Delhi District Court
State vs . Gauatm Etc. on 23 July, 2021
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL, MM-04, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Proceedings conducted through video conferencing via Cisco Webex
STATE VS. Gauatm etc.
FIR NO: 320/11
P. S Sangam Vihar
U/s 323/341/34 IPC
CRC No. 2034947/16
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 25.07.2012
Name of the complainant : Sh. Hardeep Singh
S/o Sh. Ikbal Singh
R/o H. No. 90, I-2nd Block,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 29.07.2011
Name of the accused : 1) Gautam
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash
R/o H. No. 70/1, I-2nd,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
2) Ram Hari
S/o Sh. Roop Singh
R/o H. No. 304/4, I-2nd,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
3) Rajesh
S/o Sh. Maya Ram
R/o H. No. 304/4, I-2nd,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 1/17
4) Bhola
S/o late Munna Lal
R/o H. No. 39/1, I-2nd,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
5) Sonu
S/o Sh. Ram Khiladi
R/o H. No.75, I-2nd,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
Offence complained of : 323/341/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 13.07.2021
Final Order : All five accused persons are
convicted for offence u/s
323/341/34 IPC
Date of judgment : 23.07.2021
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS:-
1. The present case is prosecuted by the State against the accused persons for having committed the offences punishable u/s 323/451/34 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the story of prosecution is that on 29.07.2011 at about 11.00 pm there was some altercation among Mithun, Rajesh and Bhola andwhen the complainant Hardeep Singh had tried to intervene and pacify them, he was beaten up by Rajesh and Bhola with iron rod and stick (danda). On hearing the noise, his mother namely Balbir Kaur also came out of the house and then one Ram Hari, friend of Rajesh mauled her and gave the blow of stick (danda) after she being caught by Gautam. Meanwhile, his elder sister namely Daljit Kaur also came outside and she was assaulted on her arm with stick (danda) by one Sonu. When State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 2/17 his younger sister namely Satinder Kaur also came outside, she was also beaten up and was given blow of rod on her head by Bhola and Gautam assaulted on her left handwith danda , causing her to fell down on the ground. Meanwhile, his elder sister made a call to PCR and all the assailants ran away from the spot. After some time PCR van reached at the spot and took the injured persons including his mother Balbir Kaur and his younger sister AIIMS Trauma Centre wherefrom they were discharged after medical treatment. His younger sister Daljit Kaur did not go for medical treatment as she had not suffered any surface injury. They all came back at about 6.30 am on the next morning and after some time they went to PS Sangam Vihar and gave the complaint to the police causing the FIR being lodged.
3. Now as per the charge sheet, one DD entry no. 53 A was lodged on 29.07.2011 on the basis of PCR call and when Ct. Ziauddin reached at the spot, it was revealed that the injured persons were taken to hospital by the PCR Van. Subsequently, one DD no. 62 A was received from AIIMS Trauma Centre and when the police reached the hospital, patients were not found present in the casualty. The MLC of the injured persons was obtained and subsequently, after receiving the complaint from complainant Hardeep on the next morning and on the basis of MLC, present FIR was lodged and investigation was initiated. The place of occurrence was inspected by the IO and site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. During further investigation all the accuse persons named in the FIR were arrested and danda, one iron rod measuring 13 inch with inscription 'valve' were seized from the accused persons Gautam and Ram Hari respectively. The case property was sealed and accused persons were released on bail as offence being bailable in nature. As per the charge sheet, no evidence could be collected during investigation against Sonu and accordingly he was kept in column no.12 in the charge sheet and the charge sheet was filed against remaining all four accused persons.
State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 3/17CHARGE:-
4. The cognizance was taken by Ld. Predecessor of the court against all the accused persons including Sonu and after the presence of all the accused persons was secured, they were admitted to bail and compliance of Section 207 CrPC was made. Subsequently, notice was framed against all the accused persons u/s 323/341/34 IPC vod 05.01.2016, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:-
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined six witnesses in total. PW-1, complainant namely Hardeep Singh deposed the version of his complaint given to the police and proved his complaint as Ex.PW1/A. He correctly identified all the accused persons present in the court. Again during his evidence, the case property including two danda and one iron rod were also produced, which were also duly identified by the witness being the same with which they were attacked by the accused persons. The case property was exhibited as Ex.P1 (Colly). Other injured persons/eye witnesses namely Balbir Kaur, Jitender Kaur and Daljeet Kaur were examined as PW-2 to PW-4 respectively. All these witnesses corroborated the version of PW-1/complainant regarding the incidence. All these witnesses duly identified the accused persons, present before the Court. One police official involved in the investigation namely HC Ziauddin was examined as PW-5, who deposed about the investigation being conducted by the IO and he assisting him. He further proved the arrest memo and personal search memos of the accused persons as Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/H. The seizure memo State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 4/17 vide which the case property was seized were proved as Ex.PW5/I to Ex.PW5/K. All the accused persons were duly identified by the witness. IO of the case namely SI Vikram Singh was examined as PW-6, who deposed about the investigation being conducted by him and corroborated the documents already exhibited as Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/K. He further proved the rukka prepared by him as Ex.PW6/A. He further stated that charge sheet was prepared by him and was filed before the Court. All accused persons were duly identified by the witness. All the witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
6. On 24.02.2020, all five accused persons admitted the genuineness of documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C i.e. copy of FIR as Ex.AD1, DD No.53 A dated 29.07.2011 as Ex.AD2, MLCs of injured Hardeep Singh, Balbir Kaur and Jitender Kaur all dated 30.07.2011 as Ex.AD3(Colly) and consequently the relevant witnesses were dropped. Prosecution evidence stood closed vod 20.03.2021.
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons u/s 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances and incriminating evidence were put to the accused persons, which they denied. They all pleaded false implication by the complainant. They chose to lead defence evidence, however subsequently counsel for the accused persons stated that the accused persons did not want to lead any defence evidence and accordingly matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
8. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for the State as well as the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused has been heard and file has been minutely and carefully perused. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that complainant examined as PW-1 has clearly stated the version of FIR and he has been corroborated on all State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 5/17 material particulars by the other injured persons/eye witnesses examined as PW-2 to PW-4. That nothing has been recorded in their cross examination to impeach their credibility and accordingly prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused persons may be convicted for all the offences they have been charged with.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused persons has advanced several fold contentions. Firstly, it is argued that there is material contradiction in the version of complainant/PW-1 regarding the place where his statement was recorded by the police. As deposed by him, his statement was taken in hospital, however as reflected from MLC as well as from the charge sheet, he was not present in the hospital when police had reached there. Secondly, Ld. Defence Counsel had drawn the attention of the court towards the cross examination of PW-3 and it is contended that there are several contradictions in the version of PW-3 and the version of the prosecution. It is stated that as per version of PW-3, his brother/complainant was on his way back to home at the time of incidence, however as deposed by PW-1 & PW-2, the complainant was present at his home only. Again as deposed by PW-3, the incidence had taken place at a distance of about 1 km from her house, however as per the site plan, the incidence had taken place in front of the house itself. Again as deposed by PW-3, the statements of witnesses were recorded by the police in the PS, however IO/PW-6 stated that the statement of witnesses were recorded at the spot only. Again PW-3 stated that no visit was made by the police after the date of incidence, which is again in contradiction to the version of PW-6/IO. Again attention is also drawn towards the site plan and it is submitted that though as per the version of IO/PW-6, same was prepared at the spot, however same does not bear the signatures of the complainant. It is further argued that as deposed by PW-3, her father/complainant's father was present at the house itself at the time of State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 6/17 incidence, however he was never examined by the police as well as by the prosecution before the present Court. Lastly, attention is drawn to the MLC of the injured persons and it is submitted that the injuries are simple in nature, which could be self inflicted.It is further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that as there material contradictions in the case of prosecution, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly accused persons are entitled to be acquitted by availing benefit of doubt.
FINDINGS:-
10.Before going into the merits of the prosecution case, I am of the view that the contentions raised by Ld. Defence Counsel are required to be appreciated. It is to observe that the entire contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel are mainly three fold.
Firstly, the contradictions in the version of the witnesses and secondly, the nature of the injuries on the persons of the injured/witnesses. Thirdly, non-examination of the father of the complainant. Regarding the first ground of contention, it is to be kept in mind that a distinction has to be made between the material contradictions and minor discrepancies. In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj & Anr. [1999 (9) Supreme Today 155], dealing with discrepancies, contradictions and omissions held:
"Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incidence there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot like statements are disfavoured by the State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 7/17 courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement.
i. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealth with the issue at length and observed as follows:-
"We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned Counsel for the appellant. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious :
a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events.
The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprised. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
c) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one persons mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 8/17d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder.
e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess-work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.
State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 9/1711.In view of this legal position, coming to the contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel, it is to observe that all the contradictions pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel including the place where the statement of the injured was recorded, the place of occurrence being in front of the house or at a distance of 1 km, visit by the police at the site of occurrence on the date of incidence or thereafter and lastly, the presence of the complainant being at his home or coming back to home are not so material as to contradict the entire credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the veracity of the case of prosecution. There are certainly some variations but at most they can be counted only as minor discrepancies. The fact in issue remains the same. Neither the fact of the presence of the injured at home or at some distance from his home makes any material difference in the version of the prosecution regarding the incidence in question nor the place where the statements of the injured were recorded can discredit the version of the prosecution to the effect that on 29.07.2011 the incidence in question had taken place wherein the complainant and his family members were beaten up by the accused persons. The evidence in this regard is appreciated at length in succeeding paragraphs. Accordingly, the first ground of contention raised by Ld. Defence Counsel is not sustainable in any manner.
12.Regarding the second contention pertaining to MLC, it is to observe that firstly the accused person themselves have admitted the genuineness of the MLC as Ex.AD3(Colly) and therefore, Ld. Defence Counsel cannot raise the question on the genuineness of the MLC in any manner at the stage of final arguments. Even otherwise, on perusal of MLC, it is very clear that the nature of injuries has been specifically mentioned in all three MLCs and there is no suggestion of the concerned Medical Officer in any manner that their injuries could be self sustained. Therefore, this contention of Ld. Defence Counsel is without any legs. Now coming to third contention, it is to observe that legal position is very well State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 10/17 settled that it is not the quantity but the quality of the evidence which is material to establish the case of prosecution. In this regard, it is to be observed that it is not the number of the witnesses but the quality of the evidence which counts. This preposition is clearly reflected in the provision of Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act. In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, Hon'ble Apex Court held that even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness, it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. The Court observed:
"It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs."
Again, in Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 397 Hon'ble Apex Court stated:
"If plurality of witnesses would have been the legislative intent cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available, in number of crimes offender would have gone unpunished. It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact."
13.In view of this legal position, it is to observe that non-examination of one witness i.e. father of the complainant cannot be fatal to the case of prosecution, if same is otherwise proved. No suggestion has been given on behalf of accused person in cross examination of either of the witnesses how non-examination of the father of State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 11/17 the complainant was material to establish the truth. If there was any suggestion on part of Ld. Defence Counsel that the father of the complainant could have deposed otherwise than the complainant, he could have got summoned the said witness during the defence evidence, however no such effort was made and accordingly, this contention again is of no help to the accused persons.
14.Now let me advert to the merits of prosecution case while appreciating the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution. It is to observe that criminal justice system in the present matter was set into motion on the basis of PCR call given by Daljit Kaur as stated by the complainant/PW-1 as well as PW-4 and same is duly corroborated from the testimony of PW-5 as well as PW-6 that one DD no.53 A was lodged on the basis of one PCR call regarding the incidence in question which had occurred at the spot i.e. H. No. 90, Block I-2 nd, Sangam Vihar. The place of occurrence is further corroborated from the testimony of PW-1 to PW-4 as well as from the site plan as Ex.PW6/B. Said DD entry no. 53 A was duly admitted by the accused persons u/s 294 CrPC and was exhibited as Ex.AD2. Going further in the chain of evidence, it is to observe that as per the version of the complainant after PCR call, one PCR van had reached there which had taken the injured persons including the complainant to AIIMS Trauma Centre. Said version of complainant as mentioned in his statement given to the police Ex.PW-1 is duly corroborated from the testimony of PW-5 & PW-6 that one DD entry no. 62 A was lodged in this regard and same is also corroborated from the MLC of the injured persons i.e. Ex.AD 3 (Colly), wherein all three injured including Jitender Kaur, Balvir Kaur and Hardeep Singh have been mentioned being brought to hospital by one police official namely ASI Tara Chand and the alleged history of assault at about 11.00 pm on 29.07.2011 has been also described. The time of arrival of all the three injured is mentioned as about 12:22 am on 30.07.2011, which again is the clear link in the chain of evidence. Going one step State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 12/17 further, it is to observe that as deposed by PW-1 during his cross examination, he alongwith his other family members had come to his house from the hospital and the statement was recorded by the police in the police station. Same is the version of the complainant given to police Ex.PW1/A and same is also corroborated from the version of FIR Ex.AD1, which has been duly admitted by the accused persons. This is further corroborated from the version of police official examined as PW-5 & PW-6. Now only on the ground that in his examination in chief, PW-1 had stated that his statement was recorded by the police in hospital, the veracity of PW-1 cannot be questioned. It is to be kept in mind that a witness who was the victim and was going through the mental trauma at the time of incidence cannot be expected to narrate all the instances in a chronological manner with a photographic memory. It is further pertinent to observe that the statement of PW- 1 was recorded after about 5 years from the date of incidence. Accordingly, regarding the chain of evidence from the time of occurrence till the matter was reported to the police, I am duly satisfied that there is no break in the link of evidence and therefore, there is no possibility of the prosecution story being an afterthought version of the complainant.
15.Now coming to the specific allegations regarding the incidence in question, it is to observe that PW-1/complainant has clearly stated that when he had tried to intervene in the quarrel of Mithun, Rajesh and Bhola, he was mauled by Bhola and Rajesh and thereafter was assaulted by them with danda and rod. Again that when his mother namely Balbir Kaur came out of the house, she was caught hold by Gautam and was given assault with danda by Ram Hari. Again that when his elder sister namely Daljit Kaur came outside, she was assaulated on her arm with danda by Sonu and again that his younger sister namely Jitender Kaur was assaulted by Bhola and Gautam. Now version of PW-1 is corroborated on all these material particulars by PW-2 namely Balbir Kaur, who stated that when she State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 13/17 and her daughters namely Daljit Kaur and Jitender Kuar had gone outside the house after hearing the noise and when they had tried to intervene and to rescue her son from the accused persons, they were attacked by the accused persons resulting into the injuries on head of Jitender Kaur as well as on her head and again that her son namely Hardeep Singh had also suffered injuries on his head. Again PW-3 namely Jitender Kaur had also deposed in clear terms that on 29.07.2011 at about 11.00 pm, she alongwith her mother namely Balbir Kaur and her sister namely Daljit Kaur came outside the house after hearing the noise, she saw that all the accused persons were fighting with her brother namely Hardeep Singh/PW-1 and when she and her sister tried to intervene, they were attacked by the accused persons resulting into injuries on the shoulder and forehead of her mother and on head of his brother and on her own head. Similarly, Daljit Kaur/PW-4 also deposed that when on 29.07.2011 when she came outside the house after hearing the noise, she witnessed that all the accused persons were beating her brother namely Hardeep Singh/PW-1 and when her mother namely Balbir Kaur and her sister namely Jitender Kaur tried to intervene, the accused persons gave beating to them by stick (danda) due to which her brother sustained injuries on his head and her mother sustained injuries on her forehead and back and her sister also sustained injuries on her back. All the accused persons were duly identified by the witnesses (PW1 to PW-4). It is also pertinent to mention herein that one accused Sonu was not present in the Court during the testimony of PW-3 & PW-4, however his identity was not disputed on behalf of the accused persons and his exemption application was allowed on the said date with this condition only. Accordingly, from the entire testimony of PW-1 to PW-4, it is clearly proved that complainant Hardeep Singh, his sister Jitender Kaur and his mother Balbir Kaur were beaten up by all the five accused persons. Same is further corroborated from the place of injuries as mentioned in the MLC Ex.AD3 State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 14/17 (Colly). As reflected from the MLC of Jitender Kaur, she had suffered laceration wound of size 3 x 2 x 2 cm over occipital area. Again Balbir Kaur suffered two injuries including laceration wound on her forehead of size 2 x 1 x 1 cm and multiple abrasions over lower back. Again as per the MLC, Hardeep Singh suffered laceration wound over occipital area of size 3 x 2 x 1 cm. The places of injuries as mentioned in the MLC are in congruity with the version as deposed by PW-1 to PW-4.
16. The version of these witnesses I.e. PW1 to PW4 is further corroborated by the recovery of the weapons as stated by the complainant in the FIR from possession of the accused persons through seizure memo ExPW2/I to Ex.PW2/K and said weapons were duly identified by the complainant when produced before the court during his testimony. It would not be out of place to mention herein that though seal on the pulanda of the weapon was broken at the time of production, however same was never questioned on behalf of the accused persons. Again, same is not of much consequence when weapons were duly identified by the witness.
17.Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the version of the prosecution as stated by the complainant and PW2 to PW-4 is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As discussed above, the minor discrepancies cannot take place of 'reasonable doubt'.
18.Now next question for determination is what offence has been committed by the accused persons. As mentioned above, the accused persons have been charged for offence of Section 323/341/34 IPC. Regarding offence u/s 323 IPC, it is to observe that said offence provides the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. The word 'hurt' has been defined u/s 319 IPC which includes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. As mentioned above, the injuries suffered by the victims in the present case include laceration wounds as well as multiple abrasions which are certainly bound to cause bodily pain and therefore, the requirements of Section 319 IPC are duly satisfied. Going further, it is to observe State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 15/17 that the term 'voluntarily causing hurt' has been defined u/s 321 IPC which defines the same as 'an act with an intention to causing hurt to any person or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person'. Now as discussed above, the act as well as the manner of doing the same by all the accused persons areres ipsa locquitor (things speak for themselves) to the effect that they had beaten up the complainant and his mother as well as his sisters with the intention of causing hurt to them with a danda as well as an iron rod. Consequently, the charge u/s 323 IPC is clearly established. Now coming to charge u/s 341 IPC which provides the punishment for wrongful restraint, it is to observe that the term 'wrongful restraint' has been defined u/s 339 IPC. The provision provides that whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has intended to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Now in the given facts as mentioned above, when all these accused persons were beating the complainant as well as his mother and sisters, they certainly prevented them from proceeding in a particular direction and accordingly, the charge u/s 341 IPC is also duly proved.
19.Lastly, regarding the charge u/s 34 IPC, it is to observe that said provision provides for joint liability of the several persons when a criminal act is done by them in furtherance of a common intention of all. The essence of Section 34 IPC is simultaneous consensus of the mind of the person participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. Such consensus can be developed even at the spot and thereby intended by all of them. In this regard, reliance can be also placed upon the authority of Hon'bnle Apex Court titled as Surender Chauhan v. State of MP (2000) 4 SCC 110. Now in the given facts, it is very obvious that all the accused persons were having consensus of the mind so as to beat the complainant and his family members. They might be having whatsoever motive State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 16/17 either common or separate but the intention of all the accused is clearly reflected to the effect that they were beating the complainant as well as his family members, who came to rescue the complainant from the accused persons.
20. In view of aforesaid discussion, all the accused persons are hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 323/341/34 IPC. Let they be heard on quantum of sentence.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Metropolitan Magistrate-04, South, Saket, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04,
South, Saket, New Delhi/23.07.2021
State Vs. Gautam etc. Case No.2034947/16 17/17