Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi & Others // Sc No.162/11// Fir ... on 20 September, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-01: NORTH: ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO:162/11.
FIR NO:364/11.
PS : SULTANPURI.
U/S: 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27/54/59 ARMS ACT.
STATE
VERSUS
1. RAVI S/O. SHRI JOGI RAM
R/O. P-1/22, JHUGGI, SULTANPURI,
DELHI.
2. VISHAL @ BHUTANI S/O. SHRI CHAMAN LAL
R/O. D-310, MANGOLPURI,
DELHI.
3. PARVESH S/O. SHRI BIJENDER
R/O. JHUGGI NO.P-1/63, SULTANPURI,
DELHI.
Date of Institution:21.12.2011
Date of Argument:30.07.2014
Date of Decision:20:09.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the DD No.9A was received at PS - Sultanpuri on 09.08.2011 at about 5:20am, to the effect that a man had been stabbed near Bagga Link Showroom, opposite Laxmi Dairy, Kanjhawala Road, Budh Vihar, Delhi. This DD was marked to SI Kulvir Singh for taking necessary action.
2. SI Kulvir Singh alongwith Ct. Dharamvir reached at the spot, but he did not find anyone there. He came to know that the injured had been STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 1 OF 14 2 taken to the Brahmshakti Hospital. On reaching at Brahmshakti Hospital, they came to know that the injured had been taken to SGM Hospital by PCR. On reaching at SGM Hospital they found that injured Mahesh was admitted in the said hospital. SI Kulvir Singh collected his MLC and there was stab injuries on the right side of the stomach of the injured. SI Kulvir Singh prepared rukka and he got the FIR registered through Ct. Dharambir. The case was initially registered u/s. 324 IPC, but later on Section 326 IPC was also added in this case. On 10.08.2011, he recorded the statement of Pradeep, who is the brother in law of the injured. On 11.08.2011 the said injured Mahesh expired and an information was received in PS
-Sultanpuri vide DD No.47B. IO got conducted the inquest proceedings. After postmortem examination the dead body was handed over to the relative of the deceased. Section 304 IPC was added in the case.
3. Thereafter, investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector K.P. Tomar. On 13.08.2011 one Sonu who claimed himself to be the eyewitness of the incident met Inspector K.P. Tomar, who recorded his statement.
4. On 27.08.2011 accused persons i.e. Ravi, Vishal and Parvesh were arrested in case FIR No.373/11, PS - Sultanpuri, and they made their disclosure statement about the commission of offence which was the subject matter of the present case.
5. Accused Ravi got recovered the bicycle of the deceased, which was seized by the police u/s. 102 Cr.P.C. Accused Vishal @ Bhutani got recovered one card which was in the name of Surender Singh & Company, Attendance Card, Card No.1357 of ESI of deceased Mahesh Kumar which was seized u/s. 102 Cr.P.C. Accused Parvesh Kumar got recovered one knife (churi) which was used in the commission of offence of this case, which was also seized u/s. 102 Cr.P.C. Thereafter all the said three accused persons were arrested STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 2 OF 14 3 in the present case. They made disclosure statement in this case. They pointed out the place of occurrence and they refused to participate in TIP proceedings. Inspector K.P. Tomar prepared the site plan. The exhibits were deposited in the FSL Rohini. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the present case against all the three accused persons u/s. 302/392/397/ 411/34 IPC
6. After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, Ld. MM committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, it was assigned to the predecessor of this court.
7. After the case was committed to the court, court heard the arguments on the point of charge and vide order dated 11.01.2012, charge for offence u/s.392/302/34 IPC was framed against all the three accused persons and a separate charge u/s.397 IPC was framed against accused Pravesh and charge u/s. 411 IPC was framed against accused Vishal and Ravi, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In support of its case, prosecution has examined in total 28 witnesses, who have deposed as under:-
PW1 Shri Pradeep Kumar was the brother in law of the deceased. He had purchased a bicycle for the deceased in the sum of Rs.1000/-, which the deceased allegedly riding at the time of the incident on 09.08.2011. The name of the witness i.e. Pradeep was written in English Language in capital letters on the rod below the seat of the said bicycle. The bicycle was of Avon Company and it was written on its handle and the seat was of Atlas company. The said bicycle had new lock with the words leaders S K. He had identified the dead body of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW1/A. He had also identified the bicycle at PS - Sultanpuri after about a week of the incident, which was got recovered by accused Ravi in case FIR No.373/11, PS - Sultanpuri. He also identified the said bicycle in STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 3 OF 14 4 court which was exhibited as Ex.P1.
PW2 Rajbir was running a bicycle repair shop at Prahladpur Road, Gram Sabha, Pooth Kalan, Delhi. He had sold bicycle to Shri Pradeep (PW1) on 05.05.2011 for consideration of Rs.1000/- and he issued a receipt regarding selling of the said bicycle which is Ex.PW2/A. This witness also correctly identified the bicycle Ex.P1 in Court as having been sold to PW1 Shri Pradeep.
PW3 Shri Rahul had taken the injured Mahesh Kumar to Brahmshakti Hospital in his TSR from the spot where he found him in injured condition.
PW4 Shri Udaivir heard some loud voice of girl on
09.08.2011 at about 4:45am at Laxmi Dairy, Kanjhawala Road, where he was on duty as chowkidar and he saw that a motorcycle and auto had already reached there and the injured was taken to Brahmshakti Hospital by the said auto driver.
PW5 Shri Manish was working as Manager in M/s.
Surender Singh & Company where deceased Mahesh Kumar had joined service as helper on 12.07.2011. He handed over to the IO as and when documents i.e. attendance card of the deceased for the month of August 2011 Ex.PW5/A, Copy of ESIC temporary identity certificate Ex.PW5/B, nomination and declaration form of the deceased Ex.PW5/C, ESIC declaration form Ex.PW5/D, mark-sheets Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F. Certificates Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/H, election Identity card Ex.PW5/J, C.V. Ex.PW5/K, copy of the register of wages for the month of August 2011 Ex.PW5/L and copy of the register of wages for the month of July, 2011 Ex.PW5/N. PW6 Ct. Anand Prakash deposited sealed pullandas from malkhana, PS-Sultanpuri to FSL, Rohini on 21.11.2011 and handed over a receipt the receipt to MHC(M).
PW7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra alongwith Dr. Munish STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 4 OF 14 5 Wadhwan had conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased Mahesh Kumar and the Postmortem Report has been proved as Ex.PW7/A. On examination of the dead body they found four external injuries and some internal injuries which have been mentioned in the Postmortem Report.
PW8 HC Kailash was posted as duty officer on 09.08.2011 in PS - Sultanpuri and he had received rukka from Ct. Dharambir which was sent by SI Kulbir and he registered the FIR in the present case. Copy of same is Ex.PW8/A. He made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW8/B. He had also recorded DD No.9A, copy of which is Ex.PW8/C. PW9 Shri Ramesh Kumar had identified the dead body of the deceased, who was his younger brother in SGM Hospital Mortuary. His Statement is proved as Ex.PW9/A. He received the dead body of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW9/B. PW10 Ct. Ramakant is the witness of the arrest of the accused Ravi, Vishal and Parvesh in case FIR No.373/11, PS- Sultanpuri. Accused persons made disclosure statement in the said case, which are exhibited as Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/C respectively. He further deposed that all the three accused persons had pointed out the place, where they had robbed a bicycle rider. Pointing out memos of each accused was prepared separately which are exhibited as Ex.PW10/F1, Ex.PW10/F2 and Ex./PW18/C respectively. He further deposed that accused Parvesh got recovered a knife (churi) from his residential jhuggi. The sketch of the knife was prepared as Ex.PW10/G and the same was converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of BB and taken into possession u/s.102 Cr.P.C. vide memo Ex.PW10/H. He further deposed that accused Vishal got recovered the attendance card from the second floor of his house, it was taken into possession u/s. 102 Cr.P.C. vide memo Ex.PW10/J. He further deposed that accused Ravi STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 5 OF 14 6 got recovered a bicycle from his Jhuggi which was taken into possession u/s. 102 Cr.P.C. vide memo Ex.PW18/B. He further correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court. He also correctly identified the bicycle Ex.P1 and knife as Ex.PX.
PW11 Dharmender Singh, ld. MM, Rohini Courts, had conducted TIP proceedings of accused Parvesh Kumar, who had refused to participate in the TIP. He has proved the said TIP proceedings qua accused Parvesh as Ex.PW11/B. PW12 WCT. Shashi Sharma was posted as Channel Operator at Channel No.114 in Police Control Room, who had recorded the call in question on 09.08.2011 and after typing the information she passed on the same to the communication staff. She has proved the attested copy of the print out of the PCR form as Ex.PW12/A. PW13 HC Hardev Singh was posted in PCR Van on 09.08.2011 and he had received the call from PCR and reached near Laxmi Dairy, Kanjhawala Road, where he met the guard of said dairy, who told that injured had been taken to Brahmshakti hospital in a TSR. On reaching at the said hospital, he came to know that the injured was referred to SGM Hospital and he took the injured to the SGM Hospital and got him admitted there. He has proved the relevant entry in call book registered as Ex.PW13/A. PW14 Ct. Narayan was posted as duty constable at SGM hospital and conveyed the information of death of Mahesh in PS-Sultanpuri vide DD No.47B on 11.08.2011.
PW15 Dr. Rajesh Dalal was posted as CMO, SGM Hospital and injured Mahesh Kumar was examined by Dr. Anuj under his supervision. The patient had come in injured condition with alleged history of physical assault (stab injury). He has proved his MLC as Ex.PW15/A. STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 6 OF 14 7 PW16 Wct. Kiran had typed the contents of FIR of the present case, it has already been proved as Ex.PW8/A. PW17 SI Manohar Lal had taken rough notes and measurements of the spot on the pointing out of the IO and he prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW17/A. PW18 Ct. Rajbir is the witness of the disclosure statement of accused Ravi Kumar in FIR No.373/2011 which pertains to the present case in pursuance to his disclosure statement, accused Ravi got recovered one bicycle from the back side of his jhuggi which used in the commission of crime of this case and the said bicycle was taken into possession u/s. 102 Cr.P.C. vide memo Ex.PW18/B by IO SI Bharat Bhushan in his presence. He is also a witness of the pointing out memo of accused Ravi Kumar made in the present case, which is Ex.PW18/C. This witness correctly identified the bicycle which was got recovered by accused Ravi and the same is Ex.P1.
PW19 Ct. Jogender Singh had recorded DD No. 47B, which is Ex.PW19/A. PW20 HC Govind Singh was working as MHC(M) at the relevant time at PS - Sultanpuri and he had deposited the different pullandas, handed over to him by the IO of the present case and case FIR No.373/11, PS- Sultanpuri and he handed over certain pullandas to the police officials so that, they were deposited in the FSL.
PW21 Ct. Dharamvir Singh had accompanied SI Kulbir Singh, when they reached at the spot after receiving the DD No.9A and it was he who took the rukka to the police station and got the FIR registered on the directions of SI Kulbir Singh.
PW22 SI Kulbir Singh is the initial Investigating Officer of the case. After receiving the DD No.9A, he alongwith Ct.
STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 7 OF 14 8 Dharamvir reached at the spot. He collected the MLC of the injured at SGM hospital and found that there was stab injury on the right side of the stomach of the injured. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW22/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Dharamvir. He received sealed pullandas from the hospital alongwith sample seal which were seized vide memo Ex.PW21/A. He recorded the statement of Pradeep, who is the brother in law of the injured. After receiving intimation about the death of the injured, he got the inquest proceedings conducted. Autopsy was got conducted on the dead body of the deceased. Postmortem Examination was got conducted and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide receipt Ex.PW9/B. After postmortem examination, the doctors handed over pullandas containing blood gauze and sample seals which were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW22/D. He is also a witness to the arrest of the accused Parvesh, Vishal and Ravi on 27.08.2011 vide their arrest memos Ex.PW22/H, Ex.PW22/J and Ex.PW22/K respectively.
PW23 Dr. Munish Wadhawan (Specialist) alongwith Dr. Manoj Dhingra, SGM Hospital had conducted Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Mahesh Kumar and proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW7/A. The PM Report details the injuries which were found by the doctors on the body of the deceased. He also proved the examination done by Dr. Devesh when the deceased was initially brought in injured condition and he has proved the MLC as Ex.PW23/A. PW24 Sonu is the eyewitness of the incident and his testimony shall be dealt with in the later part of the judgment.
PW25 Dr. Ashish Goyal has proved the death summary of the deceased which was prepared by Dr. Neel Kamal and the same is Ex.PW25/A. STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 8 OF 14 9 PW26 Inspector K.P. Tomar had arrested all the three accused persons i.e. Vishal, Ravi and Parvesh vide arrest memos Ex.PW22/H, Ex.PW22/J and Ex.PW22/K respectively and he has also proved their personal search vide memos Ex.PW22/G, Ex.PW22/E and Ex.PW22/F respectively. All the said three accused persons made disclosure statements in this case which are exhibited as Ex.PW10/E2, Ex.PW10/E3 and Ex.PW10/E1 respectively. All the three accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW10/F1, Ex.PW10/F2 and Ex.PW10/F3 respectively. All the three accused persons refused to participate in TIP proceedings. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW26/E. PW27 Ct. Munawar Khan is the witness of the pointing out of the place of crime by all the three accused persons.
PW28 Inspector Satya Prakash got the exhibits deposited in FSL Rohini, through Ct. Anand Prakash. He recorded the statement of Shri Manish Manager of M/s. Surender Singh and Company. Who had handed over the identity car and other papers of the deceased Mahesh to the police which were seized vide memo Ex.PW28/A. After completion of the investigation he filed chargesheet in the Court.
9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all the three accused persons denied all the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in evidence against them. All of them claimed that they were falsely implicated in this case, on the basis of their false disclosure statement recorded FIR No.373/11, PS-Sultanpuri and that nothing was recovered at their instance. They did not lead any evidence in their defence.
10. The question arises whether the prosecution has been able to prove that whether the accused persons had robbed deceased Shri STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 9 OF 14 10 Mahesh Kumar and committed his murder on the fateful day.
11. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of eyewitness namely Shri Sonu, who has been examined as PW24 and the prosecution has attempted to link the accused with the offence on the basis of the alleged recoveries which were allegedly got effected by them.
12.Shri Sonu has been examined as PW24, who has deposed that on 09.08.2011 at about 5/5.15am, he was going for a morning walk and when he reached near Laxmi Dairy at Kanjhawala Road, he saw that one cyclist was coming from Kanjhawala side and he was robbed by three boys who were standing there. One of them was carrying churi, who stabbed the said cyclist. The other boy took out money from his pocket and they ran away from the spot. One of the accused ran away on the cycle of the injured and other two boys ran away on foot. The witness ran behind them but he was not able to apprehend them and he came back at the spot to help the injured, but he was not found there. Later on, he came to know that the said cyclist had expired. Police met him after two days and recorded his statement. He identified all the three accused persons present in the court and identified accused Parvesh as the person, who was carrying churi at that time. This witness was cross examined on 13.12.2012. Subsequently, application u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the accused Parvesh for recalling the said witness was allowed by the court and this witness was further cross examined on 31.07.2013 in which he has taken an opposite stand. In the said cross examination, he stated that he was shown a photograph of the accused by the police and there was some dark when the incident has happened as it was 5/5.30 a.m. Ld. Addl. PP for the State sought permission to re- examine the witness as some ambiguity has come in the statement of the witness and it was allowed by my ld. Predecessor Court. In the re-examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, he deposed that on STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 10 OF 14 11 13.12.2012 he had stated that accused Parvesh had stabbed the cyclist, but he had stated so because IO had told him that Parvesh had stabbed the cyclist. He denied the suggestion of the State that he had wrongly stated that he had not seen the accused persons properly due to darkness.
13.It is stated by ld. Addl. PP for the State that since this witness has supported the case of the prosecution in the examination in chief and he has turned hostile only in the further cross examination, which was conducted after about seven months of the previous examination, the court must discard the cross examination and the court can rely on the examination in chief of the witness and it has been so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Khujji @ Surender Tiwari vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1853.
14.On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the defence has refuted the said contention of the State and it is stated that testimony of Sonu is full of infirmities and is not believable and that he is a planted witness.
15.Although, there is merit in the contention of the ld. Addl. PP for the State that in view of the said authority i.e. Khujji vs State of M.P. (supra) since the witness has turned hostile in the cross examination, which was conducted after about 7 months of the initial examination, the court can discard the cross examination and rely on the examination in chief of the witness. But, in my view the testimony of this witness is not reliable and has rightly argued by ld. Counsel for the defence that he appears to be planted witness.
16. It is relevant here to state that the incident in question occurred on 09.08.2011. SI Kulbir Singh was the initial IO of the case. He remained IO till 12.08.2011. For full four days he conducted the investigation of this case and he did not come across any eyewitness to the incident. On 13.08.2011 the investigation of this case was taken over by Inspector K.P. Tomar and on the same day when he STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 11 OF 14 12 started searching for the accused and went to the spot, he met Sonu who claimed himself to be the eyewitness to be eyewitness of the incident. He recorded the statement of Sonu and proceeded with the investigation of this case. It is nowhere explained by Inspector K.P. Tomar is to in what circumstance he had met the said Sonu and why the said Sonu did not come in contact with the previous IO/SI Kulbir Singh. It is relevant here to state that till 12.08.2011, the IO had not inkling as to who were the perpetrators of the crime. It is further relevant here to state that the testimony of Sonu (PW24) also does not inspire confidence. After the incident he allegedly ran behind the accused but when he could not apprehend them, he came back at the spot but the injured was not found there. He did not make any effort to inform at the local police station that he had seen the said incident. He did not even bother to dial Police Control Room on 100 number and inform the police in that regard. It is also strange that when he saw that the victim was stabbed by the accused persons, he instead of helping him, preferred to run behind the accused persons knowing that there was no other person to help him on the spot. It is not clear as to how far distance was covered by him chasing the accused persons and he came on the spot after how much time. All these leads to the thought that he may not have seen the incident. It appears that he has been introduced by the police only to solve this case when police was getting no other lead in the matter. It is not out of place here to mention that in the cross examination dated 31.07.2013 he has backtracked from his initial statement and has not fully supported the case of prosecution.
17.Besides the testimony of PW Sonu, the prosecution has attempted to connect the accused persons with the offence in question on the basis of recoveries which were got effected by them in case FIR No. 373/11, PS Sultanpuri linking them to the offence in question.
18.All the three accused persons were arrested in case FIR No.373/11, STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 12 OF 14 13 dated 13.08.2011, u/s. 307/382/394/411/34 IPC, PS - Sultanpuri and in the said case they allegedly made disclosure statement about the commission of the offence of the present case. It is relevant to say that accused persons were acquitted by the Court in the said case. Accused Ravi Kumar allegedly got recovered cycle which as per the case of the prosecution belonged to the deceased and the accused had run away with the cycle after the commission of the offence. The said cycle was seized u/s. 102 Cr.P.C. and the copy of the seizure memo has been proved is Ex.PW18/B. Similarly accused Vishal @ Bhutani got recovered certain documents of the deceased i.e. one card on which Surender Singh and Company was written, attendance card, Card No.1357 ESI belonging to the deceased from the first floor of his house. Accused Parvesh got recovered the knife with which he had stabbed the deceased at the time of commission of said offence.
19.Such type of recoveries from the accused have to be viewed in the light of various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, where such kind of recoveries have been held to be very weak evidence way back in the year 1943 Hon'ble Justice Muneer in the decision reported as AIR 1943 Null 5 Shera Vs. Emperor had cautioned the court to be vigilant against the known practice of the police to plant ordinary objects on the accused persons to prove access by the accused to the place where the crime was committed.
In the decision reported as AIR 1963 SC 1113 Prabhu Vs. State of U.P., the recovery of blood stained shirt and a Dhoti and also an axe on which human blood was detected was held to be weak evidence.
In Mani Vs.State of Tamilnadu JT 2008 (1) SC 191 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered the recoveries of blood stained clothes and the weapon of the offence stained with human blood is weak recoveries.
STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 13 OF 14 14
20.In the present case, the recoveries which were allegedly got effected by the accused are very weak piece of evidence. Accused Vishal @ Bhutani allegedly got recovered from his house attendance card and ESI Card of the deceased, but these documents were not of any use to him and hence, it was not expected that he would keep these articles at his home waiting for the police to come and arrest him with these incriminating papers. It is against the general rule of human conduct that any accused would keep these like articles/papers of the deceased with him after the commission of offence. Same applies to the recovery of cycle allegedly got made by accused Ravi Kumar. The knife which was allegedly got recovered by accused Parvesh did not have any blood stains and it has been so mentioned in the FSL Report. Hence, how can it be presumed that this knife was used in the commission of offence in the present case.
21.If we exclude the testimony of PW Sonu and the alleged recoveries which were got effected at the instance of the accused persons, there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the offence in question.
22.In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Benefit of doubt is granted to the accused persons and they are acquitted from this case. All the accused persons are in JC, they be released from JC forthwith, if not required in any other case.
23.However, they are directed to furnish their personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each, with one surety each of like amount in compliance of the provision u/s. 437A Cr.P.C. within a week. File be consigned to record.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DEEPAK GARG) ON 20.09.2014. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-01: (NORTH):
ROHINI:DELHI.
STATE VS RAVI & OTHERS // SC NO.162/11// FIR NO.364/11//PSSULTANPURI//U/S. 302/397/392/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act PAGE 14 OF 14