Delhi District Court
State vs . Pawan on 14 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(WEST DISTT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: NEHA, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
CNR No. DL WT020149062017
State Vs. Pawan
FIR No. 272/2017
PS Ranjit Nagar
U/s. 392/394/34 IPC
Date of Institution of Case : 06.11.2017
Date reserved for Judgment : 09.10.2020
Date of Judgment : 13.10.2020
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence 06.09.2017 b) Offence complained of 392/394/34 IPC c) Name of complainant Sh. Rajesh Yadav d) Name of accused Pawan his parentage and residence s/o. Sh Rakesh r/o. H. No. 285/13, Gali No 8 Nehru Nagar, Anand Parbat Delhi. e)Offence charged 392/34 IPC f)Plea of accused Not guilty g)Final order Convicted for offences punishable under sections 356/379/34 IPC FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 1 of 21 Counsels for the Parties: Sh. Nishant Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Ms. Neha Jain, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Accused Pawan has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). Brief allegations of the prosecution are that on night of 0506.09.2017 at about 12.20 a.m. the complainant was returning to his house on foot. When he reached at the corner of Satya Park, near Jankidas Hospital, one scooty came from behind and the pillion rider snatched the mobile from the hand of the complainant. The accused and his associate, after snatching the mobile phone from the hand of complainant, tried to flee on the scooty. The complainant managed to catch the pillion rider because of which the scooty got disbalanced and the accused and his associate pushed him and ran towards Pandav Nagar. The accused returned after sometime to take his scooty. The pillion rider, who had snatched the mobile, managed to flee but the scooty driver was apprehended with the help of police official Ct Jasbir and public persons. Thereafter, the complainant gave his complaint regarding the incident.
2. On the basis of the complaint/ statement, the present FIR was registered. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet for offences punishable u/s. 392/394/34 IPC was filed against FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 2 of 21 accused Pawan. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was produced from JC. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused.
3. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable u/s. 392/34 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution witnesses have been summoned for evidence and 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused persons.
5. PW1 Sh. Rajesh Yadav is the complainant/ victim. He has deposed that on 05.09.2017 at about 10.30 PM he was walking back to his home after completion of work and was reading messages on his mobile phone. When he reached on the corner of Satya Park near Jankidas Hospital, one White colour scooty came from behind and the pillion rider tried to snatch his mobile phone and ran away on the scooty with his mobile phone. He also followed them and ran behind the scooty while shouting and raising alarm. At some distance near the railway track, both the persons left the scooty and ran away. By that time, some public persons gathered at the spot.
While he was standing near the scooty, after sometime both the persons returned and he, with the help of public persons, apprehended the person who was riding the said scooty. Someone called the police at 100 number. Police arrived at the spot. Some FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 3 of 21 public persons gave beatings to the apprehended person. The complainant has correctly identified the accused in the Court.
6. PW2 ASI Satpal is the IO. He has deposed that on 06.09.2017, on receiving DD No. 5B regarding snatching of mobile phone, he along with HC Riyaz Ali went to the spot i.e. near Nariana Road, Janki Dass Hospital, where they met Ct. Jasbir and complainant Rajesh Yadav. The complainant narrated the entire incident. The complainant and Ct. Jasbir handed over the apprehended person, who disclosed his name as Pawan. Thereafter, he recorded statement of the complainant which is Ex. PW1/A and handed over the same to Ct. Jasbir for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct. Jasbir returned at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, on enquiry the accused confessed and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW1/B. He prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, which is Ex. PW1/F. The accused was arrested, vide Ex. PW1/C and he was also personally searched, vide Ex. PW1/D. Thereafter the scooty was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/E.
7. He has further deposed that he made enquiry regarding the ownership of the seized scooty. He served the notice U/s. 133 of Cr.P.C to the owner of the scooty, which was found stolen regarding which an eFIR 027630/17, U/s. 379 IPC was registered at PS Anand Parbat. He also made efforts to arrest the coaccused, who had run away with the mobile phone of the complainant but in FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 4 of 21 vain.
8. PW3 Ct Jasbir is the police official who had apprehended the accused. He has deposed that on 06.09.2017 he was on patrolling duty in the area near Jankidas Hospital. At about 12.00 midnight, he saw that some people had gathered on the road. He went there and saw that one scooty was lying and one person was trying to run away who was apprehended by the public person. Complainant Rajesh Yadav informed him that the accused alongwith his associate were fleeing on the said scooty after snatching his mobile phone and the scooty got disbalanced. He informed the PS and IO reached at the spot.
9. PW4 Sh Nitin Goswami is the owner of the scooty bearing No. DL 6SAH9436.
10. PW5 HC Riyaz Ali is the police official who had accompanied IO during investigation.
11. All the witnesses were cross examined by Ld Legal Aid Counsel. PE was closed vide order dated 19.02.2020. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with section 281 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence against him. The accused chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
12. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of Ld. Legal Aid FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 5 of 21 Counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for the State.
13. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution witnesses have proved that the accused alongwith his associate had snatched the mobile phone of the complainant while riding the stolen scooty. The accused was apprehended at the spot by the complainant and public persons. The accused was driving the scooty on which his associate/coaccused Raja (since not arrested) was sitting and the associate had snatched the mobile phone of the complainant. The circumstances show that the accused and his associate shared common intention to snatch the mobile phone of the complainant. It is further argued that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had committed the offences with which he has been charged. Hence, the accused may be convicted.
14. Per Contra, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. No independent/ public witness was joined in the investigation of this case. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. There are contradictions in the statement of the complainant and the police officials regarding the apprehension of the accused at the spot. The complainant has stated that one police van was already present at the spot but the police officials have stated that they had reached at the spot after receipt of FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 6 of 21 PCR call. The prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence of robbery or snatching. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and the accused may be acquitted.
15. This Court has considered the submissions of Ld counsel for the accused, Ld. APP for the State and perused the record.
16. Charge has been framed against the accused for offence punishable U/s. 392/34 IPC. Section 392 IPC prescribed punishment for offence of robbery. Section 390 IPC defines robbery. The Section reads as under:
"Robbery In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery Theft is 'robbery' if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery Extortion is 'robbery' if the offender at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted".
FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 7 of 21
17. In order to convict the accused for offence of robbery, the prosecution has to prove that the accused voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of death or hurt or wrongful restraint in order to commit theft.
18. The complainant is the only material witness examined by the prosecution. In deposition before the Court, complainant/ PW1 has stated that when he reached on the corner of Satya Park, near Jankidevi Hospital, one white colour scooty came from behind and the pillion rider tried to snatch his mobile phone and he ran away on the scooty with the mobile phone. He followed them and ran behind the scooty while shouting and raising an alarm. At some distance near railway track, both persons left the scooty and ran away. He was standing near the scooty and some public persons had gathered there. After some time, both persons returned and he, with the help of the public persons, apprehended that boy who was riding the scooty.
19. The complainant has nowhere stated in his evidence that he was stopped/ wrongfully restrained by the accused or by his associate/coaccused (since not arrested) or that the accused or his associate caused hurt or attempted to cause hurt/ death to him. The ingredients of offence of robbery are not satisfied in the present case.
20. Section 222(2) Cr.P.C lays down that when a person is FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 8 of 21 charged with an offence but the facts proved constitute a minor offence, then he can be convicted of the minor offence despite the fact that he may not have been charged with that offence. Thus, in the case, the accused can be convicted for offence of snatching, if proved. This Court shall now decide whether the prosecution has established offence of snatching against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
21. Section 379 IPC provides punishment for theft. Section 356 IPC provides punishment for assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person. Section 350 defines 'criminal force' as under:
Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
22. Section 351 IPC defines 'assault' as under:
Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.
23. The complainant has deposed that the pillion rider of the scooty had tried to snatch his mobile phone and ran away on the FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 9 of 21 scooty with his mobile phone. During crossexamination by Ld APP for the State, the complainant was questioned whether the accused persons had snatched the mobile phone or they failed to snatch the mobile phone. The complainant answered that at first, the accused tried to snatch the mobile phone but they failed as he held his mobile tightly in his hand but the accused persons again came on the scooty and in the second attempt, they snatched his mobile phone.
24. Nothing has come in the crossexamination of the complainant to doubt his statement that the pillion rider of the scooty snatched his mobile phone in the second attempt.
25. There is one minor contradiction noted by the Court in the statement of the complainant recorded by the IO and deposition recorded before the Court. The contradiction is in relation to whether the mobile phone was snatched by the accused and his associate while riding the scooty on second attempt or it was snatched by them after they had parked their scooty and came to the complainant on foot. This is a minor contradiction. However the contradiction was never brought to the notice of the complainant and IO during their crossexamination. The law relating to recording of contradictions is settled.
26. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of VK Mishra & Anr vs. State of Uttrakhand & Anr arising out of Criminal FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 10 of 21 Appeal no. 1248/2012 dated 28.07.2015 has laid down the procedure of bringing on record contradictions and omissions.
Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"18. Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act when it is intended to contradict the witness by his previous statement reduced into writing, the attention of such witness must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. While recording the deposition of a witness, it becomes the duty of the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to the notice of the witness in his cross examination. The attention of witness is drawn to that part and this must reflect in his crossexamination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the part intended to contradict him, it stands proved and there is no need to further proof of contradiction and it will be read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that part of the statement, his attention must be drawn to that statement and must be mentioned in the deposition. By this process the contradiction is merely brought on record, but it is yet to be proved. Thereafter when investigating officer is examined in the court, his attention should be drawn to the passage marked for the purpose of contradiction, it will then be proved in the deposition of the investigating officer who again by referring to the police statement will depose about the witness having made that statement. The process again involves referring to the police statement and culling out that part with which the maker of the statement was intended to be contradicted. If the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the court cannot suo FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 11 of 21 moto make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of Evidence Act that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction."
27. In the case, the aforesaid contradiction has not been put to the complainant during his crossexamination by the Ld defence counsel and he has not been questioned about the truthfulness of his statement recorded by the IO. Therefore, the aforesaid contradiction cannot be used for the benefit of the accused. Be that as it may, the contradiction is not such a material contradiction so as to create doubt over the remaining testimony of the complainant.
28. Perusal of record shows that during cross examination of the complainant, suggestion has been given to him by the Ld. Defence Counsel, "It is correct that the scooty was driven by the accused person. It is also correct that my mobile phone was snatched by pillion rider of the scooty. I ran after the scooty for about 50 meter. The scooty was parked about 10 feet from the railway track. I remained at the railway track for 10 minutes. The accused persons returned at railway track after 10 minutes."
29. The suggestion given to the complainant during his cross examination is an admission of the accused that he was driving the scooty and mobile phone of the complainant was snatched by pillion rider named Raja Babu (since not arrested).
30. One suggestion has been given to the IO by the Ld. Defence FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 12 of 21 Counsel that the accused was apprehended when he returned to the spot to take back the scooty and not while he was trying to flee from the spot. The IO has denied the suggestion "It is wrong to suggest that the complainant apprehended the accused, when he returned to the spot to take back his scooty and not while he was fleeing from the spot." The suggestion given to the IO is again an admission of the accused that he had fled way from the spot and when he returned to take the scooty, he was apprehended.
31. The accused has taken the defence that he was not involved in the crime. The accused in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that his friend Raja Babu had committed the crime and fled away from the spot and he was falsely apprehended.
32. Ld counsel for the accused has argued that the accused had no knowledge of the offence committed by his pillion rider Raja Babu and the accused was falsely implicated.
33. This Court has considered the submissions and perused the record.
34. The testimony of the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the pillionrider / associate of the accused firstly tried to snatch the mobile phone of the complainant but failed in the first attempt. Thereafter, the accused and his pillionrider/ associate again came and finally the pillionrider/ associate of accused Pawan snatched the mobile phone in the second attempt.
FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 13 of 21 The testimony of the complainant has also proved that the accused and his pillionrider / associate fled away after the incident and they returned after sometime at the place where scooty was left. Thereafter, accused Pawan was apprehended with the help of public persons and his pillionrider / associate managed to flee with the mobile phone of the complainant.
35. The prosecution has alleged sharing of common intention by the accused.
36. Section 34 of the IPC provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
37. It is settled that when an offence is committed in furtherance of the common intention of two or more accused, then every one of them is as much guilty as the other. It is not necessary that every one of them should have participated in the commission of the offence to the same extent and degree as the other person or accused of the offence had acted. Section 34 IPC lays down a rule of presumption in matters relating to criminal responsibility. Intention is a state of mind and it is to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case.
38. In the case, there are two circumstances which are proved from the testimony of the complainant. First circumstance is that the FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 14 of 21 pillionrider of the accused could not snatch the mobile of the complainant in the first attempt and the accused and his pillionrider returned and the mobile was snatched in second attempt by the pillionrider. Second circumstance is that the accused and his pillionrider fled away from the spot after the incident leaving the scooty and after sometime, when they returned, the accused was apprehended.
39. The facts that accused Pawan came on scooty with his pillionrider/associate near the complainant second time and he also fled away from the spot after the alleged incident prove that the accused had shared common intention with his associate in snatching of the mobile phone. There is no explanation given by the accused as to why he had returned for the second time, if he had no intention to commit the offence.
40. The accused has taken defence that his friend committed the crime and fled away from the spot and he was falsely apprehended. The burden to prove the said defence was on the accused. The accused, however, has not led any evidence to prove his defence. It is settled position of law that statements made during examination under Section 313 Cr. PC are not evidence. The statements under section 313 Cr.P.C have not been made on oath. They have not been tested on the touchstone of crossexamination. I rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.S.Yadav vs Reena, Crl. A. no. 1136/2010, decided on 21/09/2010 in this regard.
FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 15 of 21
41. In the present case, the material on record prove beyond reasonable doubts that the associate/coaccused (since not arrested) used force against the complainant without his consent in order in order to take away his mobile phone and finally, the mobile phone of the complainant was taken by pillionrider/associate. As discussed above, the circumstances prove that accused Pawan shared common intention with associate Raja Babu (since not arrested) to snatch the mobile phone of the complainant. Thus, even if no recovery of mobile phone has been made from accused Pawan, in view of section 34 IPC, accused Pawan is as much guilty as his partner in the offence of snatching of mobile phone of the complainant.
42. Ld counsel for the accused has argued that there is contradiction in the testimony of the complainant and the police officials regarding the presence of the police vehicle near the spot. Further, no public person was joined in the investigation by the police.
43. This Court has considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the record.
44. During the cross examination by Ld APP for the State, the complainant has stated that one police official, whose name he did not remember, came to the spot after the accused was apprehended and the accused disclosed before the police official that he could get FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 16 of 21 the other person arrested and could also help in the recovery of his mobile phone. In the cross examination by Ld defence counsel, the complainant has stated that the police vehicle was there at the spot where the accused was apprehended and the public persons had handed over the accused to the police official.
45. IO/ PW2 ASI Satpal has stated that on receipt of DD NO 5B, he went to the spot with HC Riyas Ali where he met Ct Jasbir and complainant Rajesh Yadav and they produced the accused. PW3 Ct Jasbir has deposed that at about 12.00 midnight, during patrolling duty near Jankidas Hospital he saw that some people gathered on the road near the hospital. One scooty was lying there and the accused was trying to run away from the spot whom the public person had apprehended.
46. The testimony of the PW3 has proved that the accused was apprehended by the public persons when he reached there. The testimony of the complainant has also proved that the public persons handed over the accused to the police official. There is no material contradiction in the statement of the complainant or the police witnesses as regards the apprehension of the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also suggested to the IO that the accused was apprehended at the spot when he returned to the spot to take the scooty.
47. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Jagannath Markad and FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 17 of 21 others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537, has observed as under: "19. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the court has to assess whether read as a whole, it is truthful. In doing so, the court has to keep in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities to find out whether such discrepancies shake the truthfulness. Some discrepancies not touching the core of the case are not enough to reject the evidence as a whole. No true witness can escape from giving some discrepant details. Only when discrepancies are so incompatible as to affect the credibility of the version of a witness, the court may reject the evidence. Section 155 of the Evidence Act enables the doubt to impeach the credibility of the witness by proof of former inconsistent statement. Section 145 of the Evidence Act lays down the procedure for contradicting a witness by drawing his attention to the part of the previous statement which is to be used for contradiction. The former statement should have the effect of discrediting the present statement but merely because the latter statement is at variance to the former to some extent, it is not enough to be treated as a contradiction. It is not every discrepancy which affects creditworthiness and trustworthiness of a witness. There may at times be exaggeration or embellishment not affecting credibility. The court has to sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth. A statement may be partly rejected or partly accepted. Want of independent witnesses or unusual behavior of witnesses of a crime is not enough to reject evidence. A witness being a close relative is not enough to reject his testimony if it is otherwise credible. A relation may not conceal the actual culprit. The evidence may be FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 18 of 21 closely scrutinized to assess whether an innocent person is falsely implicated. Mechanical rejection of evidence even of a 'partisan' or 'interested' witness may lead to failure of justice. It is well known that principle " falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no general acceptability. On the same evidence, some accused persons may be acquitted while others may be convicted, depending upon the nature of the offence. The court can differentiate the accused who is acquitted from those who are convicted. A witness may be untruthful in some aspects but the other part of the evidence may be worthy of acceptance. Discrepancies may arise due to error of observations, loss of memory due to lapse of time, mental disposition such as shock at the time of occurrence and as such the normal discrepancy does not affect the credibility of a witness exaggerated to the rule of benefit of doubt can result in miscarriage of justice. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice. A Judge presides over the trial not only to ensure that no innocent is punished but also to see that guilty does not escape".
48. In the present case, the contradiction pointed by the Ld. Defence Counsel is minor as regards presence of police vehicle near the spot. This Court does not find any major contradiction in the testimonies of PW1 and other material on record.
49. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also argued that the public persons have not been made a witness to the investigation proceedings.
50. The law is settled that testimony of an eyewitness/victim should be believed unless there is specific reason on record to FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 19 of 21 disbelieve him or her. In Abdul Sayeed vs State of M.P, (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the reliability of testimony of injured witness, has held as under:
"The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
51. In the present case also, the testimony of the complainant is cogent and convincing. The testimony of the complainant is also corroborated by the testimonies of PW2/IO ASI Satpal and PW3/Ct. Jasbir. There is no reason to doubt their testimonies.
52. In view of the discussion hereinabove, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused Pawan shared common intention with his associate/ coaccused Raja Babu (since not arrested) in snatching of mobile phone of the complainant and accused Pawan was apprehended after the alleged incident while his associate/ coaccused Raja Babu (since not arrested) managed to flee away with the mobile phone of the FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 20 of 21 complainant. Accordingly, accused Pawan is convicted for offences punishable under section 356/379/34 IPC.
53. Let the parties be separately heard on the quantum of sentence. Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
NEHA
ACMM(W):THC: DELHI
Pronounced in the open court
today on 14th of October, 2020 Digitally
signed by
NEHA
NEHA Date:
2020.10.14
16:47:00
+0530
FIR No. 272 of 2017 State Vs. Pawan
PS Ranjit Nagar Page No. 21 of 21