Delhi District Court
State vs . Tribhuvan Sharma Etc Date: on 7 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 193/2011 Digitally signed
PS : Kalkaji DIU/SED by MANISH
KHURANA
U/s : 420 IPC & s. 63 Copyright Act MANISH
State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Date:
KHURANA 2019.01.07
11:47:32
Unique ID No. : 86423/2016 +0530
Date of institution of case : 18.11.2011
Date of reserving the judgment : 14.12.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 07.01.2019
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case : 265/2011
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 08.06.2011
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Gagan Sindhwani
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand,
R/o U1/56, Budh Vihar,
Rohini, Delhi.
4. Name,parentage & address of accused : (i) Tribhuvan Sharma,
S/o Sh. Ramji Lal Sharma
R/o H. No. 174, 3rd Floor,
Sant Nagar, East of Kailash,
Delhi.
(ii) Manish Kumar
S/o Sh. Uma Shankar Mishra
R/o G26, Vijay Enclave,
Mahavir Enclave, PartI,
FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 1 of 16
Palam Village, Delhi.
(iii) Girish Sharma
S/o Sh. Ramji Lal Sharma
R/o H. No. 329, 2nd Floor,
Sant Nagar, East of Kailash,
Delhi.
5. Offence complained of : u/s 420 IPC
& s. 63 Copyright Act
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
Case of the Prosecution
1. The prosecution case is that on 08.06.2011 at 2.50 pm at Tech India Solution at 108B, Deepali Building92, Nehru Place, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intension were found in possession of total 45 fake laptop batteries and 54 fake laptop adapters having duplicate logo of HP for the purpose of selling and that the accused persons were found in possession of aforesaid articles without any proper bill/purchase documents and thereby committed the alleged offence.
2. After supplying copies of chargesheet and documents and on finding a primafacie case, charge for the offence punishable u/s 63 Copyright Act was framed against all the accused persons by Ld Predecessor vide order dated 21.01.2017 to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate and prove the charge against the accused persons prosecution examined as many as 03 witnesses.
4. PW1 ASI Surender Singh deposed that on 08.06.2011 he was posted as FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 2 of 16 HC and on that day IO Inspector Subhash Malik joined him into the investigation of the present case and formed a raiding party comprising him, complainant Gagan Sindhwani, Gulfaraz Makhani i.e Director of EIPR India Ltd, SI Shanti Prasad, HC Rakam Singh and Ct. Om Prakash and they all reached at Paras Cinema, Nehru Place, New Delhi and raided the shop no. 108B, Deepali Building92, Nehru Place, New Delhi and the name of the said shop was "Tech India Solution". He further stated that at the counter of that shop two persons were found sitting whose identity was established as Tribhuvan Sharma and Manish Kumar and in their presence and at the instance of complainant the said shop was searched and 45 laptop batteries of different size and models and 54 laptop adapters of different size and models all having logo of HP were recovered. He further stated that the complainant told that the abovesaid articles recovered were having the forged/fake logo of HP company and thereafter IO seized all the aforesaid articles after separating one laptop battery and one laptop adapter as sample. He stated that the case property was serialed and put in plastic katta and sealed with the seal of "SM". He stated that the sample laptop battery and sample laptop adapter were also sealed in separate pullanda with the seal of SM and all the articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He stated that seal after use was handed over to SI Shanti Prasad and thereafter IO prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Om Prakash and after registration of FIR, accused Tribhuvan Sharma and Manish Kumar were arrested and their personal search were conducted by the IO. He further stated that the IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused persons vide memo Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A and he also seized photocopy of one rent agreement dated 22.04.2010 as produced by accused Tribhuvan Sharma which was FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 3 of 16 seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. He stated that the photocopy of rent agreement is MarkA. He further stated that the case property was deposited in Malkhana of PS Kalkaji. He stated that IO tried to search the accused persons but he could not find any other accused on 08.06.2011. He identified accused Tribhuvan Sharma in the Court. The case property was not shown to this witness. This witness was cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
5. PW2 Gulfaraz Makhani, Director of EIPR India Pvt Ltd deposed that he had been running his company since the year 1999 and the said company was also having a branch office at D9, Ground Floor, Green Park, Delhi. He stated that complainant Gagan Sindhwani was an employee of his company and his company was indulged in intellectual property right protection of its client companies. He stated that M/s Hawlett Packard (HP) company was also the client of his company and that his company was authorised by M/s HP company, USA to conduct survey, to investigate and to initiate legal action against violators of intellectual property rights of the said company. He stated that in the year 2011 during survey by his employee Gagan Sindhwani in SouthEast District, Delhi, it was revealed that some unauthorised retailers/wholesellers were selling counterfeit product i.e laptop batteries and laptop chargers of M/s Hawlett Packard (HP) company and thus violating the copyright of the said company. He stated that thereafter Gagan Sindhwani filed a written complaint Ex.PW2/A. He stated that Gagan Sindhwani has left his company and his present whereabouts are not known. He stated that he identified signatures of Gagan Sindhwani on the abovesaid complaint as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of business. He stated that on 08.06.2011 he alongwith Gagan Sindhwani reached office of DIU SouthEast District and met the FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 4 of 16 IO Inspector Subhash Malik and at that time they were having specific information that counterfeit products of HP were stored and being sold at Shop No. 108B, Deepali Building92, Nehru Place, Delhi and the said information was shared with the IO who formed a raiding party comprising of himself, Gagan Sindhwani, IO and other police officials and they all reached at the abovesaid shop at Nehru Place where they met accused Manish Kumar and one person namely Uttam. He stated that thereafter IO searched the aforesaid shop and on his identification seized 54 laptop batteries and 45 laptop adapters which were counterfeit products of Hawlett Packard company and having false logo of HP company. He stated that thereafter IO seized the abovesaid batteries and adapters after giving them respective serial numbers vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A with the seal of "SM". He stated that he also provided original laptop batteries of HP company and original laptop adapters of HP company to the IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. He also identified his signatures on arrest memos and personal search memos Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/F. He further stated that during the investigation he also handed over certified true copy of his letter of appointment by HP company for its brand protection which is Ex.PW2/H, certified true copy of appointment letter of Gagan Sindhwani by EIPR Ex.PW2/I, certified true copy of his letter communicating Delhi address of his company which is Ex.PW2/J, true copy of trademark documents of Hawlett Packard company and its renewal Ex.PW2/K and Ex.PW2/K1, true copy of international copyright registration document of Hawlett Packard company as Ex.PW2/K2 and lease document of his company at Delhi Ex.PW2/K3. He stated that the IO inquired him and recorded his statement. During his testimony this witness identified accused Tribhuvan Sharma and Girish, however, he FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 5 of 16 stated that he was not clear as to which of two persons identified by him were present at the time of raid at the shop in question. Ld APP for the State sought permission to cross examine this witness as he was resiling from his earlier statement u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO during investigation. During his cross examination by Ld APP for the State he admitted that from the possession of accused persons 45 counterfeit HP laptop batteries and 54 counterfeit HP laptop adapters were recovered. He admitted that at the time of raid at the shop accused Manish Kumar and Tribhuvan Sharma was found present. He denied that he was not deliberately identifying accused Tribhuvan Sharma. The attention of this witness was specifically drawn towards accused Tribhuvan Sharma present in the Court but this witness stated that he could not correctly recollect as to whether he was the same person who was present at the shop at the time of raid. This witness was not shown the case property. This witness was cross examined by Ld defence counsel during which he could not tell as to whether IO requested some public persons to join the raiding party or not and he stated that in his presence IO did not request any shopkeeper, street vendor or public person near the raided shop to join the investigation. He stated that some papers were prepared at the spot and he also stated that he signed all the documents after reaching at the office of DIU/SED and he stated that the case property was sealed in the office of DIU/SED but he could not tell as to how the case property was brought to the office of DIU/SED. He could not tell the size of shop which was raided. He stated that the crowd gathered at the shop. He could not tell as to how many pullandas were prepared by the IO in the office of DIU/SED. He stated that the samples of original laptop batteries and adapters were given to police officials in his absence. He denied that nothing was recovered from the accused persons or that he was deposing FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 6 of 16 falsely.
6. PW3 Inspector Subhash Malik deposed that on 23.05.2011 the complaint Ex.PW2/A of Gagan Sindhwani of EIPR India Ltd was received in his office of DIU/SED and it was marked to him for inquiry by the then ACP. He stated that pursuant to the complaint, complainant Gagan Sindhwani and one Gulfaraz Makhani reached his office on 08.06.2011 and informed him that on the shop of Tech India Solution at 108B, Deepali Building92, Nehru Place, Delhi counterfeit products i.e laptop batteries and chargers of HP company were being unauthorisedly sold. He stated that he apprised the then ACP and on his directions a raiding party comprising of police officials, Gagan Sindhwani and Gulfaraz Makhani was prepared and they all reached at Nehru Place market at about 2.30 pm. He stated that he requested 45 public persons/passersby to join the investigation but not of them agreed and they all reached the shop no. 108B, Deepali Building, Nehru Place, Delhi where accused Tribhuvan and Manish Kumar were found sitting and managing the counter of the said shop with the name Lap Life Laptop. He further stated that he informed the accused persons about the purpose of raid and thereafter at the instance of complainant and Gulfaraz Makhani a search was conducted and 45 counterfeit HP laptop batteries and 54 counterfeit HP laptop adapters having fake logo of HP were recovered. He stated that he inquired the accused persons about the recovered articles but they could not give any satisfactory reply and thereafter one laptop battery and one laptop adapter was separated as sample and remaining articles were given serial number from serial no. 1 to 53 and sealed with the seal of SM and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point C. He stated that thereafter he prepared the rukka Ex.PW3/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Om Prakash. He stated FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 7 of 16 that the investigation was marked to him during which he prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/B and the complainant also handed over him one original laptop battery and one original laptop adapter of HP which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C and were also sealed with the seal of "SM". He stated that after its use, the seal was handed over to SI Shanti Prasad and thereafter he arrested accused Tribhuvan and Manish Kumar and conducted their personal search vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E and personal search memos Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/F respectively. He stated that he interrogated the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. He also stated that he also seized the copy of rent agreement already MarkA regarding the aforesaid shop which was produced by accused Tribhuvan and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. He stated that during investigation complainant also handed over documents Ex.PW2/H, Ex.PW2/I, Ex.PW2/J, Ex.PW2/K, Ex.PW2/K1, Ex.PW2/K2 and Ex.PW2/K3. He stated that on 09.06.2011 he produced the case property before Ld MM for inspection and he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC and he searched the other accused persons but could not find them. He stated that thereafter he was transferred and he handed over the case file to MHC(R) and the further investigation was taken up by SI Shanti Prasad (since expired). He identified the signatures of SI Shanti Prasad on documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G. He also identified the signatures of SI Shanti Prasad on arrest and personal search memo of accused Girish Sharma which are Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D and on the carbon copy of reply filed in the Court of Ms. R. Kirannath alongwith documents Ex.PW3/E (colly). He identified the batteries and adapters which are FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 8 of 16 MarkA and MarkB allegedly recovered and seized and the sample of battery and adapter which are MarkC and MarkD and all the case properties are Ex.P1 (colly). This witness was cross examined by Ld defence counsel during which he stated that he requested several nearby shopkeepers to join the investigation but none of them agreed but he could not tell particulars of the said shop whose owners were requested to join the investigation. He stated that they reached at the shop at about 2.45 pm and they finally left the spot at about 6.00 pm and the complainant and Gulfaraz Makhani left the spot at about 5.00 pm. He stated that he sealed the case property at the spot and that he recorded the statement of complainant and that of Gulfaraz Makhani at the spot. He admitted that the complainant and Gulfaraz Makhani were the employees of the complainant company and that there is no other independent witness in the present case. He stated that he did not obtain the original rent agreement of the shop and he could not tell as to whether he examined or recorded the statement of owner of the shop. He also admitted that the alleged rent agreement MarkA was not effective/valid on the date of raid. He denied that he intentionally did not examine Sanjeev Gupta owner of the said shop as he did not hand over any document/rent agreement regarding the shop. He also stated that he recorded the statement of Gulfaraz Makhani only once at the spot after the registration of FIR. He denied that nothing was recovered from the shop or from the possession of the accused persons as alleged or that the accused persons were falsely implicated.
7. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of the accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein they denied the prosecution case in its entirety and pleaded innocence and false implication. Despite opportunity, no witness was examined by the accused persons in their FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 9 of 16 defence.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld defence counsel and also gone through the judicial record.
Findings of the court
9. The prosecution case is that on 08.06.2011 at 2.50 pm at Tech India Solution at 108B, Deepali Building92, Nehru Place, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intension were found in possession of total 45 fake laptop batteries and 54 fake laptop adapters having duplicate logo of HP for the purpose of selling and that the accused persons were found in possession of aforesaid articles without any proper bill/purchase documents and thereby committed the alleged offence.
10. Ld Addl. PP for the State submitted that the accused persons were found in possession of fake articles of HP company and therefore, they may be convicted.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that no public witness was joined by the police in the investigation despite the availability of the same and he submits that the case property was not shown to PW2 Gulfaraz Makhani and that PW2 Gulfaraz Makhani who is relevant witness for prosecution failed to identify the accused persons before the Court. Ld counsel also submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of PWs and considering the facts and circumstances, accused persons may be acquitted.
12. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its on legs and it cannot derive any FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 10 of 16 benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shits to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
13. Further the crux of legal position regarding joining of independent witness, to my mind is that as far as possible recovery of counterfeit products, is to be authenticated by affecting it in presence of any independent witness. Joining of independent witness, forcefully establishes the recovery of counterfeit products, beside compliance of other procedure as required under Copyright Act. However, it is not that if recovery is not in presence of independent witness, then the same is to be mechanically ignored on score. If on one hand law requires to join independent witness at the time of recovery, it is only to ensure the authenticity of alleged recovery. On the other hand, non joining of independent witness only make the court circumspect, in such situation, evidence of official witness is to be examined more critically in facts of case. If sincere efforts are made by investigating officer, to join an independent witness and it is also proved by evidence of official witness, that there has been genuine efforts to join an independent witness, then court if finds that evidence as a whole is acceptable regarding recovery of contraband, there being nothing coming on record showing planting of recovered articles or any circumstance even remotely indicating towards false implication, then non joining of independent witness is not fatal to case of prosecution.
14. The case of prosecution is that a complaint was given by complainant FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 11 of 16 Gagan Sindhwani on behalf of EIPR India Ltd and in pursuance to the said complaint a raiding party consisting of IO Inspector Subhash Malik, SI Shanti Prasad (since expired), HC Surender, HC Rakam Singh, Ct. Om Prakash, complainant Gagan Sindhwani and one Gulfaraz Makhani, Director of EIPR was formed and the said raiding party reached near Paras Cinema, Nehru Place and the shop no. 108B, Deepali Building, Nehru Place was raided and from the said shop counterfeit products of HP company were allegedly recovered. As per the evidence led by the prosecution various other shops were also situated in Deepali Building, Nehru Place and various public persons and other shop owners were also present at the time of alleged raid but none of the public persons present at the spot was made to join the investigation of this case. Even PW2 Gulfaraz Makhani, Director of EIPR India Ltd deposed during his cross examination that IO did not request any shopkeepers, street vendor or public persons near the raided shop to join the investigation. PW2 is the Director of EIPR India Ltd on whose behalf the complaint was filed by Gagan Sindhwani i.e the employee of the said company and he was allegedly present at the time of raid. PW2 could not tell as to at on which floor the alleged shop was situated and he also stated that he signed all the documents after reaching DIU office. PW2 even could not tell as to how many pullandas were prepared by the police in DIU office where the case property was allegedly sealed. PW2 also stated that his statement was recorded at DIU office after the raid. Whereas PW3 Inspector Subhash Malik who is IO of this case deposed that he sealed the case property at the spot itself and that he recorded the statement of complainant and that of PW2 Gulfaraz Makhani at the spot. Therefore, there are material contradictions in the testimony of PWs examined by the prosecution.
FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 12 of 1615. Further, the alleged shop where the raid was conducted is stated to be a rented shop but the IO categorically stated that he did not obtain the original rent agreement regarding the aforesaid shop nor did he examine the shop owner to satisfy that the shop was actually let out to the accused persons. So far as accused Girish Sharma is concerned no PW has deposed that he was present at the time of alleged raid or that any counterfeit product was recovered from his possession.
16. It is further pertinent to mention that the case property was not shown to any PW except the IO and the signatures of PW1 ASI Surender Singh, who was allegedly the member of the raiding team, does not appear on any seizure memo regarding the alleged recovery of counterfeit products which also casts doubt over the case of the prosecution.
17. In case law reported as Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab, 1997 (3) Crimes 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under: '' In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 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'' ''6.
In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely, Harbans Singh ASI who appeared as PW1 and Kartar Singh PW2. Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner, but there was no public witness who had joined. It is not necessary in such recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 13 of 16 attempt must be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereotype statement of nonavailability will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the service of public witness. This reflects adversely on the prosecution version''.
18. It is further pertinent to mention that PW2 Gulfaraz Makhani could not even clearly identify the accused persons in the Court and after looking at accused persons in the Court he stated that one of the accused persons present in the Court was present at the abovesaid shop during the raid, however, he further stated that he was not clear as to which of the person present in the Court was also present at the time of raid at the abovesaid shop. PW2 was also cross examined by Ld APP for the State and the attention of this witness was drawn by Ld APP for the State towards accused Tribhuvan Sharma as the person who was present at the shop at the time of raid but he could not recollect as to whether the accused shown to him was the same person who was present at the shop at the time of raid. He denied the suggestion given by Ld APP for the State that he was deliberately not identifying the accused.
19. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to beyond doubt that the accused persons were present at the shop at the time of alleged raid or that the counterfeit products were recovered from their possessions as alleged. Even the original rent agreement regarding the abovesaid shop was not procured by the IO during the investigation so as to show that the shop FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 14 of 16 was let out to accused persons. Further, PW3 Inspector Subhash Malik admitted that the rent agreement was not effective on the date of alleged recovery. Further, as per evidence on record, after its use the seal which was used on the pullanda containing the case property allegedly recovered from the accused was given to none else but to one who is a material prosecution witness i.e. SI Shanti Prasad who is a witness to the alleged recovery of fake laptop batteries and fake laptop adapter. Such material witness of a case is always interested in the success of the case of the prosecution and keeping in view the aforesaid fact, chances of fabrication of case property cannot be ruled out.
20. Section 63 of the Copyright Act provides punishment of infringement of copyright and it states that any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the copyright in a work or any other right conferred by this Act shall be punished.
21. Section 13 of the Copyright Act provides that the copyright subsists in original (i) literary, (ii) dramatic, musical and artistic work, (iii) in a cinematograph film and (iv) sound recording.
22. In the judgment of Dr. A K Mukherjee Vs. State & Anr, 54 (1994) DLT 461, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that "A bare perusal of the provision would go to show that emphasis is on the words 'knowingly infringes ....the copyright in a work'. These words clearly postulate a knowledge on the part of the accused that he was infringing the Copyright in a work. Mere possibility of his having known it would not suffice. There has to be a clear and conclusive proof of the requisite knowledge. Even the existence of reasonable means of knowing would not be enough. In short thus the use of word "knowingly" in the provision results in requiring 'mens rea in the full sense'. This, in short, being the legal requirement under section 63 of Copyright Act, evidence shall have to be led to bring home the required FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 15 of 16 guilty knowledge".
23. The prosecution could not examine the complainant Gagan Sindhwani who allegedly gave the complaint to the police as he could not be traced. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubts that the accused persons were found in possession of allegedly fake/counterfeit products of HP (Hawlett Packard) company or that the accused persons knowingly infringed the copyright of HP (Hawlett Packard) company.
24. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the case put forth by the prosecution does not seem to be probable and it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, in view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in the present case.
25. Accordingly, accused persons namely Tribhuvan Sharma, Manish Kumar and Girish Sharma are held "not guilty" and are accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 63 Copyright Act.
Announced in the open Court Today on 07.01.2019 (Manish Khurana) CMM/SE/District Court, Saket New Delhi/07.01.2019 FIR No. 193/2011 State Vs. Tribhuvan Sharma etc Page 16 of 16