Delhi District Court
Sc No. 255/17 State vs . Afjal Khan on 23 January, 2018
SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA MAINI
ASJ01 / SPECIAL JUDGE : POCSO ACT ( NORTH ):
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:
(Sessions Case No. 255/17)
Unique Identification No. DLNT010058022017
FIR No. 1585/15
Police Station Narela
Under Section 363/366/376 IPC
& 4 POCSO Act
State V/s Afjal Khan
S/o Anvar Khan
R/o B778, JJ Colony, Bawana
Narela, Delhi
......Accused
Date of institution 06.05.2017
Date of arguments 23.01.2018
Judgment Pronounced on 23.01.2018
Decision Acquitted
J U D G M E N T
1.The accused Afjal Khan is facing trial in the present case on allegations of having kidnapped the victim K (identity withheld), aged about 16 years, with intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 1 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan likely that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, and having subjected her to penetrative sexual assault / rape.
2. The facts in brief, which are borne out from the record are that the complainant Smt. M was residing at JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi alongwith her family, and she used to run a tea stall alongwith her husband. On 15.12.2015 at about 2.00 PM, her daughter K, aged about 16 years, departed from their tea stall for her house to take a meal. At about 3.00 PM, when the complainant reached home, she did not find her daughter in the house, and so she searched for her, but in vain. She went to PS Narela and made a complaint regarding her missing daughter K putting forth her suspicion that some unknown person had taken her away, after enticing her, and sought legal action. On the basis of her complaint, IO prepared the Tehrir, and got the case FIR registered u/s 363 IPC.
3. The information regarding the victim K being missing was got flashed through electronic media. On 22.02.2016, the victim K alongwith her advocate appeared in the police station, and she was got medically examined at SRHC Hospital vide MLC no. 833/16. Thereafter, victim K was produced before the Ld. MM, and on an appropriate application moved by the IO, Ld. MM recorded the statement of the victim K u/s 164 CrPC, wherein she stated that on 14.12.2015, she had left her house of her own, and accompanied the accused Afjal Khan, and prior to that on 09.12.2015 she had married the accused. She further stated that neither she was under any pressure, nor had she been enticed by anyone, and that she had left her house of her own accord, and accused Afjal had made physical relations with her, with her consent and not forcibly. On Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 2 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan 23.02.2016, section 376 IPC and 4 POCSO Act were added, as the result of the UTP test conducted upon the victim K was positive, and as per the age proof of the victim, collected by the IO, she was found under 18 years of age. Thereafter the investigation of the case was assigned to ASI Premlata, and the victim was housed in Nirmal Chhaya. On 05.03.2016, as per directions of CWC, victim K was taken to DDU hospital for the MTP (termination of pregnancy), in the custody of W/Ct. Snehlata, vide DD No. 32 B. The tissue of the foetus was taken by the doctor concerned, for DNA analysis, and sealed in two pullandas, which were handed over to W/Ct. Snehlata, who in turn, handed over the same to IO, who deposited the same in the Malkhana.
4. Investigation was carried out and efforts were made to trace out the accused but in vain, and consequently, firstly the NBWs were issued against him and thereafter proclamation u/s 82 CrPC was issued against the accused. On 23.07.2016, the bail application moved on behalf of the accused was allowed and he was admitted to bail. On the same day i.e. 23.07.2016, the accused was formally arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Accused was got medically examined and his exhibits were obtained, sealed and were sent to FSL for expert opinion vide RC No. 43/21/17 dated 23.02.2017. IO recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court.
5. On appearance, the accused was supplied with the copies of the chargesheet and other documents. After perusal of the chargesheet, the documents, and hearing Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Ld. Counsel Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 3 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan for the accused, since primafacie case against the accused was made out, he was charged for the offences punishable u/s 363/366 IPC, u/s 4 POCSO Act and in alternative u/s 376 IPC, on 23.05.2017. However, since the offence of penetrative sexual assault / rape was alleged to be committed upon the victim K repeatedly (i.e. alleged offence was committed in its aggravated form) and the offence was simultaneously covered under general law i.e. u/s 376 (2) IPC and not in alternative, the charge was amended accordingly, and amended charge for the offence punishable u/s 363/366/376 (2) IPC and charge for the offence punishable u/s 6 POCSO Act was framed against the accused on 23.01.2018, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State stated that after amendment of the charge, no fresh witness was to be examined, nor any existing witness was required to be examined afresh, nor was there any requirement for any modification in the statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC already recorded. Similarly, Ld. Counsel for accused also stated that after amendment of the charge, he adopts the same examination and crossexamination of the witnesses, which has already been conducted, and that no witness was required to be cross examined afresh, nor was there any requirement for any modification in the statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC already recorded and opted not to lead any defence evidence.
6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the victim K, as PW 1, wherein she stated her age to be 21 years. After conducting preliminary examination of the victim by putting certain questions to her to assess the competency of victim / child to give rational answers, on being satisfied, the statement of the victim was recorded, which is being Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 4 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan reproduced herein below wherein she deposed as under :
"I have four brothers. In the year 2015, after completing my 18 years I went with the accused on 14.12.2015, who is present in the court today (correctly identified through wooden partition) and subsequently married with him with my own free will. After the marriag we started residing as husband and wife and he make physical relations with me with my consent. He never forced me for the same at any point of time. I am still residing with him as his wife at my inlaw's home, happily. I do not want any action against the accused.
During investigation, I was taken to the hospital where I was medically examined."
7. Since the witness / PW 1 had resiled from her earlier statement, on the request of the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, he was allowed to cross examine the witness. In her cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, she deposed as under :
"It is correct that in the year 2015 I used to go to my father's shop for helping him. It is wrong to suggest that on 15.12.2015. I was going from the shop of my father to my house in the noon hours for taking lunch and on the way, accused present in the court today, who was in muffled face at that time, caught hold of me and dragged me inside the car and took me at some place after putting a piece of cloth into my mouth when I tried to raise alarm. It Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 5 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan is wrong to suggest that I identified the accused. It is wrong to suggest that when I asked the accused as to why he has kidnapped me, accused threatened me to cause injury with blade, on which I frightened. It is wrong to suggest that accused gave me a cold drink and after consuming the same, I became semi unconscious and then accused committed sexual intercourse with me without my consent. It is wrong to suggest that as and when I requested the accused that I wanted to talk to my parents, accused threatened me to keep mum. It is wrong to suggest that accuse had stated me that I have to say as adult as and when anyone ask to me in this regard. It is wrong to suggest that accused was habitual a drug addict. It is wrong to suggest that I came at the PS on 22.02.2016 and police recorded my statement Mark PW1/A and I stated all the aforesaid facts to the police in my said statement. Confronted with statement MarkPW1/A in toto wherein the aforesaid facts are so recorded. It is correct that my statement u/s 164 Cr.PC before Ld. MM was recorded on that day and the same is Ex.PW1/B, bearing my signature at pointA. It is wrong to suggest that I have stated my age as 19 years in my statement u/s 164 Cr.PC at the instance of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I have not stated the true facts to the Ld. MM at the instance of accused. It is wrong to suggest that my date of birth is 07.07.1998. Vol. My parents have not mentioned Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 6 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan my true date of birth at the time my admission in the school. I was born on 07.07.1997 and not 07.07.1998. It is wrong to suggest that to save the accused in the present case, I have changed my version and my date of birth is 07.07.1998. It is wrong to suggest that since I married with the accused and residing with him, I am deposing falsely today in the court."
8. Mrs. M, mother of the victim entered the witness box as PW 2 (examined on 23.10.2017) and deposed that she has four sons and one daughter / victim K, who is aged about 18 years. She did not remember the exact date and month, but about two years ago, on Tuesday at about 2.00 PM, her daughter left from their tea stall and departed for their house to take meal, but when at about 3.00 PM, she (PW2) reached home, she did not find the victim K present there, and she searched for her here and there. Thereafter, she approached the police and complained regarding missing of her daughter, vide her complaint Ex. PW2/A. She further deposed that her daughter, whose age is more than 18 years, has since married with accused and is living happily with him.
9. Since the witness / PW 1 had resiled from her earlier statement, on the request of the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, he was allowed to cross examine the witness. In her cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, she denied that the police had recorded her statement Mark PW 2/B. She denied that the accused, from his mobile no. 7834868283, telephonically told her that her daughter was with him and she should not Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 7 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan search for her. She further denied that her daughter had been kidnapped by the accused without their consent or that since the victim has now married the accused, in order to save him, she was deposing falsely.
10. In her crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, she admitted it to be correct that age of her daughter is more than 20 years and that in the documentary record, the age of the victim is mentioned on lower side.
11. PW 3 Mrs. Najma Khatoon deposed that her marriage was solemnized with the accused, but later they got divorced by mutual consent on 19.10.2015.
12. PW 4 Smt. Sunita Rani, Teacher, B21, Nigam Prathmik Balika Vidyalya, Delhi, produced the original admission / withdrawal register maintained in the school, as per which on 22.07.2004, student K was admitted in class I, vide admission no. 06 and her date of birth, in the record, was mentioned as 07.07.1998. The copy of the said register was proved on record as Ex. PW4/A. She also proved the certificate issued by the Principal of the said school, certifying thereby the said date of birth of the student K, as Ex. PW4/B. The copy of admission form filled at the time of admission of victim and the affidavit given by her father, in which the date of birth of the victim child is mentioned as 07.07.1998, were proved on record as Ex. PW 4/B and PW 4/D respectively.
13. During the course of trial, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State vide his Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 8 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan statement recorded on 18.01.2018, tendered the FSL results, which had since been received in the instant case, as Ex. F1 and Ex. F2, which were per se admissible u/s 293 CrPC, and accused and his counsel had stated that they did not want to cross examine the person, who prepared the FSL results and need not be summoned as prosecution witness.
14. During the course of trial, accused, duly assisted by his counsel Sh. S.K. Saran, admitted the following documents, vide his statement dated 18.01.2018, as under :
(a) FIR alongwith certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. P1
(b) Proceedings u/s 164 CrPC as Ex. P2.
(c) His arrest memo as Ex. P3. (d) His personal search memo as Ex. P4. (e) Seizure memo qua his blood samples as Ex. P5. (f) His MLC as Ex. P6. (g) MLC of the victim as Ex. P7. (h) Seizure Memo of exhibits of victim K after MTP as Ex. P8.
15. Since the aforementioned documents were admitted by the accused vide his statement dated 18.01.2018, the prosecution witnesses, who were required to be examined to prove the said documents, were not required to be examined. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State stated that there was no other incriminating evidence against the accused, which would connect the accused Afjal Khan with the offences, he has been charged with and therefore recording of further prosecution evidence was not necessitated and accordingly PE was closed.
Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 9 of 19
SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan
16. Statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded separately, wherein he stated the date of birth of K, who is now his wife and is living happily with him, is 07.07.1997 and not 07.07.1998. He further stated that he and PW 1 / K, were in love with each other and in December, 2015, when K had already attained the age of 18 years, she left her house of her own accord, without informing her mother, and got married with him. The case was registered as a missing report and thereafter he was falsely implicated in the instant case by adding more charges against him. He claimed himself to be innocent, but opted not to lead defence evidence.
17. I have heard Ms. Neeta Gupta, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh.
S.K. Saran, Ld. Counsel for the accused, scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution and have gone through the record.
18. Age of the Victim: To ascertain the age of the victim, the prosecution relied upon the school record of the victim, brought on record by PW 4 Smt. Sunita Rani, Teacher from Nigam Prathmik Balika Vidyalya, who brought on record the admission / withdrawal register maintained in the said school, showing the admission of the student / victim K in the said school on 22.07.2004, in 1 st class and her date of birth being 07.07.1998. Certificate issued by the Principal of the said school, certifying therein that the date of birth of the victim / student K is 07.07.1998, has also been proved on record as Ex. PW 4/B. The attested copy of the admission form and attested copy of affidavit submitted by the father of the student / victim K, have also been proved on record as Ex.
Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 10 of 19
SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan
PW4/C and PW 4/D, corroborating that the date of birth of the victim is 07.07.1998. The accused has not disputed the said documents as no suggestion controverting the said date of birth of the victim, has been put to the said witness / PW 4. However, in his statement u/s 313 CrPC, the accused has stated that the age of birth of the victim K, who is now his wife and is living happily with him, is 07.07.1997, but no documentary proof to that effect has been placed on record by him. The victim (PW1) as well as her mother (PW2) both testified that the date of birth of the victim was given on the lower side, but did not bring on record any other age proof of the victim, which would show her age to be different than what was brought on record.
19. Keeping in view the documentary evidence already placed on record in the form of school record of the victim by PW 4, it is established that on the date of alleged incident i.e. date of alleged kidnapping of victim i.e. 15.12.2015, the victim was aged about 17 years and 4 months, and hence she is a "Child" within the meaning given under the POCSO Act.
20. Medical and forensic Evidence : The victim was got medically examined at SRHC Hospital vide MLC no. 833/16 and her MLC Sheet No. 4011 was also prepared, which is Ex. P7 (admitted by the accused vide his separate statement dated 18.01.2018), and certain exhibits of victim's POE were seized for DNA analysis, when her MTP test was conducted, vide seizure memo Ex. P8 (admitted by the accused vide his separate statement dated 18.01.2018). As per the MLC of the victim Ex.
Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 11 of 19
SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan
P7, she told the doctor concerned that she had married the accused on 09.12.2015 and thereafter accompanied him to Varanashi on 14.12.2015. The result of UPT test of victim was found to be positive. However, the victim refused for her internal medical examination.
21. The accused was also got medically examined at SRHC Hospital vide MLC no. 3082/16 Ex. P6 (admitted by the accused vide his separate statement dated 18.01.2018), wherein it was opined by the doctor concerned that there was nothing to suggest that the patient / accused was unable to perform sexual intercourse.
22. The Tissue Material of the foetus described as POE's from victim K (mentioned as Exhibit 1 in FSL result) and Damp brownish gauze cloth piece kept in a small plastic container described as "Blood Sample of accused Afzal Khan, (identified in FSL result as Exhibit 2) were sent to FSL for expert opinion, pursuant whereto two FSL results Ex. F1 and F 2, have been received, opining the same result as under :
"Result of DNA Examination :
DNA Profile could not be generated from the source of exhibit '1' due to degradation of sample. Hence matching of exhibit '2' with exhibit '1' could not be done."
OFFENCE U/S 363 IPC & 366 IPC.
23. The primary ingredient, which the prosecution is required to prove Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 12 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan in order to bring home the guilt of accused u/s 363/366 IPC is that the victim / child was enticed / taken away by the accused out of the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent. Two material witnesses examined by the prosecution in the instant case were the victim herself (PW1) and her mother (PW2). The victim K as PW1, has categorically deposed, on 14.12.2015, after attaining 18 years of age, she accompanied the accused and married him, of her own accord and sweet will, and after their marriage, they started living as husband and wife. As per the version of PW2 / mother of the victim, on the alleged date of incident, the victim K left for her house from their tea shop at about 2 PM, but when she (PW 2) reached home, her daughter was not found at home, and subsequently she lodged the missing report. PW 1 / victim was specifically put the suggestions by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that on the date of incident, she was caught hold and dragged inside the car by the accused and was thereafter taken away, which were specifically denied by the victim. She also denied the suggestion that she was threatened to cause injury with blade. She also denied that the accused gave her a cold drink and after consuming the same, she became semiunconscious and thereafter accused committed sexual intercourse upon her, without her consent.
24. As per the prosecution case, despite efforts, the victim could not be traced out and 22.02.2016, the victim, of her own, approached the police and immediately she was produced before the Ld. MM, who recorded her statement u/s 164 CrPC, wherein the victim has specifically told that she married the accused on 09.12.2015, left herhouse and accompanied the accused on 14.12.2015, without any threat or pressure Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 13 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan from the accused, and that she was not enticed by accused.
25. From the testimony of the victim as PW 1 and her statement u/s 164 CrPC recorded by the Ld. MM, it is crystal clear that on the fateful day, the victim accompanied the accused quite willingly, without any threat, pressure or coercion, already having married him few days ago i.e. on 09.12.2015. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the landmark judgment Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, wherein while distinguishing between "taking" and "allowing a minor to accompany a person", it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :
"xxx There is a distinction between "taking" and "allowing a minor to accompany a person". The two expressions are not synonymous though it can not be laid down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purpose of S. 361. Where the minor leaves her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she is doing, voluntarily joins the accused person, the accused cannot be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. xxx:
26. In the case in hand also, since on the fateful day the victim has left the house willingly with the accused, without their being any Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 14 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan enticement or any other overt, act on the part of the accused, the offence of kidnapping of the victim is not made out, and therefore the charge for the offences u/s 363/366 IPC against the accused Afjal Khan, is not brought home by the prosecution.
OFFENCE U/s 6 POCSO Act & U/s 376 (2) (n) IPC
27. The accused has been charged for the offence as defined in section 5 (l) POCSO Act & punishable u/s 6 POCSO Act and for the offence punishable u/s 376 (2) (n) IPC, and for ready reference, both the said sections are being reproduced herein below :
Section 5 (l) POCSO Act Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly.
Section 376. Punishment for rape. (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in subsection (2) commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) whoever
(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 15 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine."
28. The victim has specifically stated in her testimony as PW 1 that after marrying the accused, they started living as husband and wife and the accused had physical relations with her, only with her consent and he had never forced her for the same, at any point of time. She further stated that presently she is residing with the accused as his wife in her matrimonial home, happily. She has specifically denied that after consuming cold drink given to her by the accused, she became unconscious and thereafter accused committed sexual intercourse upon her, without her consent. However, it is admitted by the victim herself that after marrying the accused, they stayed together as husband and wife and had physical relations, and as already held above the victim was a child, as defined in POCSO Act, on the date of alleged incident.
29. Therefore, the question which glares at the court for consideration, is that when the physical relations are established by a girl with a boy out of her own sweet will, can the boy be hauled up for having committed "penetrative sexual assault / rape" upon the alleged victim. Ld. Counsel for the accused in his submissions made before the court used the term "age of discretion having been attained by the victim, and therefore she knew exactly what she was doing, she knew the repercussions which could follow and she had indulged in such sexual intercourse with the accused not once but repeatedly.
Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 16 of 19
SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan
30. The Hon'ble High Court in Kuldeep Tyagi Vs. State NCT of Delhi, 2013 (135) DRJ 613, while faced with a similar question of the victim being below 18 years of age, having accompanied the accused with his friends to different places and having physical relations with the accused with her consent, has held as under :
"Penal Code, 1860 Section 376 - Rape - Consent - On the verge of attaining majority - Sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to - Friendship with the accused and had no grievance aginst his conduct and behavior at any time - She accompanied the accused with his friends to different places at Shimla, Nanital and Mussoorie - She never informed her parnts and kept it a secret - She had physical relations with the accused at different places with her consent without any resistance - She never lodged any complaint against the accused for cheating her, never insisted the accused to marry her and never informed her parents about her friendship with the accused and his promise to marry - Case of voluntary consent - Conviction set aside - Appeal allowed.
31. Again having a similar question, the Hon'ble High Court in case Vijay Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 325/2013 decided on 14.08.2015, has held that when the victim accompanied the accused Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 17 of 19 SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan willingly, did not raise any alarm, consensually had sexual intercourse with him, lived in his native place for 89 days, had accompanied the accused with her consent, the accused was acquitted of the charge of the offence of rape.
32. In the case in hand also, the victim married the accused on 09.12.2015, and accompanied him on 14.12.2015, though without informing her family member, and thereafter they started living as husband and wife and till date they are so living happily. The marriage of the accused and the victim having been solemnized on 09.12.2015, has been emphatically asserted by the victim and other material witness and this assertion as well as the factum of marriage is not disputed by the prosecution. Physical relations between a husband and wife do not constitute any offence. The victim has asserted that her real date of birth is 07.07.1997 and not 07.07.1998 and that her mother had given her date of birth in the school on the lower side. This assertion has not been controverted by the prosecution.
33. As such, the victim herself, who was the only material witness, on whose testimony, the case of the prosecution was hinging, did not support the prosecution case. Though both the material witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. the victim and her mother correctly identified the accused, but they have denied the allegations levelled against the accused that the victim was kidnapped by the accused and thereafter was subjected to penetrative sexual assault / rape at the hands of the accused, without her consent.
Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 18 of 19
SC No. 255/17 State Vs. Afjal Khan
34. The only star witness, examined by the prosecution, on which the case of the prosecution was based, has denied the happening of the alleged incident, in totality. Victim K was the only material witness of the incident and she not having supported the prosecution case and having given a clean chit to the accused, there is nothing that survives in the prosecution case, which falls flat on its face, failing to bring home the guilt of accused.
35. Conclusion : From the aforesaid discussions, allegations against accused are not proved. Accordingly, accused Afjal Khan stands acquitted for the offences, he has been charged with. Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled and his surety is discharged. Documents of the surety, if any retained on record, be released to him on appropriate application being moved by him.
Accused is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10000/ under provisions of Section 437A CrPC, with one surety in the like amount.
Since victim has not suffered any injury or loss, either physical, mental or psychological, they have not been granted any compensation as per provisions of section 33 (8) POCSO Act.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. on 23.01.2018 (SEEMA MAINI)
ASJ01/SPECIAL JUDGE : POCSO Act :
North : Rohini/Delhi : 23.01.2018
Judgment : FIR No. 1585/15 page 19 of 19