Delhi District Court
Others vs . State Of Maharashtra" Reported In ... on 10 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPAKSHI RANA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar
[CR No. 5786/22]
b Date of the commission of the : 29.06.2022
offence
c Name of the Complainant : Rohit Verma
d Name of Accused person and his : Farukh
parentage and residence S/o Shahid
R/o E-16B/100, Seelampur, Delhi
E Offence complained of : 379/411 IPC
F Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
G Final Order : Convicted
H Order reserved on : 02.03.2023
I Order pronounced on : 10.04.2023
1.Vide this judgment, the present FIR bearing No. 366/22 registered with PS Madhu Vihar on 29.06.2023 on the statement of Rohit Verma against accused Farukh shall be decided and disposed off.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION-:
2. A police report was put up against the accused by the State through Station House Officer of PS Madhu Vihar on 06.08.2022 alleging that on 29.06.2022 at about 12:15 PM at H-201, Shri Ganesh Apartment, IP Extn, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Madhu Vihar, accused stole one bicycle make Hero Electra belonging to complainant which was recovered from the possession of accused and thereby committed an offences U/s 379/411 IPC.
Trial proceedings:-
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court on 06.08.2022 under section 379/411 IPC against the Accused Farukh. On 08.08.2022, Cognizance was taken in this matter and production warrants were FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 1/17 issued against accused to face the trial. Upon his appearance in the Court through J/C, copy of challan and relevant documents were supplied to him as per the provisions U/s 207 Cr. PC.
4. After hearing detailed arguments, charges under sections 379/411 IPC were framed upon the Accused person on 20.10.2022, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, matter was taken up for recording prosecution evidence. 5 In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, Prosecution has examined 04 witnesses as follows:-
PW1 Rohit Verma
PW2 Bharat Singh
PW3 HC Neeraj
PW4 HC Jitender Singh
It is pertinent to note that in total 07 witnesses had been cited by Prosecution in the list of witnesses whereby Rohit Verma was the complainant and Bharat Singh was the eye witness. The remaining 05 witnesses were investigation witnesses including Duty Officer in the PS, investigation witness and IO It may be noted that duty officer who had registered the FIR and issued the certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence act were dropped from list of witnesses vide separate statement of the accused U/s 294 Cr. PC dt. 20.10.2022.
The aforesaid witnesses brought the following documents on record to prove the case of prosecution:-
Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW1/B Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW 1/C Seizure memo of bicycle Ex.PW1/D Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW3/A Site plan prepared by IO Ex.PW3/B Personal search memo of accused Ex.PW 4/A Rukka prepared by IO FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 2/17 After examination of all the aforesaid witnesses, PE was closed and the matter was listed for recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. PC.
6. After completion of Prosecution evidence as aforesaid, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 20.02.2023 whereby he was put with all the incriminating evidence brought by the prosecution against him. Accused person denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further added that he just went to the society to give banana to some known person and thereafter, he was caught by the guard for no fault. He did not steal anything from the society and that he is innocent.
When questioned as to whether he wanted to lead evidence in his defence, Accused person answered in negative and thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. LAC for accused have addressed their detailed final arguments in this matter.
Summary of final arguments:-
7. Ld. APP for the State has pressed upon conviction of the accused person stating that clear averments have come against him not only in the complaint filed by the complainant with the police but also in his testimony on oath. Ld. APP for the State further argued that one supporting evidence i.e. testimony of guard who caught the accused while running from the spot after the commission of offence has also been brought on record by the prosecution so as to support the allegations leveled against the accused. Hence, Ld. APP for the State argued that in the present case also, accused person should be held guilty and be given maximum punishment for the heinous crime which he has committed.
FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 3/17 Opposing the contentions of Ld. APP for the State, Ld. LAC for the accused has pressed upon acquittal of the accused person stating that there are several discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the timings can be noted and that in view of the same, the accused should be acquitted. Further, it has been submitted by Ld. LAC for accused that the duty of the prosecution is to prove the case against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubts which the prosecution has failed to do in this case and therefore accused person deserves to be set at liberty from the charges leveled against him.
Submissions have been heard and record have been perused. Record has been carefully perused. Arguments have been duly heard. Provisions of law invoked:-
8. While both the sides have put forward their cases before the court but witnesses have only been led by the Prosecution. As is settled in criminal law, burden of proof in a criminal case is upon Prosecution and that too to the extent of proving it beyond all reasonable doubts; while the Accused only has to create preponderance of probabilities in his favour. Thus, only on the basis of Prosecution evidence shall the guilt or innocence of the Accused person be determined.
As has already been mentioned above, two offences from the IPC have been imputed upon the Accused in the case at hand. Before proceeding further on to the merits of this case, it is pertinent to reiterate the provisions of law with which the Accused has been charged with respect to the alleged incident which have been reproduced below for a quick reference:-
(I). The offence of theft is defined U/s 378 IPC which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"S. 378. Theft-Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 4/17 order to such taking, is said to commit theft".
Therefore from perusal of definition of theft, it is clear that there must be dishonest dispossession of moveable property from the possession of the complainant without his consent. The term 'dishonestly' is defined U/s 24 of the IPC which states that when something is done with the intention of causing wrongful loss to one and wrongful gain to another, it is said to have been done dishonestly. Therefore, it is clear that offence of theft emphasizes upon taking away of property or dispossessing the complainant from the property without his consent.
(II) Section 411 IPC Dishonestly receiving stolen property- "whoever dishonestly
receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both"
9. To prove the guilt of accused for the offence he is charged with in the present matter, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the following facts.
(a) That the accused has committed the theft of bicycle of the complainant.
(b) The said stolen bicycle has been recovered from the possession of the accused.
Appreciation of evidence:-
10. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:-
10.1 PW 1 Rohit Verma being the complainant in the present case deposed that on 29.06.2022, when he was in his house, he received a call from security guard of the society, that one person was taking away his blue colour bicycle. Thereafter, he immediately went to main gate of the society where the security guard Bharat had caught hold of FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 5/17 one person alongwith his blue colour bicycle. Thereafter, he made 100 number call and police came and took the accused Farukh whose name he had come to know later which was disclosed by security guard Bharat alongwith his bicycle to the PS. Thereafter, he went to the PS and his statement was recorded Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, he alongwith IO came back to the spot and the site plan was prepared at his instance and accused was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, his bicycle was also seized by seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. The police had also recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/D. Police had also recorded his supplementary statement. PW 1 in his testimony correctly identified the case property through photographs and also the accused present in the court.
PW 1 was cross examined by Ld. LAC for accused wherein inter-alia he stated that security guard had called him at about 12:30 PM. He further deposed that he did not see the incident taking place and he was called by the security guard. He further stated that he called at 100 number at about 1 PM but he did not remember the exact time. He further denied the suggestions given by Ld. APP for the state that he never called at 100 number and no police officials had come at the spot. He also deposed that he reached the PS at about 1:30 PM wherein his statement was recorded and that site plan was prepared at his instance at PS which he further modified "to the spot" itself. He further deposed that he again visited the PS in the evening when accused was arrested. Therefore, the testimony of complainant has remained consistent throughout except some minor differences in time which are not considerable and it can be inferred that defence has not been able to impeach the credibility of PW 1. FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 6/17 10.2 PW Bharat Singh deposed that on 29.06.2022, when he was working as security guard at Shri Ganesh apartment Madhu Vihar, one boy namely Farukh whose name he came to know later on, came to him and said that his brother was working inside the society and he requested him to let him inside. Thereafter, he allowed him to go. After a while, he saw him coming out alongwith one blue colour bicycle. Thereafter, he stopped him and interrogated as to he had went inside without the cycle then how come from society he is getting out alongwith cycle. Upon which, the accused got scared and tried to run away from the spot leaving the cycle behind, however, he did not allow the same to happen. Thereafter, he inquired regarding the cycle and he informed the owner. Thereafter Rohit Verma came down at the society gate and police also came to the spot. Rohit Verma had also identified the bicycle which was being taken by the accused and police recorded his statement in the PS. Case property and accused was correctly identified by the witness I..e PW-2.
PW-2 was cross examined by Ld. LAC for accused wherein the witness deposed that incident took place between 11 AM - 12 noon. He further stated that accused Farukh stated to him that he wanted to meet his brother who was working inside the society. He had not inquired the name of his brother from accused Farukh but he inquired from accused regarding the work his brother was doing there to which, accused replied that his brother was a labourer. He further deposed that on the date of incident, some repair / construction work was going on in the society and he had not inquired the name of contractor from accused Farukh when he had stated that his brother was working inside. It is further stated that he did not check the ID of FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 7/17 accused Farukh and also was unable to tell the exact time when Farukh had come at the society gate. Witness further deposed that CCTV cameras were installed in the parking area of the society however, they were not operational. He further stated that he had not seen the accused taking the bicycle from the parking . However, he had seen the accused when the accused was taking the bicycle outside the society at the gate. PW further deposed that he had inquired from the residents by calling them on intercom and many residents had gathered at the gate as there was hue and cry that some thief was taking away bicycle from the society. He further stated that he had called residents on intercom at about 12:30 PM. 10.3. PW 3 HC Neeraj deposed that on 29.06.2022 when he was posted as HC at PS madhu Vihar. A PCR call was received by DO which was further marked to IO/HC Jitender stating that one thief was apprehended at Shri Ganesh apartment IP Extn. Complainant handed over the accused with recovered bicycle to IO. On interrogation, accused revealed his name as Farukh. IO took the accused alongwith case property to the PS and after some time, complainant also visited the PS. Thereafter, IO recorded statement of complainant. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Ex. PW 3/A. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 1/B and personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW 3/B. Thereafter, IO also seized the case property Ex. PW 1/C. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex. PW 1/D. IO also recorded his statement in this regard. Case property was correctly identified by witness.
In the cross examination, he deposed that his duty hours were FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 8/17 from 8 AM to 8 PM on the day of the incident. He further stated that PCR call was received at around 12 noon and he reached at the spot on private vehicle within 15 minutes after receiving the call. Further he does not remember the registration number of the said vehicle. He denied the suggestion given by Ld. LAC for accused that he cannot tell about the vehicle number as he never visited the spot. He further deposed that there were 5-6 public persons present at the spot when they reached there but he does not remember the exact time when they reached at the PS alongwith accused and case property. He further deposed that he again visited the spot when site plan was prepared by the IO but he does not remember the time.
10.4. PW-4 HC Jitender Singh deposed that on 29.06.2022, when he was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM, he was marked DD No. 53A regarding thief who was caught red handed. He further deposed that he alongwith HC Neeraj went to the spot i.e. Shri Ganesh apartment, IP Extn, Delhi where he met Rohit. Rohit presented him with accused and case property i.e. coloured electric bicycle. He also reported that the accused stole the same. Then, they came back to the PS alongwith accused. Complainant came to the PS wherein his statement was recorded Ex. PW 1/A. Thereafter, rukka was prepared Ex. PW 4/A. He further deposed that then, he alongwith complainant and HC Neeraj went to the spot where site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant Ex. PW3/A. Then they came back to the PS wherein case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/C. He further deposed that accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW 1/B and Ex. PW 3/B. Then, he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW1/D. FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 9/17 Thereafter, he sent accused for medical examination and after that, accused was sent to lock up.
In the cross examination, he deposed that DD No. 53 A was marked to him at about 12:30 PM and he reached the spot within 15 minutes. He further deposed that he had searched for CCTV however, no CCTV was found covering the spot. Thereafter he left for the PS at about 1 PM and he commuted on his personal motorcycle on that day. He further deposed that accsued was brought to the PS by PCR Van and complainant came to the PS at about 2 PM. He further deposed that he went to the spot alongwith complainant to prepare the site plan at about 3:30 PM. PW 4 further stated that he recorded supplementary statement of complainant at about 4:30 PM. He denied the suggestion given by Ld. LAC for accused that no CCTV footage has been placed on record because no such incident took place and all the documents including the site plan was prepared while sitting at the PS. FINDINGS WITH REASONS:-
11. It is settled in criminal law that burden of proof in a criminal case is upon Prosecution and the Accused only has to create preponderance of probabilities in his favour. The accused can bring forward his defence by either cross-examining the Prosecution witnesses or leading evidence. In the case at hand, both the sides have put forward their cases before the court and only prosecution has led evidence to prove its case. It is now for the court to weigh the evidence brought by prosecution on scales of proof to determine as to whether prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused or the accused has been able to come out clean from the charges pressed against him.
FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 10/17
12. PW 1/ Rohit Verma who is owner of the case property stepped in the witness box and identified his bicycle who was the stolen property in the present case. PW- 2 / Bharat Singh i.e. eyewitness has stepped in the witness box and further supported the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused. PW-2 deposed regarding stealing / theft of the bicycle by the accused and recovery of the same at the spot on 29.06.2022 when he was on duty at Shri Ganesh Apartment as Security Guard. He further deposed regarding mode of investigation conducted by the police after he caught hold of the accused. PW-3/ HC Neeraj deposed regarding joining the investigation alongwith the IO. PW-3/HC Neeraj deposed regarding preparation of site plan at the instance of complainant, arrest memo and personal search memo by the IO. PW-4/IO i.e. HC Jitender Singh deposed regarding the way and manner in which investigation was carried out after complainant reported the incident to him at the spot. Admittedly, the case property, i.e. bicycle and accused were presented to the IO by complainant at the spot. Noticeably, accused has been correctly identified by all the prosecution witnesses during their testimony in court.
13. In the present matter, the most important witness produced by the prosecution is the PW-2 Bharat Singh who has deposed regarding the incident as he is the eyewitness in the present case. The PW-2 has inter alia stated that when he was working as security guard at Shri Ganesh apartment Madhu Vihar, one boy namely Farukh whose name he came to know later on, came to him and said that his brother was working inside the society and he requested him to let him inside. He further deposed that thereafter, he allowed him to go and after a while, he saw him coming out alongwith one blue colour bicycle. He further deposed that thereafter, he stopped him and interrogated as to the fact that he went inside FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 11/17 without the cycle then how come he is now making an exit from society alongwith cycle. Upon which, the accused got scared and tried to run away from the spot leaving the cycle behind, however, he did not allow the same to happen. Thereafter, he inquired regarding the cycle and he informed the owner. Thereafter Rohit Verma came down at the society gate and police also came to the spot. Rohit Verma had also identified his bicycle which is the case property in the present case. The PW 2 Bharat Singh is the most essential witness to the case of the prosecution and the courts have always placed much weight and reliance upon the testimony of the complainant and eyewitness. It is no longer res integra that the eye witness is accorded a special status amongst the other witnesses cited by the prosecution and the courts must place reliance upon their testimony if it is found to be worthy of credit.
14. At this juncture, it is essential to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P"., [(2010) 10 SCC 259], which are as follows:
"30. 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.
FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 12/17
31. Ashfaq (PW 2) had given a graphic description of the entire incident. His presence on the spot cannot be doubted as he was injured in the incident. His deposition must be given due weightage. His deposition also stood fully corroborated by the evidence of Anees (PW 1) and Usman Ali (PW 4). The depositions so made cannot be brushed aside merely because there have been some trivial contradictions or omissions."
15. In the present case, the testimony of the PW-1 has remained consistent with the narration of the incident in the FIR. In fact, the defence has not been able to impeach the creditworthiness of both the public witnesses during the entire cross examination. No major contradictions have been pointed out by the defence in terms of section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and no inconsistencies were put to him for impeaching his credibility as prescribed under section 155 of the said Act. Further, the PW-1 and PW 2 have given complete details of the incident which took place on 29.06.2022 whereby the accused had stolen the bicycle and thereafter tried to flee from the spot. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 have remained consistent and is worthy of credit throughout their examination and cross- examination. The PW-2 Bharat Singh is the star witness to the case of the prosecution who has clearly deposed regarding the manner in which the accused committed the offence and the way in which the investigation was carried out by the police once PW-2 reported the incident to the police after nabbing the accused. It is essential to mention here that the accused was apprehended when he came alongwith bicycle and also correctly identified by the PW-2 i.e. eyewitness during his testimony in court.
16. It has been noticed that the there are certain discrepancies pertaining to the FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 13/17 time in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. PW 1 further deposed during his examination in chief that he received a call from security guard of the society that one person was taking away his blue colour bicycle and thereafter, he immediately went to the main gate of the society where the security guard Bharat had caught hold of one person alongwith his blue colour bicycle. Thereafter, complainant made 100 number call. On the other hand, PW 3 HC Neeraj deposed during his cross examination that the PCR call was received at around 12 PM and he reached at the spot on private vehicle within 15 minutes after receiving the call. There are minor discrepancies pertaining to the time as revealed from the testimonies of witnesses. It is trite law that the court is required to sift the chaff from the grain to ascertain the truth. The court can always ignore minor variations and trivial contradictions and omissions if there is otherwise sufficient evidence on record pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Reliance is placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhagwan Jagannath Markad and others Vs. State of Maharashtra" reported in [(2016) 10 SCC 537], which are as follows:
"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 FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 14/17 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 the creditworthiness and the trustworthiness of a witness. There may at times be exaggeration or embellishment not affecting the 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 [Leela Ram v.State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525, pp. 532-35, paras 9-13 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 222] . Want of independent witnesses or unusual behaviour 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 closely scrutinised 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 FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 15/17 omnibus" has no general acceptability [Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381, pp. 392-93, para 15 :
2003 SCC (Cri) 32] . 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."
17. In view of the aforesaid observations, it is not difficult to arrive at the conclusion that testimony of police witnesses are worthy of credit and cannot be completely disregarded. Be that as it may, in the present case, the testimonies of PW-3 /HC Neeraj and PW 4/ HC Jitender have inspired confidence of this court and there are no major contradictions in their testimonies and thus, found to be worthy of credit upon appreciation of the evidence led by them. Further, the argument that despite the presence of so many public witnesses, the prosecution has failed to cite any independent witness except PW-2 is also found to be lacking on merit as the testimony of the PW-2 has corroborated the versions of the complainant and the police witnesses which have cumulatively proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even otherwise, it is common knowledge that ordinarily public at large show their disinclination to join the investigation and become witness for the prosecution. Merely because the essential witnesses, apart from the complainant FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 16/17 and police officials, shall not by itself make their testimony unworthy of any credit. The quality of evidence is and shall always be the deciding factor over its quantity.
18. After careful perusal of the testimonies rendered in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the testimony of the complainant and PW-2 Bharat Singh are cogent, convincing and trustworthy. The testimony of PW-2 has been corroborated in all material particulars with the testimonies of police witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve or doubt their versions. The defence has neither alleged nor proved any grounds for false implication of the accused at behest of the complainant or the police. It is not even the case of the defence that the accused and the complainant were known to each other.
19. The accused has been charged with the offences punishable under section 379/411 IPC. In the present case the unblemished testimony of PW-2 has established that the accused stolen the bicycle of the PW-1 and after commission of the theft, tried to run away from the spot. This version of the PW-2 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on record. The accused has been duly identified by all the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the offences punishable u/s 379/411 IPC stands committed in the present case and the accused is liable to be convicted of the said offences.
Accordingly, in view of the findings given above, the accused Farukh S/o Shahid is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/s 379/411 IPC.
20. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict against receiving. Digitally signed by
DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 10.04.2023 RANA Date: 2023.04.10
16:48:21 +0530
(Deepakshi Rana)
MM-08, District Shahdara,
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
[This judgment has been directly typed on computer to dictation] [This judgment contains 17 signed pages] FIR No. 366/22 PS Madhu Vihar titled as State v. Farukh 17/17