Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Singh on 1 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Raj Singh
FIR No : 53/2016
U/s : 279/427 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020711692022
2. Date of commission of offence : 18.03.2016
3. Date of institution of the case : 30.11.2022
4. Name of the complainant : Narender
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Raj Singh
address S/o Ajit Singh,
R/o VPO Badli,
District Jhajjar,
Haryana.
6. Offence complained of : 279/427 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 01.02.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Amit Yadav, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Ld. counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 1 of 16 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.01
16:32:12 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.03.2016 at 09:55 pm at Surhera Mor, Dhansa Najafgarh Road, Delhi, accused was found driving cluster bus bearing registration no.DL-1PC6441 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and by such act, accused committed mischief by causing wrongful loss and damage to the vehicle bearing registration no.DL1RTA0635 belonging to complainant Narender Singh by hitting the said vehicle with his bus and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 279/427 IPC, for which FIR no.53/2016 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under Sections 279/427 IPC was framed against the accused on 11.01.2023. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWATABHINAV FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 2 of 16 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.01 16:32:18 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Yogesh PW-2 ASI Satish DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW2/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW2/B Tehrir Ex.PW2/C Site plan Ex.PW2/D Seizure memo of cluster bus Ex.PW2/E Seizure memo of car Ex.PW2/F Arrest memo Ex.PW2/G Seizure memo qua driving licence of accused Ex.PW2/H Seizure memo qua RC, fitness, insurance and permit of offending bus Ex.PW2/I Mechanical inspection report of car Ex.PW2/J Mechanical inspection report of bus ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.53/2016 alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A2 DD no.45B dated 19.03.2016 Ex.A3 Mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles Ex.A4 Superdar of the Swift car bearing no.DL-
1RTA-0635 and offending cluster bus bearing no.DL-1PC-6441 Ex.A5 Entery in Register no.19
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows:
PW1 Yogesh deposed that in March 2016, as he did not remember the exact date, he was going along with his father in law Narender in Swift Dzire bearing registration no.DL-1RTA- 0635 from Najafgarh to his house. He further stated that at about Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 3 of 16 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.01 16:32:24 +0530 10:00pm, when they reached at Surehra Mor, one Cluster bus, orange colour came from wrong side in the opposite directions and hit their vehicle and thereafter, hit against one tree. PW1 further stated that he could not see the registration number of offending bus and when the driver of the offending bus got down from the offending bus, he saw him. PW1 further stated that he knew the driver of the bus as Raj Singh as he was from the same village. PW1 further stated that he thereafter, called at 100 number and PCR van came and took him, his father in law and accused to police station. The witness correctly identified the Swift Dzire car through photographs Ex.P1 (colly) and offending bus Ex.P2 (colly). In the cross-examination, he stated that he could not tell the exact speed of the offending bus at the time of accident but the speed of bus was above 40 kmph. He further stated that the place where the accident took place was running road and some vehicles were also passing at the time of accident. He further stated that PCR van reached at the spot at about 10:15 pm and IO did not record any statement of public person/ eye- witness in his presence and no CCTV camera was installed at the spot.
5. PW2 ASI Satish deposed that on 19.03.2016, he was on emergency duty alongwith Ct. Kuldeep and on that day, he received DD no.45B regarding the accident and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Kuldeep reached at the spot where they found one cluster bus bearing no.DL-1PC-6441 and one Swift car bearing no.DL-1RTA-0635 (Taxi) in accidental condition. He further stated that he met with complainant Mr. Narender at the spot and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. On the basis of which he prepared tehrir Ex.PW2/B and got the FIR registered through Ct.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWATABHINAV FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 4 of 16 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.01 16:32:50 +0530 Kuldeep. He further stated that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/C and also seized both the said vehicles vide seizure memos Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E. Thereafter, he and Ct. Kuldeep alongwith case property left the spot and reached at PS and after reaching the PS, he deposited the case property at malkhana. He further stated that he arrested the accused at PS vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/F and seized the DL of accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/G and documents of cluster bus (RC, fitness, permit and insurance) vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/H. He further stated that he further instructed Mechanical Expert Puran Chand for conducting mechanical inspection of both the vehicles i.e. Swift car and cluster bus and he obtained the inspection report of both the vehicles Ex.PW2/I and Ex.PW2/J. During investigation, he recorded statement of witnesses u/S 161 Cr. P. C. and after completion of investigation, he submitted the charge- sheet before the concerned court. The witness correctly identified accused is present in the court and both the vehicles through photographs. In the cross-examination, he stated that no CCTV camera was installed near the spot. No eye-witness was found at the spot except Narender. He stated that they left the spot at about 01:30 am and reached at the PS at 01:45 pm and they reached at the spot on government motorcycle but he did not remember the registration of abovesaid motorcycle. He stated that he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Narender but he did not remember whether he obtained signatures of complainant on site plan. He stated that he clicked the photographs of both the vehicle at PS while releasing the vehicles on superdari but he did not click the photographs of the spot.Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT
ABHINAV FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 5 of 16 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.01 16:32:54 +0530
6. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
7. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 26.03.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that on that day, the steering wheel of his bus got failed due to which he could not control the bus and due to the small speed breakers the direction of the bus changed and it hit the car and eventually the tree. He further stated that even the brakes of the bus were not functioning due to which the incident happened. He further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
9. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 6 of 16 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.01 16:32:59 +0530 testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
10. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it . As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
11. The allegations against the accused are segregated into two parts.
The first set of allegation revolves around the accused for commission of offence under Section 279 IPC and the second set of allegation against accused is for commission of offence under Section 427 IPC.
12. Let us deal with the first set of allegation against the accused person. Section 279 IPC proscribes the driving of vehicle on a public way in such a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
13. The position of law with respect to offence u/s 279 IPC is discussed in the case of case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, wherein it was held that;
"In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 7 of 16 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.01 16:33:04 +0530 endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved".
14. Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of An- dra Pradesh decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with reckless- ness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against in- jury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
15. Besides, the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.
16. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE RE: IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED;
17. Material witness to prove the identity of accused is only PW1 as other witnesses are not witness of the incident. PW1 apart from Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 8 of 16 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.01 16:33:09 +0530 narrating as to how the incident happened identified accused as the driver of the offending vehicle who came out of his offending bus and PW1 recognized him as accused was of the same village.
18. Furthermore, there is no denial from the defence during the entirety of the case that the accused was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of incident and even at the time of recording statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C., accused stated that on the date of incident he was driving the offending vehicle but accident in question happened due to mechanical failure of his bus.
19. Thus, it stands proved that accused was the driving the offending vehicle and was present at the spot when the incident happened.
RE: ALLEGED ACCIDENT BEING THE RESULT OF RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ACCUSED.
20. Where the fact that accused was driving the offending vehicle is established, it has to be seen whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which caused the incident and damages to the vehicle of complainant PW1. To establish the aforesaid fact, the witnesses which are relevant in this regard is only PW1 alongwith other material as brought on record by the prosecution.
21. The main contention of Ld. Counsel for accused is that accused had no criminal intention nor he failed to take any proper care and caution but it was for reasons beyond the control of accused that the incident happened. Further, Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that due to mechanical failure of the offending bus, accused was unable to control his vehicle due to which it collided with the vehicle of complainant.
Digitally signed by ABHINAVABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 9 of 16 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.01 16:33:13 +0530
22. Careful perusal of testimony of complainant PW1 reveals that on the date of incident his vehicle was hit by offending vehicle as it came from opposite wrong side and after hitting his vehicle, the offending vehicle came to stop after colliding with a tree. PW1 has not stated any negligence on the part of accused but he has clearly stated that the offending vehicle came from the wrong side and collided with his vehicle. Accordingly, it is relevant to examine the state of affairs at the time of accident by way examining the site plan with the photographs as filed to ascertain the state of affairs. As per site plan Ex.PW2/C point A is mentioned as the place where the offending bus was found on the wrong side of the road. Before proceedings to deal with the aspect of site plan it is relevant to highlight the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State NCT Delhi 133 (2006) DLT 562 had laid down guidelines with regard to the investigation to be conducted in the offence of accident:
13.1. In most cases I find that the site plans are not produced. Even the site plan that is produced is of a very unsatisfactory nature. It is, therefore, imperative that the investigating officer should be provided with maps of the roads drawn to scale so that accurate site plans can be produced in evidence for the appreciation of Courts.
The exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which the vehicles come to rest after the collision should be demarcated clearly. The observations with regard to the length of the tyre skid marks of the vehicles involved in the impact go a long way in indicating the speeds at which the vehicles were traveling. This would enable the Courts to examine the evidence in a much more objective manner and the Courts would not be faced with vague and subjective expressions such as "high-speed".
13.2. The mechanical inspection reports that are prepared are also, I find, in a majority of cases, of a very superficial and cursory nature. The inspection ought to be carried out by qualified personnel who are able to indicate in their reports the exact physical conditions of the vehicles. They should be able to point out with exactitude the damage suffered by the vehicles as a result of the impact. The mechanical inspection report should indicate all the tell¬tale signs of the collision such as the paint of one vehicle rubbing off on the other. It should also indicate as to whether the vehicles were Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 10 of 16 ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.01 16:33:18 +0530 mechanically sound or not prior to the impact so as to enable the Court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the collision took place due to human rashness or negligence or mechanical failure beyond human control.
13.3. As a rule, photographs ought to be taken not only of the vehicles involved in the collision but also of the site and surrounding areas so that the exact topography can be easily discerned by Courts.
13.4. The prevalent weather conditions must be noted by the investigating officer. This would go to establish as to whether the road was slippery due to rain; whether there was poor visibility due to fog or mist etc. 13.5. Furthermore, the path of movement of the vehicles must be sought to be established in the course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt as in the present case.
13.6. The drivers of the vehicle involved must also be subjected to tests to reveal whether they had consumed any intoxicants.
13.7. Proper investigation of such accidents would go a long way in aiding the criminal justice system in convicting those who are guilty and acquitting those who are innocent. A shoddy investigation will only point in one direction and that is in the acquittal of all whether they are guilty or whether they are innocent. Because, no criminal Court would (and ought not to) convict any person merely on the basis of conjectures, assumptions, probabilities. All elements of subjectivity need to be eliminated and the investigation should be such that, when a charge sheet is filed, the Court is presented with a case which when taken objectively would lead to the inescapable conclusion that a conviction is maintainable.
23. Therefore, it is clear that the site plan plays an important role, which should have been prepared by the IO as per the guidelines, which could have shed the light upon how the incident in question happened although, for reasons best known to the IO, the site plan was not prepared as per the abovementioned guidelines. The site plan nowhere mentions the skid marks if any on the road nor the exact location where the victim's car was found and the location of the speed braker near the spot of incident which could have helped in ascertaining the speed and direction in which the offending vehicle was coming before Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 11 of 16 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.01 16:33:22 +0530 colliding with the complainant's vehicle. Also, the photographs Ex.P2 (colly) contains the photograph of the offending bus but it is not decernible whether they are of the spot or some other place as the photographs does not contain the vehicle of complainant or of the surrounding of the spot.
24. Furthermore, it is relevant to peruse the mechanical inspection reports of both the vehicles which were prepared by Mechanical Expert Ex.A3 (colly) to ascertain the damages sustained by both the vehicles. Mechanical inspection of offending bus was done on 20.03.2016 i.e. 02 days after the incident and the said report mentions the following damages:
i) Fresh damage on chasis and channel on front right side and fresh damages on radiator and fan.
ii) Fresh damage on roof and front mirror cracked.
iii) Fresh damage on front bumper and number plate.
iv) Fresh damages on steering and front right side brake pipe freshly broken.
v) Right side head light broken.
vi) Fresh damage on back bumper and number plate missing.
vii) Wire of speed meter and light broken.
The important point needs to be highlighted that both brakes and steering feature of the offending bus was found NOT OK and further the vehicle was not found to be in running condition.
25. Similarly, Mechanical Expert prepared the mechanical inspection report of victim's car Ex.A3 (colly) with the following damages:
(i) Fresh damages on right side body, chasis and rear window and mirror broken.
(ii) Fresh damages on driver side window and roof.
(iii) Fresh damages on read bumper and number plate and mirror broken.
(iv) Both rear lights broken.
(v) Front bumper damaged.Digitally signed by ABHINAV
FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 12 of 16 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: AHLAWAT 2025.02.01 16:33:27 +0530
(vi) Right side engine support broken.
(vii) Right side rear rim damaged and tyre burst.
(viii) Fresh damages on steering.
26. Therefore, it is clear upon examining the damages sustained by the both the vehicles involved in the collision that the offending bus was not having brakes and steering in working condition which corroborates the defence version of accused that due to sudden failure of the steering wheel of his bus, he could not control his vehicle and upon subsequent failure of the brakes as well, he could not stop the vehicle before colliding with the vehicle of complainant.
27. Before proceeding to evaluate the evidence, it is relevant to highlight the Section 80 of IPC which provides as under:
Section 80 IPC - Accident in doing a lawful act - Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
28. Section 80 of the IPC addresses the legal defence of accidents in the context of criminal liability. It establishes that an act is not considered an offence if it occurs by accident or misfortune and without any criminal intent or knowledge, while the individual is performing a lawful act with proper care and caution. Section 80 falls within Chapter IV of General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code which serves as a vital legal provision that protects individuals from unjust punishment when their action results from accident or genuine misunderstandings rather then criminal intent.
29. It is the defence of accused that due to sudden failure of steering and brake function of his bus, he was unable to control his Digitally signed by ABHINAV FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 13 of 16 ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.01 16:33:31 +0530 vehicle which led to the collision with the complainant's vehicle. As stated above, the said features were found to be not working in the mechanical inspection report of the offending bus. Although the offending vehicle is a public transport bus which is mandated to be maintained for the safe functioning in the public duty. However, the fitness certificate as seized during the course of investigation vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/H which states that the vehicle was issued the fitness certificate which was valid till 19.10.2016. The present incident happened on 18.03.2016 thereby on the given date, the offending bus had valid fitness certificate for its operation on public road.
30. Furthermore, in order to label the rash act of accused as criminal, it should be of such nature as would imply complete recklessness or indifference towards the hazardous consequences which may ensue, i.e. the culpability arises from acting despite consciousness. Similarly, a negligent act would be punishable in criminal law if there has been a gross neglect in duty of exercising reasonable care. There is no material to suggest that accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as after the sudden failure of steering and brake function, the offending bus due to the gap in the road divider swayed in the opposite direction towards the oncoming traffic. Even PW1 has only stated that the offending vehicle came from the wrong side and hit his vehicle and he has not stated any other reasons as to why the offending vehicle came in his direction. Thereby there is no reason to disbelieve the version of accused that due to mechanical failure he could not control his vehicle and it can be safely inferred that the incident was merely an accident and there is nothing to infer that accused was driving the offending vehicle Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 14 of 16 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.02.01 16:33:36 +0530 in a rash or negligent manner. The basic ingredient of Section 279 IPC are not made out.
31. The second set of allegations levelled against accused person is that he committed mischief by causing damage to the vehicle of complainant and thereby he committed the offence punishable under section 427IPC. The key ingredients of Section 427 IPC are as follows:
i) Intention of knowledge of accused for causing loss or damage.
ii) Loss or damage by the direct action of accused.
iii) Dimnishing the value of property by the acts of accused.
32. Mens rea or the mental state of the accused is a crucial element in establishing the offence under Section 427 IPC. Accused must either intent to cause wrongful loss or damage or posess knowledge that his actions are likely to result in such consequences. In the present case, as discussed above there is no material or evidecne to infer that accused had any wrongful intent or knowledge that his action would result in damages or dimnishing the value of the vehicle of complainant. As the incident occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of accused, thereby it cannot be inferred that accused had the requisite intention or knowledge that his actions would cause necessary damage to the vehicle of complainant. As the fundamental component of mens rea is not established, accordingly ingredients of Section 427 IPC are not made out.
CONCLUSION
33. From the above discussion, and the surrounding circumstances in which the accident took place, as adduced on record, the of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle who was Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 15 of 16 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.01 16:33:41 +0530 driving the vehicle rashly or negligently has not established conclusively. Prosecution which was under the bounden duty to discharge the initial onus failed to establish the case against the accused. Several reasonable doubts have emerged in the narrative put forth by prosecution as analyzed hereinabove. The basic ingredient of Section 279/427 IPC has not been proved and the inescapable conclusion is that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
34. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 279/427 and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Raj Singh is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 279/427 IPC.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court ABHINAV by ABHINAV AHLAWAT on 01.02.2025 in the presence Date: AHLAWAT 2025.02.01 16:33:46 of the accused. +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/01.02.2025
Note:- This judgment contains 16 pages and each page has been signed by me. ABHINAV Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.01 16:33:52 +0530(Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/01.02.2025 FIR No. 53/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Raj Singh Page 16 of 16