Delhi District Court
State vs . Dal Bahadur on 31 January, 2019
State vs. Dal Bahadur
IN THE COURT OF SH BHUPINDER SINGH : ACMM01(C)/
TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI
State vs. Dal Bahadur
FIR NO. : 306/2013
U/S : 279/338 IPC and 119/177 M. V Act
PS : Paharganj
JUDGEMENT
a) CR . No. of the case : 287470/16
b) Date of institution of the case : 13.2.2015
c) Date of commission of offence : 15.10.2013
d) Name of the complainant : Sh. Kewal Chand S/o Sh. Gulzari Lal
e) Name & address of the : Dal Bahadur S/o Sh. Sitla Bakas
accused R/o H. No. 276 Balbir Nagar Delhi
f) Offence charged with : 279/338 IPC and 119/177 MV ACT.
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 24.1.2019
i) Final order : Convicted.
j) Date of Judgment : 31.1.2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The brief story of the prosecution is that on 15.1.2013 at around 6:30Pm, in front of J.B Honda Show room Rani Jhansi Road, Paharganj within the jurisdiction of PS Paharganj, accused Dal Bahadur found driving car bearing no. HR37 B 4657 in a manner so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the said vehicle in the said manner struck against pedestrian Sh. Kewal Chand FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 1 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur and caused grevious injuries to him and after the aforesaid incident you fled away from the spot alongwith offending car and thereby alleged to have committed offence U/sec. 279/338 IPC and 119/177 MV Act .
2. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the court and copies were supplied to the accused. Thereafter, notice U/sec. 279/338 IPC and 119/177 MV Act was served to accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, (10) ten witnesses were examined by prosecution.
4. PW 1 Sh. Kewal Chand is injured/ complainant in the present case. He deposed that on 15.10.13 he alongwith his colleague Kulvinder Singfh were coming back from Jhandewala Mandir to their office situated at 38 Rani Jansi Road, New Delhi, they were on foot, at about 6:30 Pm, they were crossing Rani Jhansi Road , suddenly one white colour Tavera car number of Haryana came form the side of Eidgarh and the driver of vehicle jumped the red traffic signal and he was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and while driving so the driver of abovesaid car struck against him, that abovesaid offending car was got stopped by his friend Kulvinder Singh, that the driver stopped the car and remained at the spot for the some time and on seeing him in injured condition , after some time, the driver of the car fled away from the spot alongwith offending the car, that accused was the driver of the said car at the time of accident, Kulvinder Singh took him to St. Stephen hospital and he was got admitted there, that FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 2 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of accused as he jumped the red traffic signal and driving the car in fast speed, in rash and negligent manner, that his statement Ex. PW 1/ A was recorded by police officials, his left leg was fractured in the incident, that after one month he identified you in the police station Paharganj as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and his name was revealed as Dal Bahahdur. Witness correctly identified accused and photographs of offending vehicle Ex. P1 to P8.
During his cross examination, he deposed that he out rightly crossing the road by straight ward, that there was a zebra crossing at that spot, that he was crossing the road from zebra crossing at near redlight, that he did not cross any divider as he was passing through zebra crossing only, that there was divider on the road and he was crossing the road only after seeing the red light, that he was shifted to the hospital by his office staff including Kulvinder Singh, that Dheeraj Bhall was also with that persons, that police officials came to him within 3040 mins,that his statement was recorded only in the hospital but one SI came at his office 23 times to meet him, that the registration no. of the vehicle was told him by Kulvinder, that public persons gathered at the spot at it was crowdy place. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely with regard to the factum of rash and negligent driving of accused driver and wrongly identified him in the court or he identify the driver only at the PS which was kept by police official as apprehended by police official and kept him sitting at PS.
5. PW 2 Kulvinder is another eye witness to the incident. He deposed that on 15.10.2013 he alongwith his colleague Kewal Chand were coming FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 3 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur back from Jhandewala mandir to their office situated at 38 Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi and they were on foot and at about 6:30Pm, they were crossing Rani Jhansi Raod and suddenly one white colour Tavera car no. HR37 B 4557 came from the side of Filmistan and was going towards Paharganj, that the driver of the vehicle jumped the red traffic signal situated at T point of Rani Jhansi Road and Ram Kumar Marg and he was driving the vehicle in fast speed and in negligent manner, that accused struck against his colleague Kewal Chand and he stopped the above said offending car and he made efforts to call their office colleagues, that accused remained at the spot for some time and on seeing his freind in injured condition, accused fled away from the spot alongwith offending car at the time of accident, that the accused was the driver of the said car at the time of accident, that he alongwith his friend Dheeraj took the injured Kewal Chand to St Stephen Hospital, where he was got admitted, that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of accused as he jumped the red traffic signal and driving the car in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner, that about one month he identified accused in PS Paharganj as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He correctly identified accused and photographs of offending vehicle as Ex. P1 to P8.
During his cross examination, he deposed that he and Kewal Chand were working in same office at Rani Jhansi Road , Paharganj, that they were crossing the road from zebra crossing, that he had seen the vehicle jumping the red light, that his colleague Kewal Chand got down at zebra crossing after meeting with accident, that they had took Kewal Chand in Honda City car brought by one of his colleague from the office, driven by Dheeraj Bhandari,that he had not accompanied Kewal Chand to the FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 4 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur hospital, that Kewal chand remained in the hospital upto about one week, that Police had shown him the vehicle and driver of vehicle i.e accused in PS. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the offending vehicle at the time of accident or he had identified vehicle and driver as the driver and vehicle were shown to him at PS within a week after accident.
6. PW 3 Sh. Arvinder Singh deposed that on 7.11.2013 he mechanically inspected Tavera car no. HR37B4657 at PS Paharganj, his detailed report is Ex. PW 3/ A . He was not cross examined by ld defence counsel despite opportunity given.
7. PW 4 HC Kamta Parsad is the duty officer . He deposed that on 15.10.13 he registered the present FIR Ex. PW 4/ A and also made endorsement on rukka vide Ex PW 4/ B. He also issued certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex PW 4/ C. He was not cross examined by ld defence counsel despite opportunity given.
8. PW 5 Dr Abhishek deposed that on 13.12.2013 he prepared MLC no 635/2013 and X Ray Report mark X1 relating to patient Kewal chand. He opined the nature of injury of patient Kewal Chand as grevious on his MLC Ex.PW 5/A. He was not cross examined by ld defence counsel despite opportunity given.
9. PW 6 Dr. JPN Gupta deposed that on 15.10.2013 at about 7:35 Pm, injured Kewal Chand was brought in the casualty by Mohit. He had examined injured Kewal Chand and prepared his MLC Ex. PW 6/A . During FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 5 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur his examination, he had found fracture of left patella. This witness was cross examined by ld defence counsel. During cross examination he deposed that it took about one minute in examining the injured, that injury mentioned in the MLC of injured may occur due to some other factor also. He denied the suggestion that injured was examined by him on the said date or that MLC of the injured was prepared without examining the injured.
10. PW 7 Ct. Sumit deposed that on 15.10.13, he alongwith IO SI Vishnu Dutt went to the spot after receiving DD entry no. 73B and at the spot, they came to know that injured was already taken to hospital, that one another DD entry No. 79B was received by IO regarding MLC from St Stephen Hospital, he alongwith IO went to hospital where IO received MLC no. 635/13 of injured Kewal Chand, IO recored statement of Kewal Chand and prepared the tehrir and handed over same to him for registration of FIR, he wen tto PS and got the FIR registered and returned to the hospital and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO, that one eye witness namely Kulvinder Sngh of the incident met to the IO in the hospital who accompanied them to the spot, where IO prepared the site plan at his instance. He was not cross examined by ld defence counsel despite opportunity given.
11. PW 8 Sh. Mohit Sharma deposed that injured is known to him as they both reside in the same locality, that they both were working in the area of Jhandewala and they both used to go office togther. He further deposed that on the day of incident i.e 15.10.213 at about 6:30Pm, Kewal Chanc telephonically informed that he had met with an accident and was FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 6 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur lying on Rani Jhansi Road in front of Honda Showroom, he immediately rushed to the spot and took Kewal Chand to St Stephen Hospital. IO recorded his statement.
During his cross examination, he deposed that he had brought Kewal Chand to the hospital with the help of Kulvinder and his friend Jugal Kishore, that vehicle driven by the driver, that police had come to hospital in his presence , that police had not recorded his statement at the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had not accompanied to the injured in the hospital nor any phone was received to him or he was deposing falsely.
12. PW 9 Dr Nitin Parkash deposed that he proved hand writing and signature of Dr. Rajender Bansal, who prepared X Ray Report of injured Kewal Chand . He proved report Ex. PW 9/ A . He was not cross examine by ld defence counsel despite opportunity given.
13. PW 10 ASI Vishnu Dutt deposed that on 15.10.2013 he was posted at PS Paharganj as SI and on that day on obtaining DD no. 73 B Ex. PW 10/ A , he alongwith Ct. Sumit reached at the spot where they came to know that the injured was already taken to hospital, that thereafter they obtained the DD no. 79 B Ex. PW 10/B from the hospital, that they reached at the hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Kewal Chand in which he was fit for statement, that he recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/ A and prepared the rukka Ex. PW 4/ B and handed over the same to Ct. Sumit for registration of FIR. FIR was got registered, that MLC of Kewal Chand is Ex. PW 5/ A, that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW 10/C at the instance of eye witness Kulwinder Singh, that he recorded the statement of eye witness FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 7 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur Kulvinder Singh and notice of section 91 CrPC was served to transport authority, Ambala( Haryana), that he also served the notice of section 133 MV Act Ex. PW 10/ D, that accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW 10/ E and PW 10/ F. He further deposed that as vehicle was produced by accused in police station, he seized the car bearing registration no. HR37B4657 Ex. PW 10/ G , mechanical inspection report Ex. PW 3/ A, that he also seized documents of offending vehicle vide memo Ex. PW 10/ H, that vehicle was released on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW 10/ I . He recorded statement of witnesses. He correctly identified accused and photographs of the offending vehicle Ex. P1 to P8 .
This witness was cross examined by ld defence counsel and during his cross examination, he deposed that no accident was found at the spot when they reached over there and he received DD no. 73B at about 6:55pm on 15.10.2013. He further deposed that they reached at the spot within 10mins and injured was not present at the spot when they reached over there. He further deposed that he was not aware the exact point of the accident at the spot as the spot was moving road and no vehicle was found in accidental condition over there, that complainant had not given complete description of body structure of accused when he met him. However he stated that he could identify the accused and he does not remember the exact time when he received DD no. 79 B. He recorded statement of injured on the same day and at about 8:30pm. He further deposed that Kulwinder was not met him at the spot , he met me in the hospital and statement of kulwinder was recorded on the same day and supplementary statement of injured kulwinder was recorded at the time of superdari. He further deposed that there was FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 8 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur dent on offending vehicle as per the mechanical inspection report and he prepared the site plan at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that no accident took place with the offending vehicle and accused is falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that offending vehicle was not on the road on the day of accident and complainant jumped the red light and colluded with another vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of complainant. He further denied the suggestion that eye witness Kulwinder shouted on injured while they were on the road that is why accident took place due to their negligence. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
14. PE was closed by order of this court on 10.9.2018. Statement of accused was recorded U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he is innocent and he has not committed any offence and he have been falsely implicated in this case by police officials. At the time of alleged accident, his vehicle was not at the spot and was not in working condition and he was arranging money for its service and maintenance when he was called by the police in the police station. When he was forced to bring the vehicle at the PS , he got the same serviced and in workable condition and brought the same to the PS, where it was seized.
15. Accused chose to lead Defence evidence in his favour.
16. DW 1 Sh.Jitender Singh deposed that accused had come to him and demanded Rs. 15,000/ as loan for getting his vehicle repaired, that he had given Rs. 12,000/ to him, that after 0405, he got a call from the FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 9 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur accused that he is at PS Paharganj and requested him to come there, that he went there and became surety of the accused,that there was some issue regarding involvement of the vehicle in an accident. During cross examination by ld APP for State, he deposed that accused had gone to get his vehicle repaired, that he did not know the exact make of the car but its colour was white, that he had no knowledge whether accused caused the accident on 15.10.2013 at around 06.30 pm with the vehicle bearing no. HR37B4657, that accused is known to him prior to the accident as he was his friend. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing in favour of the accused as an interested witness.
17. I have carefully perused the record and heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused.
18. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. 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.
19. The accused in the present case has been charged with offence under Section 279/338 IPC. To prove the case against the accused the prosecution was required to prove the following facts:
A. The identity of the accused being the driver of the FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 10 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur offending vehicle;
B. That the accused caused the accident by his rash or negligent driving at a public place; C. That the rash or negligent driving of the accused resulted in grievous injuries to the injured.
THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED
20. In the case at hand, accused has denied being present at the spot and has taken a plea that he was falsely implicated by police officials. It has been argued by ld counsel for the accused that this is a case of mistaken identity. It is submitted that DD no. 73 B dt. 15.10.13 which is Ex PW 10/A was regarding vehicle no. HR35D4657 whereas in the present case vehicle no. HR37B4657 has been involved. It is argued that at the relevant time the vehicle bearing no. HR37B4657 of which accused is the owner was not in a working condition and he was forced to bring the same to the PS where it was seized. It is submitted that at the relevant time the accused was in the process of arranging money for getting the said vehicle repaired.
The accused was identified by PW 1 / Kewal Chand & PW 2 Kulvinder during their testimony before the court. As per their testimonies, the driver of the offending car stopped the car and remained at the spot for sometime and later on fled away. Both the witnesses deposed that the offending car was stopped by PW 2 /Kulvinder. Further in reply to notice u/s 133 MV Act , accused who himself is the registered owner of vehicle bearing no HR37B4657 stated that on the relevant day he only was driving the same. The notice and its reply has been proved to be Ex PW 10/D . In the crossexamination of PW 10 /IO SI Vishnu Dutt, no questions have been put FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 11 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur regarding the said reply of the accused / registered owner . Nowhere it has been suggested that signatures of the accused were taken there upon while there was nothing written over it. Moreover since the day the documents were supplied to the accused which included the copy of notice / reply u/s133 MV Act , no complaint has been made to any authority about the same being manipulated / forged. Nothing has come on record that at the relevant time the impugned vehicle no HR37B4657 was not in working condition . DW 1 / SH. Jitender Singh did not depose anything about the vehicle being in non working condition on the relevant day. He had just deposed about lending money to the accused for repair of his vehicle. He has also not deposed about the vehicle no. of the accused for which the loan was given. It has not come on record that accused is having only one vehicle for which the money for its repair was required. Rather in his cross examination, DW 1 deposed that he has no knowledge if the accused caused the accident on 15.10.13 with said vehicle. As such, his testimony is of no help to the accused.
21. As per mechanical inspection report Ex PW 3/A which was prepared on 7.11.2013 the vehicle was found having fresh damages and fit for road test. The said report has not been challenged as no cross examination of PW 3 Sh. Arvinder Singh was conducted. No reasons have been given by the accused for the fresh damages that had occurred over the said vehicle. Further no evidence has been led by the accused to suggest that repairs were indeed carried out and the vehicle was made fit for road test. As such the accused has failed to show that neither he was at the spot nor his vehicle HR37B4657 was in non working condition at the relevant time. PWs had no reasons to falsely implicate an innocent FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 12 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur person. Discrepancies in the mentioning of offending vehicle in DD no. 73 B may be due to inadvertence either while writing or while listening and as such does not go to the root of the case to falsify it completely.
22. As such in view of the evidence on record, it stands proved that the accused was the man behind the wheels of the offending vehicle i.e. Tavera bearing no. HR37B4657 .
RASHNESS OR NEGLIGENCE
23. Having resolved the issue of identity now, we move on to the issue of culpable rashness and negligence.
24. In Idu Beg, (1881) 3 All 776 which has become locus classics, it was held that "Criminal rashness" is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either into the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted".
25. In view of the above settled law now the question arises for consideration is that as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 13 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur the rashness or negligence on the part of accused in causing accident.
26. In the case at hand, the prosecution has examined PW 1 and PW 2 to throw light on the rashness / negligence on the part of accused Dal Bahadur Singh . Ld counsel for the accused has argued that in view of the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the PWs it is evident that they had not witnessed accident . It has been argued that as has come in cross examination of PW 8 Mohit Sharma , he brought Kewal Chand to hospital with the help of Kulvinder and his friend Jugal Kishore. However the factum of presence of Jugal Kishore has not been mentioned in the testimony of PW 1 / injured or that of PW 2 Sh. Kulvinder Singh . Further that PW 2 Kulvinder Singh had admitted in his cross examination that he had not accompanied injured Kewal Chand in the hospital and that he had gone later on. Further it has been argued that it has been deposed by PW 1 Sh. Kewal Chand that he did not see the vehicle when it jumped the red light.
27. Before adverting the contentions of ld defence counsel, it must be observed that the testimonies of the PWs was recorded about 26 years after the date of the incident and as such it cannot be expected that all minute details would be remember by each one of them after a gap of such a long period. Factum of the accident has been admitted by all of them . PW 1 / injured Kewal Chand had received grevious injuries and it isnot expected from him to remember the names of all the person who had accompanied him to the hospital. The fact that he was going to the office alongwith injured Kewal Chand has been admitted by PW 2 Kulvinder . Whether he accompanied him to the hospital or only his staff assisted the FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 14 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur injured to the hospital is immaterial, in view of the fact that their office was just nearby and the staff there was telephonically informed , as has been deposed by PW 8 Sh. Mohit Sharma. Thus the contentions of ld defence counsel to this effect that presence of PWs at the spot is doubtful, is misconceived.
No suggestion has been given to PW 2 Sh. Kewal Chand that the accused did not jump any red light. Even otherwise there is no reason as to why the injured would falsely implicate an innocent person. Thus there leaves no scope of doubt that PW 1 and PW 2 were present at the spot and had witnessed the accident.
28. It has been deposed by PW 1 as well as PW 2 that the offending vehicle was being driven in a fast and negligent manner after jumping the traffic signal. The area where the accident had occurred has heavily foot full of pedestrians, Jhandewala temple being nearby . As such the accused should have driven the vehicle more carefully as pedestrians crossing the road from that point was not uncommon. Both the witnesses have deposed that there was a zebra crossing at the spot from where they were crossing the road. Just because the same has not been shown in the site plan Ex PW 10/C the same cannot be used to doubt the veracity of the witnesses. No suggestion has been given to either of the witnesses i.e PW 1 and PW 2 that the accused did not jump the red light. Not following the traffic signals and hitting a pedestrian itself shows the rashness and negligent on the part of the accused. The place of incident is just few meters away from the red light / traffic signal. Had the accused been careful about the traffic signal, there was no occasion for the offending vehicle to get accelerated to such a FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 15 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur speed so as not to stop before hitting the injured. The only possibility is that the vehicle must have been in such a speed that it hit the pedestrian /injured is only when it had jumped the red light.
29. The faster the speed of a vehicle, the greater the risk of an accident. The forces experienced by the human body in a collision increase exponentially as the speed increases. Traffic engineers and local governments have determined the maximum speeds allowable for safe travel on the nation's roadways. Speeding is a deliberate and calculated behavior where the driver knows the risk but ignores the danger. Had the driver been cautious, he could have avoided the accident.
30. In view of the above discussion, it is quite evident and crystal clear that offending vehicle i.e Tavera bearing no. HR37B4657while being driven in a rash and negligent manner had hit a pedestrian Kewal Chand.
31. Accordingly rash and negligent act of the accused stands proved.
Grevious injuries to PW 1 Sh. Kewal Chand.
32. The next requirement to prove the case against the accused is whether injured Kewal Chand received grevious injuries due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. Having proved the identity of the accused and the accident taking place due to his rash or negligent driving the prosecution was required to prove that the act of the accused was Causa Causan and not the Sine Qua Non. To hold the accused guilty it must be FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 16 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur proved on the record that the act of the accused must be the proximate cause grevious injuries to PW 1 Kewal Chand and not the remote cause.
33. PW 5 Dr. Abhishek Kaushik proved MLC no. 635/13 of injured Sh. Kewal Chand as Ex PW 5/ A . PW 6 DrJ.P.N Gupta proved his MLC on handwriting Ex PW 6/A as greivious as he found fracture of left patella . PW 9 Dr Nitin Parkhe proved the report given by Dr Rajender Bansal as Ex PW 9/A . testimonies of PW 5 Dr Abhishek Kaushik and PW 9 Dr Nitin Parkhe have gone unrebutted . The time of arrival of the injured Kewal Chand as per the said MLC is in vicinity of the time at which the accident had occurred. PW 6 Dr JPN Gupta in his cross examination has admitted that injury mentioned in the MLC may occur due to some other factor also. But it has not been proved that the said injury occurred from which other factor as no suggestion was given to PW 6 Dr JPN Gupta that the said injury did not occur due to the accident. Even otherwise the chain of events i.e the PCR call regarding the accident , time of arrival of the injured at the hospital and his examination negates the fact that he received injuries due to some other factor.
34. Therefore, in my considered opinion the prosecution has sufficiently proved on the record that the proximate cause of the injuries received by Kewal Chand was in the accident caused by the accused by his rash and negligent driving.
35. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the corroborative testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined and the documents on record, the FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 17 of 18 State vs. Dal Bahadur prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. Accordingly the accused is held guilty for offences u/s 279/338 IPC and u/s 119/177 MV Act and is convicted accordingly.
36. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost and the matter be now listed for arguments on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by BHUPINDER BHUPINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2019.02.02
16:32:17 +0530
Announced and dictated in (BHUPINDER SINGH )
the open Court on 31.1.2019 ACMM(01)/CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI / NEW DELHI
FIR NO. 306/13 PS Paharganj 18 of 18