
CNR No. DLND020059862024
Date of Institution 29.01.2024
Complainant Ct. Sanjay
P.S. Inder Puri
Name, parentage and address of the Rahul @ Deepu
accused S/o Late Sh. Karpan
R/o Jhuggi No. A-90, JJ Colony
Inderpuri, Delhi
Offence complained of Section 25/54/59 Arms Act
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Final Order Acquitted
Date of Judgment 21.05.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argued by: Ld. APP for the State.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Ld. LAC for the accused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21
16:22:27
FIR No. 364/23 +0530
State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu Page 1 of 18
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.12.2023, at about 10:55 PM near Krishi kunj Old Quarters, Inderpuri within the jurisdiction of PS Inderpuri, accused Rahul @ Deepu was found in possession of a button actuated knife in his front right side blue jeans pocket without any valid arms license, thereby committing offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 (Act 54 of the year 1959).
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge-sheet against the accused was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under sections 25/54/59 Arms Act 1959 (Act 54 of the year 1959) was framed against the accused on 16.02.2024 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE-
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21
FIR No. 364/23 16:22:36
+0530
State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu Page 2 of 18
4. To prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, the prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Ct. Sanjay (Complainant) PW-2 : Ct. Pawan PW-3 : HC Arvind DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A : Statement u/s. 161 CrPC of PW-1 Ex. PW1/B : Site Plan Ex. PW1/C : Sketch of knife (case property) Ex. PW1/D : Seizure Memo of case property Seizure Memo of case property in e-
Ex. PW1/E : FIR no. 218/23 u/s. 379 IPC PS
Inderpuri
Ex. PW1/F : Disclosure statement of accused
Ex. PW1/G : Arrest Memo of accused
Ex. PW1/H : Personal Search Memo of accused
Site Plan in e-FIR no. 218/23 u/s.
Ex. PW1/I :
379 IPC PS Inderpuri
Ex. PW3/A : Rukka
DOCUMENTS ADMITTED UNDER SECTION S. 294 CrPC Digitally FIR No. 364/23 signed by State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu PADMA Page 3 of 18 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:22:52 +0530 Ex. A1 : FIR No. 364/2023 Ex. A2 : DAD Notification dated 29.10.1980 4.1 PW-1/Complainant Ct. Sanjay deposed that on 22.12.2023 he was posted at PS Inderpuri as Constable. On that day at about 10:55 P.M, DD No. 101A was received during the patrolling duty.
Thereafter, he along with Ct. Pawan went to the spot of occurrence i.e. Krishi Kunj Old Quaters, Inderpuri. On seeing them, one person started walking away at a high speed. Thereafter, he apprehended that person with the help of Ct. Pawan. Thereafter, his search was conducted and one button actuated knife was recovered from his right pocket of blue jeans. The person disclosed his name as Rahul @ Deepu. Thereafter, the button actuated knife was taken into possession and he informed about the same to the DO. IO/HC Arvind arrived at the spot and recorded his statement, which is Ex-PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. On his statement, the rukka was prepared. That the IO handed over the rukka to him for the registration of FIR and he left for the PS. He returned at the spot along with copy of the FIR and original rukka and thereafter, the site plan was prepared by the IO which is Ex-PW1/B bearing his signatures at point A. The sketch of the knife was prepared by the IO vide sketch memo Ex-PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex-PW1/D bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, the accused took them to his home and from there three plastic chairs and one money bank (Gullak) was recovered, which pertains to e-FIR no. 00218/23 Digitally signed by PADMA FIR No. 364/23 PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu LANDOL Date: Page 4 of 18 2024.05.21 16:23:04 +0530 U/s 379 IPC, PS Inderpuri and the same was seized by the IO vide memo Ex-PW1/E bearing his signatures at point. A. PW-1 further deposed that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded, same is Ex-PW1/F bearing his signatures at point A. The arrest of the accused was made and the personal search was also got conducted vide arrest memo Ex-PW1/G and personal search memo Ex-PW1/H bearing his signatures at point A. The site plan of recovery of plastic chairs and money bank was also prepared by the IO, same is Ex-PW1/I, bearing his signatures at point A. PW-1 correctly identified the accused as well as the case property in the Court.
In his cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that public persons were present at the spot. That the search of accused was conducted by him. He further admitted that prior to search of the accused, he had not offered his search to the accused. That he went to the PS along with Rukka at about 11:45 P.M and came back after 15 minutes at the spot. Prior to his departure to the PS along with rukka he had not signed any document at the spot. After his arrival at the spot along with copy of FIR, he put his signatures on site plan, disclosure statement, personal search memo & arrest memo. That all these documents were prepared by the IO in his presence. PW-1 deposed that initially, the site plan was prepared by the IO. Thereafter, personal search memo, disclosure statement & arrest memo were prepared. That he cannot tell about the notification wherein the length & breadth of knife is mentioned. He deposed that in the present case, the total length of the knife was 23 cm, out of which the length of blade is 10 cm. PW-1 conceded that the width of the blade of knife is not Digitally signed by FIR No. 364/23 PADMA State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu PADMA LANDOL Page 5 of 18 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:23:18 +0530 mentioned in the document Ex-PW1/B (the sketch of knife). That his statement was recorded by the IO at the spot. That they remained at the spot for about 2 hours. Witness further conceded that no public person was joined as a witness at the time of disclosure statement of accused. He also conceded that the handle of the knife is broken from the design portion and that the said fact is not mentioned in the seizure memo and sketch of the knife. Witness has further conceded that no public person was joined as a witness at the time of recovery of chairs and Gullak and that the length and the breadth of the knife is not mentioned in the sketch of knife. PW-1 further deposed that no notice was served to the public persons to join the investigation. He conceded that the place of occurrence is a public place and despite that no public person was examined and cited as witness. He denied the suggestion that no fair investigation has been conducted or that all the documents were prepared while sitting at PS and that he never went to the spot of occurrence. Witness further denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the case property is planted upon the accused.
4.2 PW-2: Ct Pawan deposed that on 22.12.2023 he was posted at PS Inderpuri as Constable. On that day at about 10:55 P.M DD No. 101A was received during the patrolling duty. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Sanjay went to the spot of occurrence i.e. Krishi Kunj Old Quarters, Inderpuri. On seeing them, one person started walking away at a high speed. Thereafter, he apprehended that person with the help of Ct. Sanjay. Thereafter, his search was Digitally FIR No. 364/23 signed by PADMA State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu PADMA LANDOL Page 6 of 18 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:23:27 +0530 conducted and one button actuated knife was recovered from his right pocket of blue jeans. The person disclosed his name as Rahul @ Deepu. Thereafter, the button actuated knife was taken into possession and he informed about the same to the DO. IO/HC Arvind arrived at the spot and recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjay. On his statement, the rukka was prepared. IO handed over the rukka to him for the registration of FIR and he left the spot for the PS. He returned at the spot along with copy of the FIR and original rukka and thereafter, the site plan was prepared by the IO which is already Ex-PW1/B bearing his signatures at point B. The sketch of the knife was prepared by the IO vide sketch memo already Ex-PW1/C bearing his signatures at point B and it was seized vide seizure memo already Ex-PW1/D bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, the accused took them to his home and from there three plastic chairs and one money bank (Gullak) was recovered, which pertains to e-FIR no. 00218/23 U/s 379 IPC, PS Inderpuri and the same was seized by the IO vide memo Ex-PW1/E bearing his signatures at point. B. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded, the same is already Ex-PW1/F bearing his signatures at point B. The arrest of the accused was made and the personal search was also got conducted vide arrest memo already Ex-PW1/G and personal search memo already Ex-PW1/H bearing his signatures at point B. The site plan of recovery of plastic chairs and money bank was also prepared by the IO, same is already Ex-PW1/I, bearing his signatures at point B. PW-2 correctly identified the case property as well as accused in the court.
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
FIR No. 364/23 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21
State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu 16:23:34 Page 7 of 18
+0530
In his cross-examination, PW-2 conceded that public persons were present at the spot. That the search of accused was conducted by Ct. Sanjay. He further conceded that prior to search of the accused, Ct Sanjay had not offered his search to the accused. Ct Sanjay went to the PS along with Rukka at about 11:45 P.M and came back after 15 minutes at the spot. Prior to his departure to the PS along with rukka he had not signed any document at the spot. After his arrival at the spot along with copy of FIR, he put his signatures on site plan, disclosure statement, personal search memo & arrest memo. All these documents were prepared by the IO in his presence. Initially, the arrest memo was prepared by the IO. Thereafter, personal search memo, disclosure statement & site plan were prepared. PW-2 could tell about the notification wherein the length & breadth of knife is mentioned. He deposed that in the present case, the total length of the knife was 23 cm, out of which the length of blade is 10 cm. PW-2 admitted that the width of the blade of knife is not mentioned in the document Ex-PW1/B (the sketch of knife). That his statement was recorded by the IO at the spot. That they had remained at the spot for about 2 hours. Witness admitted that no public person was joined as a witness at the time of disclosure statement of accused and that the handle of the knife is broken from the design portion. He further admitted that the said fact is not mentioned in the seizure memo and sketch of the knife and that no public person was joined as a witness at the time of recovery of chairs and Gullak. He further admitted that the length and the breadth of the knife is not mentioned in the sketch of knife. PW-2 deposed that no notice was served to the public persons to join Digitally signed by FIR No. 364/23 PADMA State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu PADMA LANDOL Page 8 of 18 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:23:43 +0530 the investigation. He admitted that the place of occurrence is a public place and despite that, no public person was examined and cited as witness. PW-2 denied the suggestion that no fair investigation has been conducted or that all the documents were prepared while sitting at PS. He further denied the suggestion that he never went to the spot of occurrence and that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the case property is planted upon the accused.
4.3 PW-3: HC Arvind deposed that on 22.12.2023 he was posted at PS Inderpuri as HC. On that day at about 11:15 PM a call was received. Thereafter, he went to the spot of occurrence i.e. Krishi Kunj Old Quaters, Inderpuri. There Ct. Sanjay and Ct.
Pawan were already present. They had already apprehended the accused namely Rahul @ Deepu and he recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjay. On his statement, the rukka was prepared, which is Ex-PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. He handed over the rukka to Ct. Sanjay for the registration of FIR and he left the spot for the PS. He returned to the spot along with copy of the FIR and original rukka and thereafter, the site plan was prepared by him which is Ex-PW1/B bearing his signatures at point C. The sketch of the knife was prepared by him vide sketch memo Ex- PW1/C bearing his signatures at point C and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex-PW1/D bearing his signatures at point C. Thereafter, the accused has taken up to his home and from there three plastic chairs and one money bank (Gullak) was recovered, which pertains to e-FIR no. 00218/23 U/s 379 IPC, PS Inderpuri and the same was seized by him, same is Ex-PW1/E bearing his Digitally signed by FIR No. 364/23 PADMA State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu PADMA LANDOL Page 9 of 18 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:23:51 +0530 signatures at point C. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded which is Ex-PW1/F bearing his signatures at point C. The arrest of the accused was made and the personal search was also got conducted vide arrest memo Ex-PW1/G and personal search memo Ex-PW1/H bearing his signatures at point C. The site plan of recovery of plastic chairs and money bank was also prepared by him, same is Ex-PW1/I, bearing his signatures at point C. PW-3 correctly identified the case property as well as the accused in court.
In his cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that public persons were present at the spot. That Ct Sanjay went to the PS along with Rukka at about 11:50 P.M and came back after 15 minutes at the spot. The first document which was he prepared at the spot was seizure memo of knife, thereafter, the statement of Ct. Sanjay was recorded and sent him for registration of FIR. After registration of the FIR, he prepared personal search memo, disclosure statement & site plan. PW-3 could not tell about the notification wherein the length & breadth of knife is mentioned. He deposed that in the present case, the total length of the knife was 23 cm, out of which the length of blade is 10 cm. Witness further admitted that the width of the blade of knife is not mentioned in the document Ex-PW1/B (the sketch of knife). That they remained at the spot for about 1 hour 45 minutes. He further conceded that no public person was joined as a witness at the time of disclosure statement of accused and that the handle of the knife is broken from the design portion. He also conceded that the said fact is not mentioned in the seizure memo and sketch of the knife and that no public person was joined as a witness at the Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL FIR No. 364/23 LANDOL Date:State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu Page 10 of 18
2024.05.21 16:24:01 +0530 time of recovery of chairs and Gullak. PW-3 further conceded that the length and the breadth of the knife is not mentioned in the sketch of knife. PW-3 also deposed that no notice was served upon the public persons to join the investigation and that the place of occurrence is a public place and despite that no public person was examined and cited as witness. PW-3 denied the suggestion that no fair investigation has been conducted or that all the documents were prepared while sitting at PS. He also denied the suggestion that he never went to the spot of occurrence and that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the case property is planted upon the accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
5. On 13.05.2024, statement of the accused u/s. 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein accused pleaded innocence. However, he opted not to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
6. During final arguments, it was argued by Ld. APP for the State that the case against the accused stood proved in view of the evidence led by the prosecution. Accordingly, he argued that accused deserved to be convicted for the offence u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act. On the other hand, the Ld. defence counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to bring out a case against the accused, especially in view of the fact that no independent public witnesses were made a part of the search and arrest of the accused, despite the fact that the accused was apprehended from a public place. It is further contended that all the PWs have Digitally signed by FIR No. 364/23 PADMA State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu PADMA LANDOL Page 11 of 18 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:24:16 +0530 wrongly deposed about the details/measurement of the case property in their cross-examination and that the factum of breakage of handle of knife (case property) has neither been mentioned in the sketch memo nor the seizure memo. It has lastly been argued that the case property was falsely planted upon the accused and as such, he is liable to be acquitted.
ANALYSIS
7. The accused has been charged for the offence under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, as a button actuated knife was recovered from the right side jeans pocket of accused without any valid license near Krishi Kunj Old Quaters, Inderpuri. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused.
8. In the case such as the present one, the fact of recovery is of utmost importance to bring home the guilt of an accused. It is stated that on the date of incident, Ct. Sanjay and Ct. Pawan intercepted the accused and recovered a button actuated knife from his right pocket of pant (total length: 24 cm, length of blade: 11 cm, length of handle: 13 cm and width of blade: 2.5 cm). It is not disputed by the prosecution witnesses on whose testimony the prosecution seeks to rely upon that at the time of apprehension of the accused, there were members of general FIR No. 364/23 Digitally signed by State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu PADMA Page 12 of 18 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:24:53 +0530 public available at the spot from where recovery was made, however it is both apparent and surprising that despite being a busy vicinity comprising of residential houses, shops etc, no independent witness was made to join the investigation by the police.
9. The importance of joining public persons in the recovery proceedings has time and again been emphasised by Judicial pronouncements. At this juncture, reference is made to the judgment of Roop Chand v. State of Haryana 1989 SCC OnLine P&H 539 : (1989) 2 RCR (Cri) 504, wherein it has been observed:
"4. It is well settled principle of law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join.
5. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A Digitally signed by FIR No. 364/23 PADMA PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu LANDOL Date: Page 13 of 18 2024.05.21 16:25:07 +0530 police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have noted down their names and addresses etc. and would have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the pubic is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together makes the prosecution case highly doubtful."
10. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been FIR No. 364/23 Digitally signed by State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu PADMA Page 14 of 18 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:25:16 +0530 complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well- settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions."
11. Burden therefore, lies on the prosecution to establish that the association of public witnesses was not possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, in the present case, nothing in the testimony of prosecution witnesses suggests that sincere efforts were made by them to involve independent witnesses in the process of recovery and arrest. In the present case, there was no lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. As per documentary evidence, the accused was apprehended at 10:55 PM. The Arrest Memo shows that the accused was arrested around 12.30 AM. Both the PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed that they remained at the spot for around 2 hours and PW-3 have also deposed that he remained at the spot for around 1.45 hours. It is further stated by all the PWs Digitally FIR No. 364/23 signed by PADMA State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu PADMA LANDOL Page 15 of 18 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:25:31 +0530 that after the registration of FIR by PW-1, he had returned to the spot after which the PW-3/IO had prepared site plan, arrested the accused and prepared arrest memo, conducted personal search of accused and complied with other investigatory requirements. Therefore, it is clear that the police officials were not hard pressed for time as they remained at the spot for at least 2 hours as stated by PWs themselves. However, despite being at the spot for about two hours, they did not join any public person in the investigation. All the PWs have even admitted the presence of public witnesses at the spot and yet no independent public witnesses, in stark violation of Section 100 (4) CrPC, were joined in the investigation at the time of alleged recovery. IO did not even mention the names or addresses of those persons who refused to join the recovery proceedings. No explanation has come on record to show why notice was not served upon the public witnesses requiring them to join the proceedings or to face action under Section 187, Indian Penal Code.
12. In the absence of any independent witness having been joined in the investigation, false implication of the accused by the police in the present case cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hemraj vs State of Haryana (AIR 2005 SC 2110) wherein it was observed that, "the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case."
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
FIR No. 364/23 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21
State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu 16:25:39 Page 16 of 18
+0530
13. Further, as per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the button actuated knife was sealed after preparation of sketch by the PW3/IO and there is nothing on record to suggest that the seal hand over memo was handed over to any independent person after use. In such circumstances, the possibility of interference or tampering of the seal and the contents of the pullanda cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Safiullah v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1992 SCC OnLine Del 516 (1993) 49 DLT 193. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the prosecution has NOT been able to prove safe and tamper-proof custody of the case property in the present case.
14. Further as rightly contended by the Ld. LAC for accused, all the PWs have wrongly deposed about the measurement of the case property (knife) in their testimonies and the factum of breakage of handle of the knife is nowhere mentioned in the chargesheet. No reason whatsoever, is forthcoming for such a material omission. This further creates a strong shadow of doubt on the case of prosecution.
15. All the lapses in investigation create doubt on the recovery of the button actuated knife from the possession of the accused, which is the essential ingredient of the offence under Sec. 25 Arms Act.
CONCLUSION
16. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence Digitally signed by FIR No. 364/23 PADMA State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu PADMA LANDOL Page 17 of 18 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:25:48 +0530 under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has been successful in pointing out the deficiencies in the case of the prosecution. The recovery of the illicit arm from the possession of the accused is highly doubtful, owing to various circumstances discussed above. The evidence of police witnesses is not reliable and no independent witnesses were joined, despite abundant availability. Inconsistencies and deficiencies in the version of the prosecution have crumbled the whole case of the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER
17. Resultantly, accused Rahul @ Deepu S/o late Sh. Karpan is entitled for benefit of reasonable doubt and is hereby found not guilty. The accused is hereby acquitted of the offence under Digitally signed Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.05.21 16:21:42 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (PADMA LADOL) on this 21st May, 2024 MM-04: New Delhi: PHC Certified that this judgment contains 18 pages and each page Digitally signed by bears my signatures. PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date: 2024.05.21 (PADMA LADOL) 16:22:06 +0530 MM-04: New Delhi: PHC FIR No. 364/23 State Vs. Rahul @ Deepu Page 18 of 18