Delhi District Court
State vs . : Ajay Kumar on 7 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR.JAGMINDER SINGH:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 - (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
State Vs. : Ajay Kumar
S.C. No. : 563/2019
FIR No : 197/2019
U/s : 307/201 IPC
P.S. : Bindapur
JUDGEMENT
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW01-008843-2019 2. Date of commission of offence : 12.03.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 15.06.2019
4. Date of committal to Sessions Court: 24.07.2019
5. Name of the complainant : Sh. Hariom
6. Name of accused, parentage & : Ajay Kumar address S/o Sh. Rajender Prasad, R/o H. No. 67/14, Gali No. 6, Krishna Colony, Hansi, District Hisar, Haryana and H. No. RZB-
13/14, Vishwas Park Extension, Som Bazar Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
7. Offence complained off : u/s 307/201 IPC
8. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Date on which order was reserved : Not reserved
10. Final order : Acquitted
11. Date of final order : 07.12.2022 State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 1 of 17 Brief statement of reasons for decision :
1. In the present case charges against the accused are that on 12.03.2019 at about 09:00 PM at H. No. B-13/14, Vishwas Park Extension, Som Bazar Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, accused had assaulted her wife Kumari Reena with sharp edged weapon with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused her death, he would be guilty of murder and accused had also throw the weapon which he used for aforesaid offence at Jodhpur-Jaipur National Highway near Viyavar Bus Stop, Rajasthan in order to disappear the evidence of the commission of offence with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment. The case was registered at the complaint of complainant Sh. Hariom (brother of victim). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused Ajay Kumar for the offences punishable u/s 307/201 IPC before the Court of Ld. M.M. (South-West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
2. Accused was summoned. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused before the court of Ld. M.M. (South-West), Dwarka Courts. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After hearing arguments on the point of charge and on the basis of prima-facie evidence, charge was framed against the accused Ajay Kumar for the offence punishable under Sections 307/201 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution has filed list of 35 witnesses and examined 26 witnesses.
4. PW1/Complainant Sh. Hari Om stated that at the time of incident, he was running his mother dairy booth No. 527 at B-Block, Jahangirpuri, New Delhi and was residing in a room State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 2 of 17 in backside street of booth. His younger sister Kumari Reena was got married with accused Ajay Kumar in the year 2019. My sister was residing with her husband at Vishawas Park Extension, Som Bazar Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Accused is running his clinic as accused is BAMS. On 12.03.2019, he was on his Tuesday fast. He had talked on a whatsapp call with his sister and asked her to prepare food for him. At around 07:00 PM, he left for the house of Kumari Reena and reached there at about 09:00 PM - 09:15 PM. When he entered into the house of his sister, he saw his sister lying in pool of blood and blood was scattering on floor and her sister was badly injured. He cried for help. With the help of son of owner of house and one more person, he immediately removed her sister to Aakash Hospital, Dwarka, New Delhi. He got her sister admitted in hospital. Her sister had not tell him as who had injured her (Kumari Reena).
Doctors of Aakash Hospital called the police. His statement was recorded by police in the hospital as Ex.PW1/A. At his instance, police prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B.
5. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which he admitted that he had made a statement to police but he do not remember whether it was recorded on 13.03.2019 or not. He further stated that some part of his statement Ex.PW1/C is correct but some part he had not stated to the police. He further admitted that he had handed over mobile phone make Soni Colour White of his sister Kumari Reena to the police during investigation and same was seized by police vide memo Ex.PW1/D.
6. PW2/victim Smt. Kumari Reena stated that she is Ph.d in Management and working as Assistant Professor at D.N. College, Hisar, Haryana (Affiliated to G.J.U. Hisar). Presently, State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 3 of 17 she is residing at Hansi with her family including her in-laws, husband and son. She got married with accused Ajay on 26.06.2015 at Hansi, Haryana. After the marriage, they came Delhi as she had to prepare for Civil Services Examination. On 12.03.2019 at about 07:00 PM - 08:00 PM, when she was present at her residence, someone entered in her house and attacked on her with sharp edged weapon. She could not see face of that person. After attacking on her, that person fled away from house. Her husband was not present at home at that time. She cannot the tell description of that person. She lost her consciousness after attack. But so far as she remembered, her brother Hari Om reached at home and her brother removed her at the hospital with the help of other persons.
7. Thereafter, she was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which she stated that she had not made any statement Mark-X to the police on 20.03.2019. She further admitted that her brother reached at home and removed her to the hospital.
8. PW 3 Sh. Pritpal Singh stated that he is retired DTC Mechanic. He is residing on the first floor of his house and accused Ajay present was residing at the ground floor with his wife Reena. Accused is a BAMS Doctor and was also running a clinic. On 12.03.2019, he along with his wife went out of home for some piece of work, when his son Sh. Amarjeet Singh telephonically informed him that Reena was being killed by someone and she was lying in a pool of blood and asked me to reach home immediately. I along with my wife reached back my home within 5 minutes, where, I met Hari Om and my son and my niece Kushal at the gate of house. I went inside the house along with them and found Reena lying on the floor in a pool of blood. I asked Hari Om to call Ambulance immediately. Then, I State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 4 of 17 suggest him to take her immediately to hospital. I took out my car and I along with my son and Hari Om immediately removed to Aakash Hospital and got her admitted. When we reached back at home, police already reached there. CCTV Camera installed in the house were checked by police. But the cameras were not playing. I could not get any clue as who cause such a grievous injury on the person of Reena. I used to tell my story of becoming Sikh from Hindu and the accused got motivated and he started using Turban (Pagri). Accused used to have beard and use to tie Turban.
9. Thereafter on asking of leading question, he stated that he was examined by police on 13.03.2019.
10. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which he admitted that he had made a statement Ex.PW3/A before the police on 13.03.2019. He further stated that except portion A to A, whole statement Ex.PW3/A is correct.
11. PW4 Smt. Sunita is wife of PW3 and deposed identical version as of her husband/PW3.
12. PW5 Sh. Amarjeet Singh stated that on 12.03.2019, he along with his cousin brother Kaushal were present at the first floor of his house. At about 08:00 PM - 08:30 PM, they heard the voice of Hari Om. He along with Kaushal came down on ground floor. Hari Om met them and they saw Reena who was lying on the floor in the pool of blood. She was having cut marks on her throat and on other part of body. He immediately made a call to his parents who had gone out of the house. He further deposed the identical version as of PW3 Sh. Pritpal.
13. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which he admitted that he informed the police that he had seen accused once in turban.
State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 5 of 17
14. PW6 Sh. Kushal deposed the identical version as of PW5 Sh. Amarjeet Singh.
15. PW7 Sh. Ankit Sharma stated that when his grand- father was not keeping well, he went to accused who is doctor by profession for his treatment. On asking of his grand-father, he started working in clinic of accused for one month. Thereafter, he went to his village after taking permission from accused.
16. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which he admitted that he had gone to shop of accused on 12.03.2019 and he was not present at his shop.
17. PW8 Sh. Upkar stated that on 12.03.2019, accused was abusing one of his neighbour and he took accused on one side and pacified him. He and his father took accused to his (accused) home and he along with his father returned back to their home.
18. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which he admitted that accused was abusing Sonu Sansi and Mahesh Barber. He further admitted that he advised accused at home not to quarrel and pay attention and concentration to his work. He further admitted that on next date, they came to know that wife of accused was attacked and he came to know that accused was absconding from house.
19. PW9 Sh. Maheshwar Thakur stated that on 12.03.2019, he was working at his saloon and at about 07:00 - 08:00 PM, he heard some noise. He came out of his shop and saw that accused was making the noise. Accused was abusing someone. In the meantime, his neighbour Rakesh Sharma along with his son also came out and took the accused to his (accused) house.
20. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 6 of 17 for State in which he admitted that police recorded his statement on 13.03.2019. He further admitted that Sonu Sansi is his neighbour who was dealing in the business of illicit liquor. All neighbours had given a complaint against Sonu Sansi and after that complaint, Sonu Sansi stopped his business of illicit liquor and there was no quarrel between Sonu Sansi and other neighbours. He further stated that thereafter, he came to know that accused had attacked on his wife and caused her severe injuries and fled away from spot but he do not have any personal knowledge of the incident. He further admitted that some portion of his statement Mark-X given to police is correct.
21. PW10 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma deposed the identical version as of PW8 Sh. Upkar.
22. PW11 Sh. Balbir Singh stated that he know accused Ajay Kumar as his wife Smt. Reshmi used to get treatment from accused as accused is a doctor who is having clinic in the vicinity of his house. Three years back, police had came to his house and asked from him about accused. He told them he know accused as his wife used to bring medicines from the accused. Police had made enquiries from him about the incident. He had stated to police that he do not know anything. He called his son Naresh Kumar and police also made enquiries from his son Naresh Kumar as his son also knows the accused and police asked from them about accused whether accused had met them. They told that accused had not met them as the accused had shifted clinic to Rajapuri. After accused shifted to Rajapuri, accused never met them. Accused had not came to them after the incident occurred with the wife of accused.
23. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which he had not admitted anything.
State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 7 of 17
24. PW12 Smt. Reshma deposed the identical version as of PW11 Sh. Balbir Singh.
25. PW13 Sh. Manjit Singh stated that he is running his own cloth shop at 1/5 Double Storey, Shivaji Market, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi by the name and style of Singh Pagri Emporium. On 18.03.2021, police officials came at his shop along with one person whose name or face he do not remember. The police officials told him that said person had purchased a turban from his shop about 10-15 days back. Police officials prepared a pointing out memo Ex.PW13/A to this effect at the instance of that person.
26. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which he voluntarily stated that police officials had informed him that said person had bought turban from his shop and he had stated to the police that he was not having any knowledge due to lapse of time. He further admitted that police had recorded his statement and he had stated to the police that accused Ajay had lead the police party to his shop and informed in his presence that he had bought a turban of light blue colour about 20-25 days back and had not taken any bill of that. He further voluntarily stated that it is long back incident and he do not remember exactly as who the person Ajay.
27. PW14 Sh. Prashant Sharma stated that on 12.03.2019, at around 12:00 night his maternal uncle Vishnu had called him who is residing near to his residence. He went in the street and meet his maternal uncle. Sh. Vishnu asked him to book a cab for Gurugram. Accordingly, he booked a cab for Gurugram from Uber Cab Service Provider.
28. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which he admitted that his statement was recorded by State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 8 of 17 police on 13.03.2019 but now he do not remember as what he had stated to the police in his statement. He further admitted the he had made statement Ex.PW14/A to the police but now he do not remember that as who the person was with his maternal uncle at the time of booking of cab.
29. PW15 Sh. Vishnu Dutt stated that he is working as Supervisor in Z Plus Security. He know accused Ajay who is his doctor. Accused Ajay was resided in his house for about one and half month with his wife Smt. Reena. He came to know that something has happened with Mrs. Reena.
30. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which he admitted that on 12.03.2019 he had called Prashant (his Bhanja) and who got booked a cab on his asking. He further voluntarily stated that on that day, his child was not well, therefore, he asked Sh.Prashant to book a cab to go Gurugram.
31. PW16 Sh. Naresh Kumar stated that he is running a mother dairy booth in Ekta Apartment, Sector-3, Dwarka, New Delhi. He know accused Ajay who was running a clinic at Vishwas Park near to his house and his mother was taking treatment from accused. He do not know as what had happened on 12.03.2019. He further voluntarily stated that he was not in touch with accused regularly. His mother only used to go to clinic of accused. On 13.03.2019 though the police had come to his residence but he was not present at his residence and informed the police through telephone that he was on mother dairy booth.
32. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State in which he had not admitted anything.
33. PW17 Sh. Gautam Vishwas stated that accused Ajay State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 9 of 17 was his college-mate. On 13.03.2019, accused Ajay made a telephonic call to him and informed that accused had come to Hantaa, Rajasthan i.e. his residential place. Accused remained for some time at his residence. Accused was in hurry. Accused asked him for some money. He was having Rs.1,000/- with him at that time which he had handed over to accused. Thereafter, accused left his home. Later on police came to him and informed him that accused has done something wrong with his (accused) wife. Police recorded his statement.
34. PW18 Sh. Gurmeet Singh stated that in the year 2019, I was doing a private job at a shop which was being run by name and style of Sat Shri Akal at Jail Road, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. On the shop, They used to sale items related to Gurudwara Sahib like Rumala Sahib, Karaa, Kirpan etc. Accused came to their shop with police officials in the year 2019. He do not remember the date and month and pointed to the police that he (accused) had bought a sword from this shop. He further voluntarily stated that he do not know whether, the accused had bought any Kirpan/Sword from their shop or not. They generally do not sell Kirpan to a non-sikh person. Police prepared one memo and obtained his signature on the same which is now Ex.PW18/A.
35. PW19 Sh. Hitesh stated that he is running a utensils shop at Mangal Bazaar Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. On 18.03.2019, two police officials came to his shop. Initially, they asked for a knife. After sometime, one more person was also called by them inside the shop. Said person is accused. Accused informed that he (accused) had bought the knife from his shop. He further voluntarily stated that accused informed the police officials that he (accused) might have bought knife from this State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 10 of 17 shop. Accused had further informed that he (accused) had not taken bill for said knife. Police prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW19/A.
36. PW20 ASI Amar Chand stated that on 13.03.2021, he had joined the investigation of this case. On that day, IO had provided him the CDR and location detail of the mobile phone of accused Ajay. According to the instructions of IO, he along with Ct. Akhilesh went to village Anta, District Baran, Rajasthan to the house of Gautam Vishwas who met them at home. Gautam Vishwas informed them that accused Ajay had visited his (Gautam Vishwas) house in the evening hours and asked to pay some money. Gautam Vishwas further informed that he (Gautam Vishwas) gave Rs.1,000/- to accused. He recorded statement of Gautam Vishwas to this effect. He came back to PS Bindapur and reported to IO. IO recorded his statement to this effect.
37. PW21 Smt. Jyoti stated that her husband is a driver by profession. She only know about the case that accused Ajay had done something wrong with his wife. She came to know that accused had caused injuries to his wife by a knife. She further voluntarily stated that nothing has happened in her presence.
38. Thereafter, she was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP in which she admitted that her husband was earlier involved in selling illicit liquor and accused Ajay had made a complaint about her husband to police and due to making a police complaint, her husband had stopped dealing in illicit liquor. Accused Ajay used to quarrel with her husband even after stopping dealing in illicit liquor and accused had used to threatening her husband. On 12.03.20219, accused had come in front of their house and started abusing her husband. She further voluntarily stated that accused was wearing a Pagdi and was State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 11 of 17 having a sword in his hand and she is only telling truth. She did not allow her husband to go out and locked her gate from inside. Accused had left from there after sometime after abusing her husband. On next day, she came to know that accused had attacked on her wife.
39. PW22 Smt. Jyoti stated that accused Ajay was her junior in Ashwani Ayurvedic Medical College, Dawangiri, Banglore in the year 2009. Accused Ajay was her foster brother. Vijay Yadav brother of accused was her senior in the college. In the year 2019, she came to know that wife of Ajay was injured and in the hospital. She visited the hospital to meet wife of accused. After two days of her visit to the hospital, she was called by the police. IO inquired about the behavior and character of accused from her during college time. She informed the IO that accused was well behaved and decent person. IO obtained her signature on some paper. She do not know anything else.
Thereafter, she was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP in which she had not admitted anything.
40. PW23 Sh. Sonu (Sahsi) deposed the identical version as of her wife i.e. PW21 Smt. Jyoti.
41. PW24 Sh. Rajender Prasad stated that accused Ajay is his younger son is a BAMS Doctor. In year 2019, accused was residing at H. No. B-13/14, Vishwas Park, Som Bajar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi with his (accused) wife Reena. In the night of 12.03.2019, he received a telephonic message of Brother of Kumari Reena (his daughter-in-law) that someone had attacked on Kumari Reena and injured her. Thereafter, he talked to his elder son and came at Delhi from Hansi, Haryana with his elder son. In Delhi, they came to know that Reena was admitted in hospital in injured condition. He do not know as who had State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 12 of 17 attacked on Reena. Reena had not informed him anything about attack on her. Hari Om (brother of Reena) met him in hospital. He do not know anything about this case.
42. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP in which he admitted that accused Ajay had come to Hansi for filling the registration form for medical registration.
43. PW25 Sh. Vijay Kumar deposed the identical version as of his father i.e. PW24 Sh. Rajender Prasad.
44. PW26 Sh. Hamana Kumar stated that he do not know anything about this case.
45. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP in which he admitted that his daughter Reena was married with accused Ajay. Accused Ajay is a doctor by profession and accused used to run his clinic at house.
46. No other witness examined by the prosecution. Accused admitted the genuineness of documents i.e. Copy of FIR as Ex.PX1, Certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act as Ex.PX2, Crime Team Report as Ex.PX3, Seizure memo of Exhibits of injured Reena as Ex.PX4, Copy of seizure memo of Exhibits i.e. earth control as Ex.PX5, Copy of seizure memo of CCTV DVR as Ex.PX6, Copy of seizure memo of photocopy of Will as Ex.PX7, Copy of seizure memo of printouts of mobile phone's screen- shots as Ex.PX8, Copy of pointing out memo of place of disposal of weapon of offence as Ex.PX9, Copy of request for permission to take statement of Reena as Ex.PX10, Copy of MLC No.370/19 dated 12.03.2019 of Reena as Ex.PX11, Copy of my Arrest memo as Ex.PX12, Copy of my personal search memo as Ex.PX13, Copy of FSL Report dated 05.11.2019 (Running into 2 pages) with certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act and photographs (running into 2 pages) as Ex.PX14 vide his separate statement State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 13 of 17 recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, PE was closed at request of Ld. Addl. PP and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he is falsely implicated in this case. Accused Ajay Kumar not opted for defence evidence. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
47. Final arguments heard. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State argued that the accused had deliberately inflicted injury on the person of injured and deliberately caused disappearance of necessary items of this case to screen himself from legal proceedings. The public witnesses deliberately not produced before the Court true facts and resiled from their statements given to police during investigation. Accused is the actual culprit and is liable to be convicted.
48. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused stated that accused has been falsely implicated in this case by police. He was arrested without any reason in this case. He is not having any connection with alleged offence. Nothing incriminating recovered from him. Prosecution failed to produce any evidence against the accused, therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted in this case.
49. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the record. Present case was registered at the complaint of complainant Sh. Hariom in which he stated that, when he went to house of his sister on receiving call from his sister, he found his sister in injured condition having multiple injuries on her body and on asking she told him that she was attacked by her husband/accused with some sharp edged weapon. However, when complainant appeared before the Court as PW1, he had gave a different version and stated that her sister had not State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 14 of 17 tell him as who had injured her. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he specifically denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that his sister informed him that accused had attacked on her with sharp edged weapon. During his whole statement, he had not stated anything incriminating against the accused.
50. Thereafter, the case of the prosecution is based upon sole eye witness of incident i.e. injured herself who appeared before the Court to depose as PW2. However, during evidence, PW2 stated that at the time of incident her husband/accused was not present at home and at that time, someone entered into her house and attacked upon her with some sharp edged weapon. She further stated that she could not see the face of assailant. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, she specifically denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that her husband/accused had attacked upon her with some knife. In complete statement, PW2/injured had also not stated anything incriminating against the accused.
51. Evidence of other public witnesses is only hearsay evidence. However, none of these witnesses stated anything against the accused. These witnesses were also turned hostile and cross-examined on behalf of State. During their complete examination, they have not stated anything incriminating against accused which can be considered as any link between the accused and the alleged offence in this case.
52. PW3 is the landlord in whose house the accused and complainant were residing as tenant. PW3 and his wife were not present in the house at the time of incident as per their statement before the Court. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the CCTV Camera installed in the house were checked by police but State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 15 of 17 the cameras were not functioning.
53. During trial, the accused had admitted certain documents regarding investigation but these all documents are formal procedural documents and are having nothing to link the accused with said offence. Prosecution has also placed on record FSL result Ex.PX14 by way of supplementary charge-sheet. In the FSL Report, there is a conclusion by the expert that DNA Examination was not possible of the Exhibits 1b and 1c i.e. clothes of victim due to degradation of the sample. Regarding other exhibits i.e. Ex. 1a, 2a, 2b, 3 & 4, the DNA were generated and it was opined that blood stains from these exhibits were from same source. The Ex.'1a' and '2a' were lower and underwear of victim, Ex.'2b' was Brassiere of the victim, '3' was blood in gauze cloth piece from spot and '4' was blood on marble pieces. Therefore, the FSL Result Ex.PX14 reveals that blood samples under examination were all from the exhibits of the spot and clothes of the victim. There is no opinion regarding any matching blood stains with the accused or from any exhibit recovered from accused. Therefore, in the FSL also there is no any scientific evidence showing any link of accused with offence.
54. Hence, in view of aforesaid discussion, Court comes at the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused due to lack of evidence. Therefore, accused Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Rajender Prasad stands acquitted in present case FIR No. 563/2019, PS Bindapur, under Sections 307 and 201 IPC.
55. Fresh bail bonds and surety bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. are furnished on behalf of accused and same are accepted till six months from the date of judgment. Previous bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled and surety stands discharged.
State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 16 of 17
56. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed byJAGMINDER JAGMINDER SINGH Announced in open court SINGH Date: 2022.12.07 15:25:13 +0530 on 07.12.2022 (DR. JAGMINDER SINGH) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/07.12.2022 Note: This judgment contains 17 (Seventeen) pages and having my signature on each page.
Digitally signed by JAGMINDER JAGMINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2022.12.07
15:25:20 +0530
(DR. JAGMINDER SINGH)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/07.12.2022
State vs. Ajay Kumar PS:Bindapur
FIR No.197/2019 Page No. 17 of 17