Delhi District Court
State vs . Dinesh Kumar Sharma on 30 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. COLETTE RASHMI KUJUR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma
FIR No. 621/2001
PS : Uttam Nagar
U/s 279/304A/337 IPC
Date of Institution : 18.10.2002
Date of reserving of order : 23.05.2019
Date of Judgment : 30.05.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 6233/2019
2. Name of the Complainant : Subhash chand
S/o Sh. Vishnu Dutt
R/o WZ258, B/2, Shaheed
Chander Marg
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
3. Date of commission of offence : 10.08.2001
4. Name of accused person : Dinesh Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Shri Lal Sharma
R/o B2/31, Sewak Park
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
5. Offence charged : U/s 279/304A/337 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : Convicted
FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 1 of 20
P.S. Uttam Nagar
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 279/304A/337, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 10.08.2001 at 07:20 am, at Main Najafgarh road near Mini bus stand, accused Dinesh Kumar Sharma was driving the vehicle bearing registration no. HR468110 on the public way in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause injury to any other person and struck it against a rickshaw and thereby caused death of one Adrija not amounting to culpable homicide and also caused simple injuries on the person of Surajit and Suranjana.
2. Complaint was made and FIR was registered. IO conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed for offences punishable under Section 279/304A/337 IPC. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused was summoned to face trial. The copies were supplied under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 24.11.2004 notice for offence u/s 279/304A/337 IPC was served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution Witnesses were summoned for evidence and FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 2 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar sixteen prosecution witnesses were examined to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused.
(i) PW1 Suranjana was one of the injured. She deposed before the court that on 10.08.2001 she alongwith her brother Surujeet Kumar and cousin Adrija Chowdhary left their house at about 07:00 am for going to Uttam Nagar Terminal so as to catch their school bus in a rickshaw. When they reached near Mini bus terminal, a tempo bearing registration no. HR468110 came from the back side and hit against their rickshaw, as a result of the impact their rickshaw turned turtle and all of them fell down. All of them sustained injuries on their person. Adrija sustained injuries on her head and became unconscious at the spot whereas PW1 and her brother sustained minor injuries.
The said tempo which hit against their rickshaw was stopped by the general public at some distance from the place of incident and the driver of said tempo was brought down. They were taken to Mata Chanan Devi hospital by some public persons where they were medically examined. She further deposed that their rickshaw was on the extreme left side of the road whereas the other part of the road was empty at the time of accident. The tempo was being driven in a negligent manner as the same hit against their rickshaw from the back despite the fact that the road was vacant.
Witness correctly identified the accused before the court. In her crossexamination, she stated that they used to leave for their school at about 7:00 pm. Their school bus generally reaches at Uttam Nagar bus terminal at 07:20 07:25 am. Their house FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 3 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar is situated at a distance of about one km from the bus terminal. She admitted that near the place of incident underground sewer work was in progress because of which part of the road was dug out. She admitted that at the time of incident there was no central verge on that road. At that time, about 1015 persons gathered at the spot. None of the persons from the general public offered water and medicines to anyone of them at the spot. They were taken to hospital by a TSR driver and one person from the general public came with them on his two wheeler scooter. She did not know the name of the TSR driver or its registration number. Police did not meet her in the hospital during her medical examination. The person who came from the spot to hospital with them informed her family after sometime after leaving them in the hospital. She could not tell the time when the TSR driver left the hospital. Her family members reached the hospital in about 30 minutes from the time of information. Her statement was recorded by the police but she did not remember exactly whether it was recorded on the same day or on the following day of the incident. Her statement was recorded at her house by the police. At the time of accident, she had seen the registration number of the offending vehicle, which she remembered and thereafter, she noted down on a piece of paper for future use. She had not given that piece of paper to the IO. The rickshaw puller had also sustained injuries but he did not come with them to the hospital. She denied the suggestion that rickshaw puller was beaten by the public. She denied the suggestion that accident took place because of the negligence of rickshaw puller. She denied the FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 4 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar suggestion that accident had not taken place because of negligence of the accused. She denied the suggestion that accident had taken place because one wheel of the rickshaw fell into the ditch as road was dug and rickshaw turned over and they fell down.
(ii) PW2 Subhash Chand was the Complainant/eye witness. He deposed before the court that he was having a tea stall in a Khoka near mini bus stand, which was just adjacent to Shiv Mandir on the Najafgarh Road. On 10.08.2001, at about 7/7.15 am, he was present at his said stall. At that time, a rickshaw was coming from the side of Najafgarh and was going towards Uttam Nagar bus terminal in which three school children were sitting, a TATA 709 bearing registration no. HR468110 came from the back side of the rickshaw being driven at a very fast speed and the driver of the said tempo hit the said rickshaw from back side with a great impact, as a result of impact, the rickshaw turned and the children fell down. He alongwith some other persons stopped the said tempo at some distance from the place of incident. One of the three children had sustained major injuries. He took telephone number from the other child and informed their family members and sent all the three children in a TSR to Mata Chanan Devi hospital. Family members of those children first came to the spot and when he told them that their children had been sent to Mata Chanan Devi hospital they left for the hospital. He proved his statement as Ex. PW2/A, seizure memo of tempo as Ex. PW2/B, seizure memo of rickshaw as Ex. PW2/C, personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW2/D, seizure memo of documents as Ex. PW2/E & FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 5 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar Ex. PW2/F. He further deposed that the accident had taken place because of the negligent driving of the accused as he was driving the tempo at a fast speed and hit the rickshaw from its back.
Witness correctly identified the accused before the court. In his crossexamination, he stated that usually he starts his tea stall at bus stand at about 5 am. He further stated that at the time of accident, 78 customers were present at his tea shop and they also saw the accident. Police did not record the statement of his customers who were present there at that time. He further stated that after the accident 75 public persons had gathered at the spot. He had picked the child who expired at the spot itself and kept her in a TSR and thereafter, he made a call at the house of those children after taking the number from the other children. He did not remember whether anyone from the general public accompanied those children to the hospital or not. However, police went with them to the hospital from the spot. Police reached at the spot after about 1015 minutes of receipt of information. The rickshaw puller also received scratches injuries in the accident but he was not removed to the hospital. Police recorded his statement at 7 am at the PS. He admitted that sewer work was in progress at that time. Some soil spread out on the road and the road was dug up. He saw the tempo for the first time from the distance of 1520 feet prior to the accident. He did not remember whether police had lifted the blood stained soil from the spot or not. His clothes were also stained with blood and the same were not taken into possession by the police. None gave beatings to the rickshaw puller in FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 6 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar his presence. He further stated that colour of the offending vehicle was light green and the front portion of the vehicle was painted red. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed that incident. He denied the suggestion that accident had taken place because of the negligence of rickshaw puller. He denied the suggestion that accident had taken place because one wheel of rickshaw fell into a ditch as road was dug as a result of which the rickshaw turned upside down.
(iii) PW3 Surojit Kumar Maji was also the injured. He deposed before the court that on 10.08.2001, he alongwith his elder sister namely Suranjana Maji and his cousin Adrija Chaudhary left their house at about 7 am for going to Uttam Nagar, bus terminal to catch their school bus. They were going to Uttam Nagar on a cycle rickshaw and when they reached near Mini bus stand, one tempo bearing no. HR 46 8110 came from their back side and hit against their rickshaw. Due to which, their rickshaw turned turtle and they fell down. He further deposed that "We received injuries Adrija sustained injuries on her hand and I received injuries on my hand and knee". The said tampo driver was apprehended near the spot by the public persons. Public persons helped them and took them to Mata Chanan Devi hospital, Janakpuri, Delhi. PW3 and his sister Suranjana were discharged on the same day after medical treatment and they came back to their residence. Adrija was admitted in the ICU of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and Adrija expired due to the injuries received in the accident.
Witness correctly identified the accused before the court.
FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 7 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar In his crossexamination, he stated that distance between his residence and spot was about one km. He did not know the name of rickshaw puller. Rickshaw puller also fell down. Accused was stopped by the public persons at the distance of 1820 meters approximately. They were taken to hospital in a three wheeler. One two wheeler rider also accompanied them. He did not remember whether site plan was prepared in his presence or not. He remained at the hospital for about half an hour. He did not visit the spot again, however, his relatives and parents visited the spot. He denied the suggestion that no such accident had taken place.
(iv) PW4 Shri Pronob Chaaudhary was father of deceased Adrija Chaudhary who received the dead body of his daughter Adrija Chaudhary after postmortem vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He was duly crossexamined and discharged.
(v) PW5 Retired ASI Devender Kumar was Mechanical inspector who had mechanically inspected the Tata Tempo no. HR6/8110 and proved his report as Ex. PW5/A. In his crossexamination, he stated that he took 3040 minutes in conducting the mechanical inspection of the said vehicle. He denied the suggestion that fuel pump of the aforesaid tempo was leaking at the time of mechanical inspection.
(vi) PW6 W/ASI Vinod Sharm was Duty Officer who proved FIR as Ex.PW6/A and rukka as Ex. PW6/B. Accused did not prefer to crossexamine the witness despite liberty.
FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 8 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar
(vii) PW7 Somnath Choudhary was uncle of deceased Adreja Choudhary who proved his statement as Ex. PW7/A and handing over memo of dead body of Adreja Choudhary as Ex. PW4/C. Accused did not prefer to crossexamine the witness despite liberty.
(viii) PW8 was Ct. Vishnu Dayal Sharma. He deposed before the court that on 10.08.2001, he alongwith HC Mool Chand went to the spot at Mini bus stand, Main Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, on DD No. 24A. One tempo Tata 409 bearing no. HR468110 and one cycle rickshaw were found in the accidental condition at the spot. One person namely Subhash Chand who had apprehended the driver/accused Dinesh Kumar and handed over the accused to HC Mool Chand. He proved arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW8/A, photographs of offending vehicle as Ex. PW8/1 and Ex. PW8/2.
In his crossexamination, he stated that IO received a call at about 07:20 am regarding the accident. They went to the spot on the scooter. There were so many public at the spot. IO also inquired from other public witnesses other than Suhas but they left the spot without telling their names and addresses. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused or that he never went to the spot and never joined the investigation.
(ix) PW9 Retired HC Satyapal was the MHC(M) who proved entry no. 1831 in register no. 19 as Ex. PW9/A vide which HC Mool Chand had deposited one Tempo bearing no. HR 46 8110 and one rickshaw in the malkhana, PS Uttam Nagar.
FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 9 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar In his crossexamination, he stated that he did not remember the date on which the said tempo was released on superdari.
(x) PW10 was Raj Kumar Makhija who identified the dead body of Adrija Chaudhary who was daughter of his neighbour and proved his statement as Ex. PW10/A. Accused did not prefer to crossexamine the witness despite liberty.
(xi) PW11 was Ct. Pratap Singh who joined the investigation with the IO and proved handing over memo of dead body of Adrija Chaudhary as Ex. PW4/A. Accused did not prefer to crossexamine the witness despite liberty.
(xii) PW12 ASI Mool Chand was the Investigating Officer. He deposed before the court and proved rukka as Ex. PW12/A and site plan as Ex. PW12/B. In his crossexamination, he stated that he reached at the spot at about 7:40 am on scooter alongwith Constable. The distance between the PS and spot was about 2 km. When he reached at the spot there were some people present at the spot. He did not ask the public persons to join the investigation. He remained at the spot at about 10 to 15 minutes. He denied the suggestion that offending vehicle i.e. Tata 709 had not committed the present accident.
(xiii) PW13 was Dr. Bikram Bhattacharya who proved MLC no. 82 & 83 as Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW13/B respectively.
(xiv) PW14 SI Hawa Singh was the Duty Officer who FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 10 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar proved call from wireless operator in roznamcha as DD No. 24A Ex. PW14/A and copy of order vide which record of DD No. 24A was destroyed by the order of Deputy Commissioner of Police as Ex. PW14/B. Accused did not prefer to crossexamine the witness despite liberty.
(xv) PW15 was Inspector Satyavir Janaula who further investigated the present case and filed challan before the court.
Accused did not prefer to crossexamine the witness despite liberty.
(xvi) PW16 was Dr. Nishu Dhawan. She deposed before the court and proved postmortem report prepared by Dr. Manoj Nagpal as Ex. PW16/A. Accused did not prefer to crossexamine the witness despite liberty.
5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
6. Statement of accused was recorded and all the incriminating evidence brought on record was put to the accused during which he submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that he did not wish to lead evidence in defence.
7. During the arguments, it is argued by the accused that the FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 11 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar credibility of the witness PW1 is doubtful as her statement was recorded at her house by the police and she does not even remember whether it was recorded on the same day or not. The witness had noted the number of the vehicle on a piece of paper but did not handover the same to the IO. The witness did not visit the spot with the police subsequently during the course of investigation.
It is further argued that the police did not record the statement of customers present at the shop of PW2 or other passerby.
Also, at that time sewer work was in progress in the area, which fact is admitted by PW2 and it was due to the dug up road and soil that the rickshaw turned and caused the death of a child. The police did not take the blood stained clothes of PW2.
Even as per PW3, he did not visit the spot again. It is argued that the rest are police witnesses and cannot by themselves prove the present case.
The accused has cited the following judgments in his support:
(I) Vinod Kumar Vs. State [2011 LawSuit (Del) 3032] to say that no evidence was placed on record to show that speed of the vehicle or the manner in which it was being driven to show rashness and negligence, especially when the area was crowded therefore case does not fall within the purview of section 279/304 A IPC. (II) Abdul Subhan Vs. State [2006 LawSuit(Del)2105] - to argue 'high speed' is an expression which is relative and subjective, speed does not necessarily mean negligently. Where site plan is not FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 12 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar exhibited, there is no evidence of skid marks, no photographs of their location, the mechanical inspection is superficial and cursory in nature and the point of impact cannot be ascertained, the prevalent weather conditions are not taken into account then the court is unable to arrive at a conclusion as to whether collusion took place due to human rashness or negligence or mechanical failure beyond human control. (III) Ram Chander Vs. State [2017 LawSuit(Del) 5594] - to say that mechanical inspection of the vehicle does not show fresh damage, even no blood stains were found on the vehicle then case u/s 304A IPC is not proved. To bring home the offence us 304 A IPC, the prosecution requires to bring on record the basic requirement i.e. rash or negligent act. It must be found that collision was entirely or at least mainly due to the rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner who was driving the vehicle.
8. The Ld. APP for the State on the other hand has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and clearly deposed that a tempo came from behind and hit against one rickshaw. The identity of the vehicle or its driver is undisputed. The accused/driver was apprehended from the spot. As per mechanical inspection report, there is fresh damage on the front left side body and bumper is scratched. PW5 was examined in this regard and whose inspection was not challenged. No suggestion with respect to fresh damage was put to him. In line with this observation Ex. PW2/C mentions that the rear right side wheel of the rickshaw was broken.
FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 13 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar The accused has suggested that rickshaw fell into the ditch as road was dug out but this defence was never reiterated in the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The defence is merely a sham and a clear case is made out against the accused. In fact this plea, has for the first time been brought at the stage of final arguments.
It is further argued by Ld. APP for the State that only two things that are needed to be proved for any case of an accident are (1) identification of the accused and (2) rash and negligent act. Both had been adequately proved by the prosecution. Ld. APP for the State has relied upon 2002 10 SCC 236 Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh; 2010 8 SCC 593 Parsavnath v. State of Karnataka; 2012 4 SCC 289 State of MP v. Brajendra Singh to argue that speed alone is not a criteria to reach to the conclusion about the rashness on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that driver should always keep the vehicle in a state of control to avoid dashing against vehicle/pedestrian. He has prayed for conviction of the accused.
9. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I have come to the following observations:
The accused has been charged u/s 279/304A/337 IPC. As per Section 279 IPC, whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 14 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
As per Section 304A IPC, "whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act, not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either of description for the term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both."
In order to prove Section 304A IPC, two things need to be proved (i) death is caused and (ii) death is caused due to rash and negligent act of the accused.
As per Section 337 IPC, whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
The main requirements to be proved are:
(a) hurt is caused;
(b) the act should be so rash and negligent that it endangers human life or personal safety of others.
10. In the present case, both the facts have been duly proved. The injuries upon the victims have also been duly proved.
11. The deposition of all the witnesses clearly and unambiguously state that the tempo was being driven in a negligent FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 15 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar manner as the same hit the rickshaw from behind despite the fact the road was vacant. It is categorically stated that when tempo hit the rickshaw it was stopped by the general public at some distance and driver of the said tempo was brought down. The witnesses identified the accused correctly. The other inconsistencies such as statement was recorded on the same day or not and whether blood stained clothes were collected from the spot or not is immaterial. Accident occurred, is itself not a disputed fact neither the death of child Adrija. The defence taken by accused that rashness and negligence is not proved is dealt with in judgments such as : It was the duty of accused while driving the offending vehicle to be careful about the public on the road, however, accused has failed to take such care. In this regard I would like to refer the judgment cited as AIR 1972 SC 685 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court explains the criminal rashness in the following words: "Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury, either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 16 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar adopted."
12. In 2004 CRI. L. J. 731, Paras Nath V. State of Delhi, Delhi High Court it has been held that "Rashness or negligence can be determined from the manner in which the accident had taken place. The appellant also admitted in his statement under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that accident had taken place with his truck but denied that it was due to negligent and rash driving on his part."
13. The present case is also based on the principle of res ispa loquitor which means that negligence can be inferred from the very nature of the accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any accident happened. It has been stated by the injured persons that while they were going on a rickshaw the tempo came from the back side and hit them from the back side. The mechanical inspection of the tempo and observation on Ex. PW2/C are quite obvious and corroborate the deposition of the witnesses. The facts of the case practically show that there was negligence on the part of the accused and nothing further remained to be proved.
14. Driver who is behind has to be cautious and careful of the traffic in front. It is also reasonable to say that the bigger the vehicle, the bigger its responsibility for the damage caused by it shall be bigger than that caused by lighter vehicles.
FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 17 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar
15. In Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (1957 SCR
981) the Hon'ble Supreme Court is Court had divided the nature of witnesses in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly, neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two categories they pose little difficulty but in the case of the third category of witnesses, corroboration would be required. It is a sound and wellestablished rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
i) Wholly reliable.
ii) Wholly unreliable.
iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
16. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 18 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.
17. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
"Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted".
18. It has been further observed in S.N. Hussain (Supra) as under:
"Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case".
19. Hence, in view of above discussion, I draw the inference that when the factum of rashness and negligence has been duly proved and the injuries are also not in dispute and further the identity of the accused is also established convincingly, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt u/s 279/304A/337 IPC.
20. Accordingly, accused Dinesh Kumar Sharma stands FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 19 of 20 P.S. Uttam Nagar convicted u/s 279/304A/337 IPC.
17. Now to come up for arguments on sentence on 02.07.2019.
Pronounced in the open court
on 30.05.2019 (COLETTE RASHMI KUJUR)
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Digitally signed
by COLETTE
COLETTE RASHMI
RASHMI KUJUR
Date:
KUJUR 2019.06.22
17:16:37 +0530
FIR No.621/2001 State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Page No. 20 of 20
P.S. Uttam Nagar