Delhi District Court
State vs . Satish Kumar And Anr. on 3 June, 2014
State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-01, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :--
SC No. : 18/13
FIR No. : 306/02
Police : Delhi Cantt.
Station
Under : u/s 363/328/354/34 Indian
Section Penal Code, 1860.
State
Versus
1. Satish Kumar
S/o Sh.Ho Ram
R/o S-170/307, Jhareda Village
Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi.
2. Ajay Kumar
S/o Sh.Ho Ram
R/o S-170/307, Jhareda Village
Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi. ... Accused persons
File received : 05.03.2013
by way of
assignment
Reserved for : 29.05.2014
judgment on
Judgment : 03.06.2014
announced on
FIR NO: 306/02 1/22
State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 12.08.2002, a complaint was made by Smt.Saroj stating therein that on 09.08.2002, she had left her house at 8.00 a.m. for her job in Gurgaon and when she returned in the evening at around 5.00 p.m., she did not find her daughters Sonu aged 12 years, Lali aged 05 years and one another girl named Sonam, who used to play with her daughters and despite making best efforts, aforementioned three girls could not traced.
2. On the basis of complaint made by complainant, FIR NO. 306/02 was registered at PS Delhi Cantt.u/s 363 IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation.
3. However, during investigation despite making best efforts, aforementioned three girls could not be traced. Thereafter, on 26.10.2002, Bombay Police, pursuant to the orders of Child Welfare Committee, Mumbai had produced Sonu, Lali and Sonam at PS Delhi Cantt.stating that Bombay Police had found them on 13.08.2002 in abandoned condition. Thereafter, IO had produced aforementioned three girls before the Ld.Magistrate where their statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.was recorded and thereafter, they were taken to Safdarjung Hospital for their medical examination.
FIR NO: 306/02 2/22State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02
4. In the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix Sonu had stated before the Ld.Magistrate that she alongwith her sister Lali had gone to pick wooden sticks from jungle near the Palam Airport and in the noon time, accused Satish and Ajay, who happened to be their neighbours, came there and stated them that some medicine had been sent by their mother so that they do not feel giddiness in the sunshine. Thereafter, both sisters had consumed the medicine and thereafter, had become unconscious. However, Ms.Sonu was semi conscious and she stated that out of two accused, one of them did wrong acts with her. Thereafter, both accused had made both sisters sit in a three wheeler and had taken them to railway station where they were handed over to two other persons. Thereafter those two persons took them to Bombay in train and in Bombay, they were kept in their house. Thereafter, doctor was summoned in the house of those two persons and thereafter, they regained their consciousness. Some neighbour, who was staying opposite to the house of two persons, had informed the police and thereafter, police had rescued them from that house. Police had beaten those two persons and had left them.
5. However, in the statement of prosecutrix Lali u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she has only stated that accused Satish and Ajay had given them something to eat due to which they became unconscious.
FIR NO: 306/02 3/22State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 However, she did not allege any wrong act being done by accused with her.
6. Prosecutrix Sonam in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that since she was angry with her father, therefore, she had left her house and had gone to her maternal aunt's house and from there, she had gone to Jhansi and from there, she had reached Bombay and Ms.Sonu and Ms.Lali were with her in train and when they got down from train, they were apprehended by police. She did not allege any wrong act being done with her.
7. In the light of statement of Ms.Sonu, offences u/s 328/366/376 IPC were added. However, since in the MLC of all the three girls, it had been reported by the doctor that their hymen was intact, therefore, police concluded that false allegations of rape were made. Accordingly, accused were only charge sheeted for the offence u/s 363/366/376/328/511/34 IPC for having made an attempt to commit rape and other offences.
8. Since offences of section 328 and 376/511 IPC were exclusively triable by the court of Session, the case was committed to the Ld.Session Court which after hearing the arguments vide order dated 25.08.2004, came to the conclusion that no offence u/s 366 and 376 IPC was made out from the perusal of charge sheet and, therefore, both accused FIR NO: 306/02 4/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 were discharged for the said offences.
9. Since remaining offences u/s 363 and 354 IPC were triable by the court of Ld.Magistrate, hence, the matter was remanded back to the Ld.Magistrate for trial.
10.The ld.trial court had accordingly framed charge against both accused for offence u/s 354/363/34 IPC to which both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the matter was thereafter posted for trial.
11.During the course of trial, after examination of PW Sonu, ld.trial court vide order dated 26.02.2013 came to the conclusion that in order dated 25.08.2004 of the Ld.Session Court, no finding was given whether accused were discharged for the offence u/s 328 IPC or not? The ld.trial court also observed that even PW Sonu has deposed before the ld.trial court that some medicine was given by accused due to which she became unconscious. Ld.trial court was of the opinion that since offence u/s 328 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions and order dated 25.08.2004 of ld.ASJ was silent regarding discharge of accused for the said section, hence the matter was placed before the ld.District Judge, Dwarka Courts to assign this case to the court having jurisdiction.
FIR NO: 306/02 5/22State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02
12.After assignment of the present case to this court, arguments on the point of charge were re-heard and both accused were charged for having committed offence u/s 328/363/354/34 IPC to which accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the matter was again posted for prosecution evidence.
13.At trial, prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses.
14.PW1 Ms.Sonu has deposed that on 09.08.2002, she alongwith her younger sister Lali were collecting wooden sticks near Palam Airport when both accused, who were known to them being neighbours came there and asked them to eat some tablets saying that the same were sent by their mother Saroj. Both accused further told PW1 Sonu that by eating tablets, they would not suffer from giddiness in the sunlight. Thereafter, both sisters had consumed tablets and since her sister Lali had consumed a little more tablet than PW1 Sonu, she became unconscious. However, PW1 Sonu remained semi-conscious. She further deposed that thereafter both accused had committed sexual intercourse upon her and after committing rape, both accused took them to railway station by auto rickshaw and have handed them over to someone at railway station. Those persons took both sisters to Bombay by train where at the railway station at Bombay, both said persons were FIR NO: 306/02 6/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 apprehended by Bombay police and both sisters were taken to Juvenile Home at Bombay and thereafter, Bombay Police had brought them back to Delhi.
15.PW1 also deposed that her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.was recorded vide Ex.PW1/A before the Ld.Magistrate and she was also medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW1/B and thereafter, she was released to her parents.
16.In her cross examination by defence counsel, she admitted that there were frequent quarrel between the family of accused persons and her parents. She further stated that her father and family of accused used to quarrel after taking liquor but expressed her ignorance whether any proceedings u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. were pending before the court of Ld.SDM in June, 2002 which were being attended by the family of accused and parents of PW1 Sonu.
17.PW1 Sonu denied that Sonam was with them or she was apprehended by Bombay Police alongwith her younger sister Lali. PW1 completely denied that Sonam had accompanied them to Bombay and that both sisters had gone alongwith Sonam to Jhansi from where they had gone to Bombay.
18.In her cross examination, PW1 initially deposed that they were FIR NO: 306/02 7/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 handed over to some person at Delhi Cantt. Railway Station but again stated that they were only left at the railway station. PW1 denied that she had escaped alongwith her younger sister from her residence alongwith one Sonam and later on, at the instance of her parents, accused persons have been falsely implicated.
19.PW2 Saroj is the mother of PW1 Sonu and is the complainant in this case. PW2 has deposed regarding making of complaint at PS Delhi Cantt. on 09.08.2002 regarding missing of her daughters Sonu and Lali. She further deposed that after return from Bombay, her daughters had told her that they were taken by accused persons to Bombay.
20.In cross examination by counsel for accused, PW2 denied that Sonam is the daughter of her brother. PW2 also denied that in her complaint Ex.PW2/A, she had reported regarding missing of Sonam also. PW2 also denied that Sonam was also brought from Bombay to Delhi by Bombay Police. PW2 admitted that they are facing trial in Patiala House Courts but denied that she and her husband had instigated their daughters to falsely implicate accused persons in the present case even when no such incident has taken place.
21.PW3 Ms.Lali is the sister of PW1 Sonu and daughter of PW2 FIR NO: 306/02 8/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 Smt.Saroj. She had deposed on oath that she alongwith her sister Sonu had gone to collect wooden sticks in 2002 near Palam Airport in the afternoon when both accused reached there and asked them to eat some toffees and after consuming toffees, she had become unconscious and when she regained her consciousness, she found herself in train alongwith her sister. She further deposed that no other person was accompanying them and when they reached Bombay, they were apprehended by the police. After staying in an orphan home for 2-3 months, they returned to Delhi accompanied by Bombay Police where she was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW3/A.
22.In her cross examination, PW3 denied that Sonam was with them and she further stated that she did not know any Sonam.
23.PW3 Lali expressed her ignorance whether she had gone to Bombay from Jhansi or whether she had gone to Jhansi first with Sonam alongwith her sister. She denied that accused have been falsely implicated by them.
24.PW4 W/SI Domnica was posted as Duty Officer on 19.08.2002 at PS Delhi Cantt. and on receipt of rukka from ASI Uday Singh, she got registered the FIR. PW4 proved the FIR Ex.PW4/A. FIR NO: 306/02 9/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02
25.PW5 W/Constable Renu has proved on record that on 26.10.2002, she was posted at PS Delhi Cantt and on that day, she alongwith ASI Mahender took three girls Sonam, Sonu and Lali to Safdarjung Hospital for their medical examination and after medical examination, they were produced before the Ld.Magistrate at Patiala House Courts.
26.PW6 Dr.Yatish Agarwal, Consultant and Professor, Deptt.of Radio Diagnosis, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi has proved on record the MLC prepared by Dr. Alok Varshney on 11.11.2002 Ex.PW6/A of Sonam.
27.PW7 SI Rajender Singh was the second IO of this case and he has deposed on oath that on 22.01.2003, the investigation of this case was entrusted to him by the orders of SHO. He has proved the arrest of accused vide Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. He has also proved on record the documents prepared by ASI Mahender Singh who was the first IO of this case as he had expired.
28.It was also deposed on oath by PW7 that ASI Mahender Singh had got recorded statement of three prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C.and all the three girls were also got medically examined by ASI Mahender Singh.
FIR NO: 306/02 10/22State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02
29.In his cross examination by defence counsel, PW7 denied that he had not investigated the case properly and accused have been wrongly charge sheeted.
30.The other witness PW Sh.Amar Singh was dropped by ld.Addl.PP as being witness of repetitive facts vide statement dated 11.12.2013.
31.Further, witnesses Shekhar, Sonam, Ct.Seema and Dr.B.Day could not be traced despite grant of several opportunities to the police and accordingly, they were dropped from the list of witnesses alongwith ASI Mahender Singh, who had expired vide order dated 10.03.2014.
32.No other witness was examined by the prosecution. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed.
33.After closure of prosecution evidence, entire incriminating evidence was put to accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C.and both accused denied their involvement in the present case and stated that present case has been falsely registered against them due to enmity at the instance of parents of prosecutrix and that they are innocent.
FIR NO: 306/02 11/22State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02
34.Both accused denied to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
35.I have heard ld.Addl.PP for state and Sh.Ranjit Singh, ld.counsel for both accused and have perused the evidence which has come on record.
36.In the present case, onus is upon the prosecution to prove that on 09.08.2002, near village Jhareda within the jurisdiction of PS Delhi Cantt., both accused pursuant to their common intention had administered some intoxicating substance in the form of tablets to prosecutrix Sonam, Sonu and Lali and thereafter, had kidnapped the aforementioned prosecutrix and had also outraged their modesty to prove offence u/s 328/363/354/34 IPC.
37.The material witnesses of prosecution to prove its case are prosecutrix Sonam, Sonu and Lali. Prosecutrix Sonam could not be examined in this case as she was not traceable. Therefore, we only have the evidence of prosecutrix Sonu and Lali.
38.PW1 Sonu has deposed on oath that she was known to both accused being neighbours and they had given them some tablets after eating which, she had become semi-conscious and FIR NO: 306/02 12/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 her sister prosecutrix Lali had become unconscious. Thereafter, both accused had handed over them to some persons, who had taken them to Mumbai by train where the police had apprehended them alongwith those persons.
39.The testimony of PW1 Sonu that accused had handed over them to some persons, who had taken them to Mumbai and they were also apprehended by Bombay Police alongwith them, is not believable as PW3 Ms.Lali, who had accompanied PW1 Sonu in the train, has categorically deposed on oath that no person was accompanying them. Even otherwise, if any persons were apprehended by Bombay Police alongwith prosecutrix Sonu and Lali, the same has not been proved on record by prosecution. Further, it is not believable that if some persons were apprehended by police alongwith prosecutrix Sonu and Lali in Bombay, then they would not have been made accused in the present case.
40.Further, the evidence of PW1 Sonu that she was handed over to some persons by accused at Railway Station is demolished by herself when in the cross examination, she has deposed that accused persons had left them at Railway Station from where train leaves for Bombay. Therefore, from the evidence of PW3 Lali and cross examination of PW1 Sonu, it has come on record that PW1 Sonu has deposed falsely regarding accused FIR NO: 306/02 13/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 persons handing over them to some persons, who had taken them to Bombay by train. Due to this false deposition, the credit of PW1 Sonu stands impeached and she is a witness, who cannot be relied upon.
41.Another factor which makes the evidence of PW1 Sonu, PW2 Smt.Saroj and PW3 Lali unreliable and untrustworthy is the fact that all the three witnesses have denied that Sonam had accompanied them (PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali) to Bombay or that name of Sonam was even mentioned in the complaint.
42.The evidence of all three witnesses is false with regard to Sonam not accompanying them to Bombay or her name being not mentioned in the police complaint as deposed to by PW2 Smt.Saroj.
43.Police complaint is Ex.PW2/A which was made by PW2 Smt.Saroj. In the said complaint, name of Sonam being missing alongwith prosecutrix Sonu and Lali is specifically mentioned. Therefore, PW2 Smt.Saroj has deposed falsely that she did not make any complaint regarding Sonam being missing alongwith her daughters.
44.Further, PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali have falsely denied that Sonam had not accompanied them to Bombay. It has FIR NO: 306/02 14/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 specifically come in the evidence of PW5 W/Ct Renu that on 26.10.2002, she had taken three girls Sonam, Sonu and Lali to Safdarjung Hospital for their medical examination.
45.The evidence of PW5 W/Ct.Renu is corroborated by the MLC Ex.PW3/A of Lali, MLC Ex.PW1/B of Sonu and MLC dated 26.10.2002 of Sonam, which is part of record. Although MLC of Sonam dated 26.10.2002 was not proved as the concerned doctor could not be examined in this case but the evidence of PW6 Dr.Yatish Agarwal has proved the ossification report of Sonam dated 11.11.2002 Ex.PW6/A which further proves that Sonam had indeed accompanied PW 1 Sonu and PW3 Lali.
46.The fact that Sonam had accompanied prosecutrix Sonu and Lali is further proved by PW7 SI Rajender Singh. It is deposed by PW1 that first IO ASI Mahender Singh, who had expired, had got the statement of all three prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and had also got three prosecutrix medically examined which further proves that prosecutrix Sonam had in fact accompanied prosecutrix PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali.
47.Further, all the documents of Child Welfare Committee, Mumbai which are part of record can be looked into as although the same were not exhibited by the prosecution but in the light of the fact that these documents were relied upon by prosecution FIR NO: 306/02 15/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 in the charge sheet, therefore, the said documents can always be read in evidence as they are admitted documents of prosecution. These documents of Child Welfare Committee, Bombay also reflect that Sonu, Lali and Sonam were sent from Bombay to Delhi by Child Welfare Committee, Mumbai which further corroborate the fact that Sonam had accompanied prosecutrix PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali alongwith them to Bombay.
48.It is not very difficult to comprehend as to why PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali were denying presence of Sonam with them when she had gone to Bombay alongwith them. The reason for the same is simple as prosecutrix Sonam was not supporting the allegation of PW1 Sonu made by her before the Ld.Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. In the statement recorded of Sonam u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she had only stated that she alongwith Sonu and Lali had gone initially to Jhansi and thereafter to Bombay where they were caught by Bombay Police. The said statement of Sonam u/s 164 Cr.P.C.although is not exhibited by the prosecution but in the light of the fact that it was a document relied upon by prosecution in the charge sheet and the statement of Sonam u/s 164 Cr.P.C.was indeed recorded has been proved in the evidence of PW7 SI Rajender Singh, therefore, the said document can always be read in evidence as it is an admitted document of prosecution. Even the MLC of FIR NO: 306/02 16/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 PW1 Sonu Ex.PW1/B and MLC of PW3 Lali Ex.PW3/A records the history by doctor as alleged running away from home alongwith their sister and friend Sonam which corroborates the statement of prosecutrix Sonam u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore, MLC Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW3/A further proves that prosecutrix PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali had gone to Bombay alongwith prosecutrix Sonam and the history given to doctor was that of running away from home and not of being kidnapped after administering intoxicating substance by accused persons.
49.If prosecutrix PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali were indeed kidnapped by accused persons and they were administered intoxicating substance then there was no reason for PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali to have told the doctor vide their MLC Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW3/A that they had run away from home alongwith their friend Sonam. This fact further proves that PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali have not deposed true facts in the present case and false deposition has been made against accused persons just to implicate them. The reason for false implication of accused persons has also come in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses. It has been admitted by PW1 Sonu that there was frequent quarrel between the family of accused persons and her parents after taking liquor and it was also admitted by PW2 Smt.Saroj, who happens to be mother of PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali that a criminal case was pending against them in Patiala FIR NO: 306/02 17/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 House Courts. Therefore, it is quite possible that due to family of prosecutrix facing a criminal trial filed by accused persons against them and due to frequent quarrels which used to take place between family of accused and parents of prosecutrix, accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case just to take revenge.
50.Another fact which proves that PW1 Sonu has deposed falsely just to implicate accused persons is her deposition that she was raped by accused persons in the year 2002 when she was 12 years old.
51.The falsity of deposition of PW1 Sonu is proved by her MLC Ex.PW1/B wherein it is recorded by doctor that her hymen was found to be intact. It is not believable that if prosecutrix PW1 Sonu was forcibly raped when she was 12 years old then her hymen would remain intact as observed by doctor in the MLC Ex.PW1/B. This deposition made by PW1 Sonu also makes her evidence unreliable and untrustworthy.
52.Yet another fact which makes the deposition of PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali unbelievable is the fact that they had travelled alone to Bombay by train. It is not believable that if accused persons had indeed kidnapped PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali after giving them intoxicating substance and had left them at Delhi FIR NO: 306/02 18/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 Railway Station then what made them to catch a train to Bombay, has not been explained by PW1 Sonu or by PW3 Lali.
53.In the facts, defence of accused that PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali had travelled to Bombay after running away from home alongwith Sonam, cannot be ignored in the light of proving of fact that Sonam had indeed travelled with PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali to Bombay and admission made by PW3 Lali that no other person had accompanied them to Bombay on train. This defence put forward by accused also makes the prosecution case highly doubtful, benefit of which has to go to accused persons.
54.Further, there is a material contradiction in the testimony of PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali regarding what was administered to them which made them unconscious. As per evidence of PW1 Sonu, accused had given them some tablets whereas PW3 Lali has deposed on oath that accused had given them some toffees. Although in the present case, evidence was recorded of prosecutrix after considerable time but it is not believable that a person will forget as to what was given to her which made them unconscious. This contradiction in the testimony of PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali as to what substance was offered to them, also makes their testimony highly unbelievable and unreliable.
FIR NO: 306/02 19/22State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02
55.The essential element of Section 328 IPC is that victim should have been administered poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug. The forensic examination of stomach wash is imperative to determine that substance administered was poison for ascertaining the commission of offence u/s 328 IPC.
56.In the present case, prosecutrix were examined in Bombay by Dr.B.Dey of observation home, Bombay and their medical report is on record which do not show any complaint of intoxication. Further, there is no forensic evidence in the form of stomach wash of prosecutrix to show that toffee/tablet administered to them were containing some kind of poison.
57.In the absence of forensic evidence, prosecution has not been able to prove that prosecutrix Sonu and Lali were administered poison by accused persons. I am fortified in my reasoning by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in Sanjeev Singh Vs. State, 2008 (VII) AD (Delhi) 151 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that in absence of evidence of doctor, who had examined prosecutrix and forensic evidence with regard to stomach wash, it would be extremely unsafe to convict accused persons u/s 328 IPC and accordingly, accused were acquitted for the offence u/s 328 IPC.
FIR NO: 306/02 20/22State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02
58.The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment of the Delhi High Court of Delhi and offence u/s 328 IPC has not been proved.
59.In the light of aforesaid discussion, it would be highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW1 Sonu, PW2 Saroj and PW3 Lali which is untrustworthy and unbelievable and is contradictory on material points.
60.Further, in the light of it being proved on record that family of accused and parents of prosecutrix were having frequent quarrels and even a criminal case was pending against the family of prosecutrix, possibility of accused being falsely implicated, cannot be ruled out in this case.
61.Even credit of PW1 Sonu stands thoroughly impeached in this case with regard to her deposition about rape in the light of her MLC Ex.PW1/B where hymen was reported to be intact and deposing falsely with regard to two persons accompanying them to Bombay, who were apprehended by Bombay Police and deposing falsely that Sonam had not accompanied them to Bombay.
62.Therefore,from the evidence which has come on record of material witnesses i.e.PW1 Sonu, PW2 Smt.Saroj and PW3 FIR NO: 306/02 21/22 State Vs. Satish Kumar and anr.
FIR NO: 306/02 Lali, whose evidence otherwise is untrustworthy and unreliable, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused persons, who had kidnapped prosecutrix PW1 Sonu and PW3 Lali after administering stupefying substance to them and had outraged their modesty. Accordingly, both accused persons are acquitted for the offence u/s 363/328/354/34 IPC. Personal bond/surety bond, if any of accused persons are discharged.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 03.06.2014 ASJ-01/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
FIR NO: 306/02 22/22