Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Mahesh on 22 July, 2014
FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 144/1 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0209902010 State Vs. 1. Mahesh S/o Sh. Makkhan Lal R/o B77, Hari EnclaveI, Sultan Puri, Delhi. 2. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta R/o B65, Hari EnclaveI, Sultan Puri, Delhi. FIR No. : 350/09 Police Station : Sultan Puri Under Sections : 307 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. Date of committal to Sessions Court: 28.08.2010 Date on which judgment was reserved: 22.07.2014 Date on which Judgment pronounced: 22.07.2014 JUDGMENT
The above named accused persons were facing trial on the allegations that on 04.11.09, on receipt of DD no.18A, SI Dhirender alongwith Ct. Naveen went to SGM Hosptial where injured namely Ms. Shahida was found admitted with alleged history of gun shot injury as told by patient herself. SI Dhirender recorded statement of injured/complainant Ms. Shahida wherein she claimed that on that day i.e 04.11.09 at about 10.45 A.M while she was going to the house of her sister namely Ms. Naim Khatoon at E3 State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 Block, Sultan Puri and reached in the gali situated near Gurudwara and temple, accused Mahesh armed with pistol came to her. He showed her the pistol in his hand and claimed that she could be killed with the same. In the meanwhile, he pressed the trigger of said pistol in joke due to which bullet hit her right hand. Accused Mahesh removed her to private hospital where her sister Ms. Naim Khatoon reached and got her admitted in SGM Hospital. On the basis of said statement, SI Dhirender prepared rukka and got the FIR in respect of offences U/s 336/337 IPC registered through Ct. Naveen Kumar at PS Sultan Puri.
On investigation being entrusted to him, SI Dhirender collected pullanda containing blood sample and one bullet from concerned doctor on which offence U/s 307 IPC was added during the course of investigation. Accused Mahesh was arrested on 06.06.10. He made disclosure statement that pistol used in the commission of offence, had been handed over to co accused Sunil. Accused Mahesh led police to the arrest of co accused Sunil from whom one country made pistol was recovered. After conducting relevant proceedings concerning seizure of said pistol, exhibits were deposited in FSL, Rohini. He also recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.PC of the witnesses.
After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the charges u/s 308 IPC & U/s 25 Arms Act against accused Mahesh and charge in respect of offence U/s 25 Arms Act against accused Sunil Kumar vide order dated 20.09.10 to which both the State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses namely PW1 ASI Mahender Kumar, PW2 Ct. Gaurav, PW3 Ct. Naveen Kumar, PW4 Ms. Shahida, PW5 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar, PW6 Dr. Manoj Kumar, PW7 Dr. Mahipal Singh, PW8 Sh. Shiraj Mohd, PW9 Ct. Umesh Kumar, PW10 SI Dhirender Singh and PW11 Dr. P. Karunakaran, DCP South East District, Delhi.
Thereafter, statements U/s 313 Cr.PC of both the accused persons were recorded wherein incriminating evidence were put to them which they denied. Both the accused persons claimed to have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, both the accused persons did not opt to lead DE towards their defence.
Before discussing rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial.
PUBLIC WITNESSES: PW4 Smt. Shahida is the star witness of prosecution. As per the prosecution story, said witness is the complainant on whose statement FIR in question came to be registered. However, she did not support the case of prosecution during chief examination as she claimed that about three years ago, she had sustained injuries on her head but she did not know as to who had caused those injuries to her. Accordingly, she was cross examined by Ld Substitute APP with permission of the Court. During said cross examination, State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 PW4 admitted that police had recorded her statement Ex PW4/A bearing her thumb impression at pointA and her nick name is Guddi. However, she denied the suggestions put to her on the lines of prosecution story that on the alleged date, time and place, accused Mahesh had shown country made pistol to her or had claimed that "Dekh Aaj Mere Haath Me Kya Hai, Isse Teri Jaan Bhi Jaa Sakti Hai" or that in joke, trigger of the katta was pressed and bullet struck against her right palm. She also denied the suggestion that accused Mahesh had taken her to private hospital where from her sister Ms. Naim Khatoon got her admitted in SGM Hospital. Although, she admitted that accused Mahesh was known to her but she explained that accused Mahesh was residing in E3 Block where she was also residing on rent. Said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW8 namely Sh. Shiraj Mohd is the husband of complainant i.e PW4. He deposed that on 04.11.09, he had gone to his work place at about 8.00 A.M. He had received phone call from his sister in law namely Ms. Naim Khatoon at about 11.00 A.M that his wife Ms Shahida @ Gudia(PW4) was injured by gun shot on her right hand by assailant Mahesh and she was taking her to SGM Hospital. Accordingly, he had gone to SGM Hospital where he met her wife and her sister in law Ms. Naim Khatoon. On enquiry, he was told that injury was caused to her by Mahesh with country made pistol. However, he categorically deposed that he had never seen assailant Mahesh. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he again reiterated State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 that he had never seen both the accused persons before the date of recording his statement during trial.
POLICE WITNESSES: PW1 ASI Mahender Kumar is the Duty Officer who has proved factum regarding registration of FIR by him on the basis of rukka produced by Ct. Naveen Kumar on 04.11.09 at about 2.30 P.M. He proved computerized copy of FIR no. 350/09 with PS Sultan Puri as Ex PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex PW1/B. He has not been cross examined despite grant of opportunity.
PW2 Ct. Gaurav had deposited three sealed pullandas and two sample seals in the office of FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide RC No. 82/21/10. He deposed that said pullandas were sealed with the seal of BS and sample seals were sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital. After deposit thereof, he had handed over receipt/acknowledgment Ex PW2/A to concerned MHC(M). He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
PW3 Ct. Naveen Kumar accompanied IO SI Dhirender(PW10) to SGM hospital on receipt of DD No. 18 on 04.12.09. He deposed that SI Dhirender had recorded the statement of injured/complainant Ms. Shahida in SGM Hospital and handed over rukka to him on the basis of which he got the FIR registered at PS Sultan Puri. He also deposed that concerned doctor had handed over one pullanda containing bullet and blood sample of injured State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital besides sample seal to SI Dhirender who seized the same vide memo Ex PW5/A. During his cross examination, he admitted that area of Sultan Puri is a congested area. SI Dhirender had made enquiries from residents and shopkeepers present at or near the spot but he did not know the names of those persons. He denied the suggestions that he did not join investigation of the case and did not visit SGM Hospital or to the spot.
PW5 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar had joined investigation of the case with IO SI Dhirender (PW10) on 06.06.10 when accused Mahesh is claimed to have been arrested near E7 park. He proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement allegedly made by accused Mahesh as Ex.PW5/A to Ex PW5/C respectively. He deposed that accused Mahesh had pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex PW5/B. He further deposed that he had again joined investigation of the case with IO SI Dhirender and Ct. Umesh on 07.06.10 when accused Mahesh led them to house no. B65, Hari EnclaveI, Sultan Puri, Delhi of co accused Sunil who was not found there. He deposed that accused Sunil was arrested at E3 Park near Jalabi Chowk, Sultan Puri at the instance of accused Mahesh. He further deposed that accused Sunil got recovered one country made pistol from his aforesaid house and relevant proceedings concerning said pistol was carried out by the IO. He identified said country made pistol as Ex P1 during trial.
During cross examination, he admitted that Jalabi Chowk is a crowded place where public persons are normally available. He claimed that SI Dhirender had requested public persons to join the proceedings but none State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 agreed. He denied the suggestions that he did not join investigation of the case either on 06.06.10 or on 07.06.10 or that no proceeding whatsoever was carried out in his presence.
PW9 Ct. Umesh Kumar also deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW5 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar with regard to the investigation carried out on 07.06.10. He proved arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Sunil as Ex PW9/A and PW9/B respectively. He deposed that SI Dhirender had prepared sketch Ex.PW9/C of pistol got recovered at the instance of accused Sunil. Thereafter, he prepared its pullanda which was sealed with the seal of BS and thereafter, it was seized vide memo Ex.PW9/D. He also identified said country made pistol Ex P1 during trial.
In his cross examination, PW9 claimed that no enquiry was made by IO from any person in his presence at Jalebi Chowk. He admitted that Jalebi Chowk is a thickly crowded place. He claimed that enquiry was made from brother of accused Sunil but his signatures were not obtained on any document. He denied the suggestions that he did not join investigation of the case or that accused Sunil did not confess his involvement and did not get recover any country made pistol from his house.
PW10 SI Dhirender is the IO of the case. He deposed on the lines of prosecution story during chief examination by deposing about the investigation carried out by him in this case. He proved rukka Ex PW10/A and site plan Ex PW10/B prepared by him. He also deposed that on 05.11.09, he had obtained opinion from doctor that injury sustained by injured/complainant Ms. Shahida is from fire arm. He also deposed about the State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 investigation carried out by him on 06.06.10 and 07.06.10. He further deposed that exhibits were got deposited in FSL, Rohini through Ct. Gaurav during the course of investigation and FSL results Ex PX & PY and ballistic report Ex PZ were obtained by him during pendency of the trial. He also deposed that sanction U/s 39 Arms Act for prosecuting accused was granted by concerned DCP and same was filed on record. He identified pistol Ex P1. However, as regards one bullet contained in small glass vial which was also produced during trial, he claimed that he could not identify the said bullet. He has been cross examined at length on behalf of accused.
PW11 Dr. P. Karunakaran, DCP South East accorded sanction U/s 39 Arms Act to prosecute accused Mahesh and Sunil Kumar for offence U/s 25 Arms Act. He proved the said sanction order as Ex PW11/A. He has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity. MEDICAL EVIDENCE: PW6 Dr. Manoj Dhingra of SGM Hospital had treated injured/complainant Ms. Shahida after being referred to Forensic Department on 04.11.09 in SGM Hospital vide MLC Ex PW6/A. He deposed that nature of injury sustained by said patient was grievous vide his opinion mentioned on the said MLC as injury was caused by projectile discharge from a fire arm capable of discharging such a projectile. He has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW7 Dr. Mahipal Singh had initially examined patient Ms. State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 Shahida(PW4) on 04.11.09 in SGM Hospital. He deposed that said patient was brought by her husband and sister with alleged history of gun shot injury. She was found having lacerated wound of the size of 2cmx1cmx3cm over first web space of right hand bone and tendon exposed. He removed the bullet and handed over it alongwith blood sample in sealed pullanda to IO and had also prepared MLC Ex PW6/A. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of State and ld. Counsel of both the accused persons. I have also gene through the material available on record.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED: Ld Additional PP argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that PW8 namely Shiraj Mohd has categorically deposed that on enquiry, his wife Shahida @ Gudia/complainant had confirmed that injury was caused by Mahesh with country made pistol. He further submitted that there is a recovery of pistol from the house of accused Sunil and therefore, both the accused should be convicted accordingly.
On the other hand, Ld defence counsel vehemently argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. In this regard, she placed reliance upon testimony of complainant i.e PW4 Ms. Shahida who did not support the case of prosecution at all. Ld defence counsel further argued that recovery of pistol State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 from the house of accused Sunil Kumar is also doubtful as no independent public witness has been joined during recovery proceedings and there are contradictions in the testimonies of alleged recovery witnesses examined in this regard.
Firstly, I shall take up the case of accused Mahesh. He has been charged in respect of offence U/s 308 IPC as also offences U/s 25/27 Arms Act. In view of the prosecution evidence which has come on record, there is no dispute that no pistol was recovered from the possession of accused Mahesh.
As per the prosecution story, PW4 Ms. Shahida @ Gudia was the only star witness. It is the own case of prosecution that Ms. Shahida(PW4) alone was present at the time of incident in question and thus, she was the sole alleged eye witness to the incident. However, said witness has not supported the case of prosecution at all. She denied all the relevant suggestions put to her on the lines of prosecution story during cross examination conducted by Ld APP for the State. She categorically denied that it was accused Mahesh who had shown country made pistol to her or that the trigger of pistol was pressed due to which bullet had struck on her right palm. Instead, she claimed that she had sustained injuries on her head which is contrary to the case of prosecution besides being in contradiction to the medical evidence which has come on record. The prosecution story says that said witness had sustained injury on her right palm and not on her head. Her MLC Ex.PW6/A also shows that said witness had sustained lacerated wound on her right hand and she is not shown to have sustained any type of injury on her head. State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 Be that as it may, fact remains that PW4 i.e. the only star witness examined by prosecution during trial, did not support the case of prosecution at all. There is no iota of evidence which has come on record during the testimony of this witness so as to connect accused Mahesh with the commission of offence involved in this case.
There is no substance in the contention raised by Ld APP that prosecution has proved its case on the basis of testimony of PW8 Siraj Mohd for the simple reason that said witness (PW8) was undisputedly not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident in question. The testimony of PW8 clearly shows that his statement is based on hearsay evidence. Moreover, the said witness deposed during chief examination itself that he had never seen assailant Mahesh. He further deposed during cross examination that he had never seen both the accused persons before the date of recording his statement during trial. In this backdrop, the testimony of PW8 Siraj Mohd is not worth reliance and it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to establish the charges levelled against accused Mahesh on the basis of said testimony.
It has come in the evidence by way of testimony of PW8 that his sister in law namely Ms. Naim Khatoon had removed Ms. Shahida to SGM Hospital and she also met him in the said hospital. PW10 SI Dhirender Singh(IO) also testified that said Ms. Naim Khatoon met him in the hospital and he had prepared site plan Ex PW10/B at the instance of said Ms. Naim Khatoon but said Ms. Naim Khatoon has not been produced during trial on account of her death. Moreover, IO SI Dhirender Singh (PW10) also could State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 not identify bullet which was allegedly handed over to him by concerned doctor of SGM Hospital after taking out the same from the hand of injured/complainant namely Ms. Shahida(PW4). It is also relevant to mention here that said bullet was not put to PW7 Dr. Mahipal Singh who allegedly removed the said bullet in SGM Hospital. Thus, it can be safely inferred from the above said facts and circumstances that the bullet produced during trial was not connected with the incident in question.
Moreover, the complete chain of evidence to connect the bullet purportedly taken out from the hand of PW4 Ms. Shahida (complainant) as the pistol allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Sunil, is missing. As per the report dated 21.11.2011 Ex.PZ of the Ballistic Expert, no opinion could be given by Ballistic Expert after comparison of individual characteristics of striation marks present on evidence fired bullet to form an opinion whether said bullet was discharged through countrymade pistol .315 bore or not. That being so, Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to establish the charge in respect of offence U/s 308 IPC levelled against accused Mahesh.
Now, I shall discuss the charge in respect of offences U/s 25/27 Arms Act levelled against accused Mahesh and offence U/s 25 Arms Act levelled against accused Sunil Kumar. As already discussed above, there is no iota of evidence to show that accused Mahesh had used any pistol in the commission of offence. For this very reason alone, it can be safely said that prosecution failed to prove the offence U/s 27 Arms Act against said accused.
As regards offence U/s 25 Arms Act, Ld APP heavily relied upon testimonies of PW5 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar, PW9 Ct. Umesh Kumar and PW10 SI State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 Dhirender Singh(IO) by submitting that recovery of pistol at the instance of accused Sunil from his house, has been duly proved by prosecution.
The perusal of testimonies of aforesaid three police witnesses would show that pistol Ex P1 is alleged to have been recovered from house of accused Sunil i.e B65, Hari Enclave but no sincere effort whatsoever is shown to have been made either by PW10 SI Dhirender Singh(IO) or by remaining two police witnesses to join independent public witness during recovery proceeding. It has come on record during cross examination of PW9 that brother of accused Sunil was present in the house.
Accused Sunil is claimed to have been arrested from E3 Park, near Jalabi Chowk, Sultan Puri. It has come on record during testimonies of alleged recovery witnesses that said accused had disclosed that he can get one desi katta recovered from his house i.e. B65, Hari Enclave but no disclosure of said accused Sunil is even claimed to have been recorded by the investigating agency at that time. Therefore, it cannot be said that pistol was recovered pursuant to disclosure made by accused Sunil. Even otherwise, there has to be conscious possession of arm and/or ammunitions in contravention of Section 3 of Arms Act by any person for making him liable to punishment U/s 25 Arms Act. In the case in hand, there is no cogent evidence available on record to show that accused Sunil was in conscious possession of pistol Ex.P1 as same is alleged to have been recovered from tand available in the room of his aforesaid house and there were other family members of said accused admittedly present in the said house. Moreover, it has been established on record that house of Sunil was situated in residential State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 locality and there were residential houses situated there but still, no sincere efforts are shown to have been made for joining independent public witness at the time of recovery proceedings.
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi v/s State,1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
In another case law reported as Roop Chand v/s The State of Haryana, 1999(1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:
4. It is well settled principle of the 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 State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 14 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 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 name and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A 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 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 nonjoining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful."
In case law reported as Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab, 1997(3) Crimes 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under:
5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
6. In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely, Harbans Singh ASI who appeared as PW1 and Kartar Singh PW2. Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner, but there was no public witness who had joined. It is not necessary in such State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 15 of 16 FIR No. 350/09; U/s 307/308 IPC & U/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD:22.07.14 recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but attempt must be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereotype statement of nonavailability will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the service of public witness. This reflects adversely on the prosecution version.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has been failed to prove the offence U/s 25 Arms Act against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Resultantly, the case of prosecution fails and both the accused persons are hereby acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. However, both the said accused are directed to furnish their personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount in compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC. Said accused are directed to appear before Higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment passed by this Court. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today
dt. 22.07.2014 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04
North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi: 22.07.2014
State V/s Mahesh Etc. ("Acquitted") Page 16 of 16