Delhi District Court
Sc No. 58335/16 Fir No.177/2009 Ps Model ... vs . Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 1 Of 42 on 28 November, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02, NORTH
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
STATE CASE No...................................58335/16
FIR No. 177/2009
P.S. Model Town
U/s. 354/509 IPC
& U/s. 3(1) (x) & (xi) of
Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989
State
Versus
Akhilesh Pratap Singh
S/o. Late Sh. Ram Dev
R/o. B59, CC Colony,
Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.
Date of institution: 08.04.2010
Judgment reserved on: 12.11.2018
Judgment delivered on: 28.11.2018
ORDER/JUDGMENT : Accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh stands
acquitted of the charge(s) u/S. 354/509 IPC
as well as for offence(s) punishable u/s 3(1)
(x) & (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
J U D G M E N T
1.The prosecution story as set out in the chargesheet is that on SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 1 of 42 2 03.06.2009, a written complaint was lodged by Sh. Kishan Lal S/o Sh. Kale Ram R/o A361, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. In his complaint, complainant Sh. Kishan Lal had alleged :
"That he is a resident of A361 Jahangir Puri Delhi and he along with his wife have been putting press table at CC Colony. For the last many months, Akhilesh Pratap Singh R/o B59, First Floor, CC Colony, who had also been calling himself in the name of Akhilesh Manav had been using obscene words against the residents of the locality and due to said acts, it was difficult for the ladies of the locality to live in the said locality. Complainant also alleged that time and again accused used to put off his clothes and used to dance in naked condition and accused used to give obscene signals to the ladies and children and used to utter obscene words. Complainant also alleged that on 12.03.2009 accused Akhilesh had teased his wife and tried to outrage her modesty.
When his wife raised alarm, accused ran away from there. Complainant also alleged that when his wife narrated the said facts to him, on 14.03.2009 he along with his relative Rameshwari at about 5 pm went to the house of Akhilesh Manav and prayed with folded hands for notrepeating such kinds of acts, but Akhilesh SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 2 of 42 3 Pratap used obscene words in loud voice and had also passed casteism remarks against him and also threatened him that in case complainant would again visit there, he would not be spared and would be killed. The complainant also alleged that upon hearing the said castiest remarks, he went into shock and started crying as the said words were also heard by his relatives and neighbours. Complainant also alleged that due to passing of castiest remarks, he remained ill for about three days and was not able to eat food properly. Complainant thus prayed that an appropriate legal action be taken against Akhilesh Manav otherwise he would take his life".
2. On the basis of contents of said complaint, SHO, PS Model Town made an endorsement for registration of a case under Section 354/509 IPC and Section 3 of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and for handing over the investigation to Sh. Prem Nath, ACP (PG), North West District. During investigation on 05.06.2009, IO prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence and also recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses namely Rameshwari Devi W/o Kishan Lal. During investigation, IO also recorded the statement of other witnesses.
SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 3 of 42 4 During investigation on 17.09.2009, IO also effected the arrest of accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh. Upon completion of investigations, the investigating agency prepared the chargesheet for the offences punishable under Section 354/509 IPC and Section 3 of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh.
3. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 28.05.2010, a charge u/s 354/509 IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) and XI of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 was framed against accused Akhilesh Pratap to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case.
a) PW1 is W/ASI Geeta Rani, Duty Officer, who tendered her examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She also relied upon the documents i.e. copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A, endorsement Ex.PW1/B made on rukka.
b) PW2 is complainant Kishan Lal who has supported the contents of his complainant and exhibited his complaint as Ex.PW2/A. He also exhibited his three statements as Ex.PW2/PX1, Ex.PW2/PX2 and Ex.PW2/PX3. He also deposed during investigation, IO / ACP prepared the site plan at the instance of his wife and seized caste certificate vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. He also deposed that IO SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 4 of 42 5 formally arrested accused Akhilesh Pratap vide memo Ex.PW2/C.
c) PW3 is Sh. Anil Kumar Singh who had brought the summoned record i.e. Caste Verification Record of Kishan Lal. He exhibited the certified copy of relevant record as Ex.PW3/A.
d) PW4 is Sh. Mahesh Taneja a public witness who has deposed regarding incident dated 12.03.2009 as well as incident dated 14.03.2009. He also deposed in respect to castiest remarks made by accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh against complainant Kishan Lal.
He also identified accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh during his testimony in the Court.
e) PW5 is Smt. Bhagwati who is the wife of complainant Kishan Lal. She has deposed regarding incident dated 12.03.2009 as well as incident dated 14.03.2009. She also deposed in respect to castiest remarks made by accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh against complainant Kishan Lal. She also exhibited the seizure memo of caste certificate as Ex.PW2/A and also exhibited the caste certificate as Ex.PW5/A. She also identified accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh during her testimony in the Court.
f) PW6 is Sh. Rameshwar Katariya also a public witness who has deposed regarding incident dated 14.03.2009. He also deposed in respect to castiest remarks made by accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh against complainant Kishan Lal. He also identified accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh during his testimony in the Court.
g) PW7 is Sh. Satish Malik another public witness who has deposed regarding incident dated 14.03.2009. He also deposed in SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 5 of 42 6 respect to castiest remarks made by accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh against complainant Kishan Lal. He also identified accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh during his testimony in the Court.
h) PW8 is Sh. Vijay Gandhi, another public witness, who has deposed regarding incident dated 12.03.2009 as well as incident dated 14.03.2009. He also deposed with respect to castiest remarks made by accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh against complainant Kishan Lal. He also identified accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh during his testimony in the Court.
i) PW9 is Sh. Manoj Kumar yet another public witness, who has deposed regarding incident dated 12.03.2009 as well as incident dated 14.03.2009. He also deposed in respect of castiest remarks made by accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh against complainant Kishan Lal. He also identified accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh during his testimony in the Court.
j) PW9 is Sh. Raj Kumar another public witness, who has deposed regarding incident dated 12.03.2009 as well as incident dated 14.03.2009. He also deposed in respect to castiest remarks made by accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh against complainant Kishan Lal. He also identified accused Akhilesh Pratap Singh during his testimony in the Court.
k) PW11 is the investigating officer i.e. ACP Sh. Prem Nath who had conducted the investigation and during the investigations seized caste certificate Ex.PW5/A vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. He also verified the said caste certificate from the office of SDM SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 6 of 42 7 concerned. He also recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared site plan Ex.PW11/A. He also formally arrested accused Akhilesh as he was granted anticipatory bail by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He also served notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW11/B on the brother of accused and also effected arrest of accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C. Upon completion of investigations, he prepared and filed the chargesheet.
5. Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the entire incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to him, in which the defence of the accused was that he had been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. He also stated that the entire evidence appearing against him was false. However, he chose to lead evidence in his defence and during defence evidence, the accused examined himself as defence witness under Section 315 Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP for the State along with Sh. J. H. Jafri and Sh. Veer Prakash, Ld. Counsels for the complainant and Sh. Gunjan Kathpalia, Ld. Counsel for the accused and also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties.
7. The Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that all the prosecution witnesses examined in this case namely PW2 Kishan Lal, PW4 SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 7 of 42 8 Mahesh Taneja, PW5 Smt. Bhagwati, PW6 Rameshwar Katari, PW7 Satish Malik, PW8 Vijay Gandhi, PW9 Manoj Kumar, PW10 Raj Kumar are interested witnesses and none of them is the independent witnesses not connected with each other. As he had repeatedly lodged complaints against the complainant PW2 Kishan Lal, who was doing the work of ironing the clothes in front of house no. B58, C. C. Colony and PW5 is his wife Smt. Bhagwati and PW6 Rameshwar is the brotherinlaw of PW2 and all the remaining witnesses are interested witnesses, who had an axe to grind against the accused, as he had been lodging various complaint from time to time against them. In fact, the said complaints have been proved during the testimony of DW1 as Ex. DW1/A to Ex. DW1/R, which shows that they are the interested witnesses.
It is also argued that the investigations carried out by the IO were motivated and biased, which is apparent from the reading of his crossexamination. It is also contended that no incident dated 12.03.2009 or 14.03.2009 ever took place, as alleged by the prosecution. It is argued that the entire story is concocted. It is argued that since all the material witnesses are interested witnesses therefore, the alleged incident dated 14.03.2009 cannot be said to be in public view. It is also argued that regarding the incident of alleged molestation / obscene words, all the witnesses have been introduced by the prosecution at the behest of the IO and the complainant PW2 and his wife PW5 Bhagwati.
SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 8 of 42 9 It is also argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR of two days, which has not been explained. It is also argued that none of the witnesses made any complaint to the police regarding the incident dated 12.03.2009 by even making PCR call. It is further argued that it is hard to imagine that all the public witnesses who were busy businessman / professionals were present at the time of both the incidents, which took place at 2:00 pm after noon and 5:00 pm respectively, whereas, he has examined himself as DW1 in which he has proved various complaints filed against all the above witnesses, which are Ex. DW1/A to DW1/R respectively which shows that they were waiting for an opportunity to falsely implicate him in this case.
He has also argued that the IO had failed to show any order by which he was appointed, which is necessary, as per Rule 7 of the SC / ST Rules 1995, as no such order has been produced on the record. He further argued that even the original complaint has not been produced before the Court, therefore, he submits that in these facts and circumstances the accused deserves to be acquitted.
In support of his contentions, Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon the judgments Sajjan Kumar Vs. State & Anr 132(2006) Delhi Law Times, DR. Narendra Bhojram Patil VS. State of Maharashtra 2010 CrI.L.J. 2762, Thangarasu & Anr. Vs. State 2010 Crl.L.J. 1299, Kailas Govind Wadekar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2010 Crl.L.J. 2752, Jwahir Sharma & Anr. Vs. SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 9 of 42 10 State of U.P. & Anr. 2010 Crl.L.J. 1528, Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan II(2006) SLT 513, Chandra Poojari Vs. State of Karnataka II (1998) CCR 129 and Deepa Bajwa Vs. State & Ors. 2004 (77) DRJ 725.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant along with Ld. Addl. PP for the State have vehemently opposed the above contentions, stating that all the material prosecution witnesses PW2 Kishan Lal, PW4 Mahesh Taneja, PW5 Smt. Bhagwati, PW6 Rameshwar Katari, PW7 Satish Malik, PW8 Vijay Gandhi, PW9 Manoj Kumar, PW10 Raj Kumar have deposed against the accused regarding the incident dated 12.03.2009 of molestation and obscene words and also with regard to the incident dated 14.03.2009 of making castiest remarks in full public view and nothing has come out in their crossexamination which could show that the said witnesses were not truthful.
It is further argued that the said castiest were made in presence of independent witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and there is no reason why PW5 Smt. Bhagwati would depose falsely regarding the incident of molestation by saying obscene words and making obscene gestures, therefore they submit that the prosecution has been able to prove its case u/S. 354/509 IPC as u/S. 3(1)(x) & (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, beyond any shadow of doubt.
SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 10 of 42 11
9. With regard to the charge(s) u/S. 3 (i)(x) & (xi) of SC / ST Act, the relevant law in this regard is as under :
It has been held in W.P (Crl.) 3083/2016 decided on 03.07.2017, titled as Gayatri vs. State and ors that: "3. (1) whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,........
(x) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.
II "15. Basic ingredients for the offence under Clause (x) of Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act, revealed through the bare reading of this section are as follows: (a) there should be intentional insult or intimidation by a person, who is not a member of SC or ST; (b) the insult must be with an intent to humiliate the member of the SC or ST As the intent to humiliate is necessary, it follows that the accused must have knowledge or awareness that the victim belongs to the SC or ST this can be inferred even SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 11 of 42 12 from long association; and (c) the incident must occur in any place within the public view. There cannot be any dispute that the offence can be committed at any place whether it is a private place or a "public view" as long as it is within the "public view". The requirement of "public view" can be satisfied even in a private place, where the public is present....."
III " In the present case, we are concerned with the first two ingredients and it emerges therefrom that a case wold fall under the first sub section only when the person making the derogatory utterance knows that the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating in the name of the caste was a member of SC or ST.
If he had no knowledge of his caste status, the offence under subsection (1) (x) would not be constituted. Similarly if his utterance was not directed against a member of SC/ST in contradistinction to a group of members of SC/ST or the community as a whole, it would not again make out an offence under sub section (1) (x). The word "a member" occurring in the provision assumes crucial SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 12 of 42 13 importance in this context and leaves no scope for doubt that it must be directed against the individual member and not against a group of members or the crowd or the public in general though these may comprise of SC/ST. If it is made in generalized terms against all and sundry and it is not individual specific in the name of caste, if would not make out an offence under the subsection, the rationale being that intentional insult, intimidation and humiliation made in the name of caste was liable to be caused to a person and in this case to an individual member of SC/ST and not to a group of members or public in general.
IV. Daya Bhatnagar (Supra) was a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge on a reference being made to him on account of a difference of opinion between two learned judges constituting the Division Bench. The learned single Judge S.K. Aggarwal, J. concurred with the view of B.A. Khan, J and disagreed with the view of V.S. Aggarwal, J. S.K. Aggarwal J. approved the following observation of B.A. Khan, J. in his opinion:
"If the accused does not know that the SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 13 of 42 14 person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating is a member of SC or ST, an offence under this section would not be constituted. Similarly, if he does not do all this at any place within "place view", the offence would not be made out. Therefore, to attract an offence under section 3 (i) (x), an accused must know that victim belongs to SC/ST caste and he must intentionally insult, intimidate him/her at a place within "public view". The place need not be a public place. It could be even at a private place provided the utterance was made within "public view".
V. S.K. Aggarwal, J. proceeded to examine the meaning of the expression "public view" used in section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. He referred to the meaning of the word "public" found in legal dictionaries, and also referred to the statement of Object and Reasons of the SC/ST Act. After analyzing the provisions of the SC/ST Act and in particular subclause (X) of Section 3 (1) of the said Actwhich makes "utterances punishable", he observed:
"The Legislature required 'intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of Insult', SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 14 of 42 15 "Intimidation" and "humiliation" of a member of the Scheduled Casts of Scheduled Tribe in any place within "public view". Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking at the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3 (i) (x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded. I am again in agreement with the interpretation put on the expression "public view" by learned Mr. Justice B.A Khan. The relevant portion of his judgment reads as under: "I accordingly hold that expression within "public view" occurring in section 3 (i) (x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 15 of 42 16 people of the place/locality/village as distinct from few who are not private and are as good as stranger and not linked with the complainant through any close relationship or any business, commercial or any other vested interest and who are not participating members with him in any way. If such group of people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of 'public view, within the meaning of the expression used. It has been held in W.P (Crl) no. 1593/2006 and Crl. M.A. No. 6859/2006, decided on 09.01.2009, titled as Ashwani Kumar vs. State and Anr. Proposition of law thus is clear. Simply because section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act finds mention in the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to conclude that prima facie an offence under the alone said Section of SC/ST Act has been made out. Judicial scrutiny of the documents in such like cases is permissible to evaluate whether the material relied upon by the prosecution revealed that existence of basic ingredients of the offence or not. For that limited purpose, the Court can sift and weigh the material placed before it, before examining the question whether on the allegations SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 16 of 42 17 made in the FIR, prima facie any offence under section 3(1) (x) act is made out.
As an adjective, 'public' wold have meaning upon the subjects to which it is applied. SC/ST Act has been enacted with a view to protect a weaker section of the Society from various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against SC/STs which find enumeration in section 3 of the SC/ST Act as Constituting an offence court has to keep in mind that offence under the SC/ST Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishment an therefore, stronger proof is required, Court has to adopt an interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief which might have been played and advances the object of the Act. Therefore, 'public view' appearing in section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act has to be interpreted to mean the presence of the public persons, however small may be, and those persons are independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant have to be excluded from the definition of 'public view'. I accordingly hold that expression within SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 17 of 42 18 'public view' occurring in Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of people of the place/locality/village as distinct from few who are not private and are as good as strangers and not linked with the complainant through any close relationship or any business, commercial or any other vested interest and who are not participating members with him in any way. If such group of people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of 'public view' within the meaning of the expression used. Public view envisages that public persons present there should be independent, impartial and not having any commercial or business relationship, or other linkage with the complainant. It would also not include persons who have any previous enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. However, merely because a witness, who is otherwise neutral or impartial and who happens to be present at the house of the victim, by itself, cannot be disqualified.
10. Regarding the incident dated 12.03.2009, the relevant SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 18 of 42 19 deposition of PW5 Smt. Bhagwati is reproduced as under :
I used to iron the clothes alongwith my husband Kishan Lal on the patri in front of the House No. B58 CC Colony. On 12.03.2009 at about 2 - 2.30 p.m. I was in process of ironing the clothes, Aklesh Pratap Singh R/o. B59, CC Colony came from my back side and caught hold of me from behind (Peeche Se Kohli Bhar Li) and molested me and he was saying that Aaj Tere Ko Nahi Chorunga. I got scared and raised alarm. Thereafter, Akhlesh Pratap Singh ran away form there. Residents of the CC Colony gathered there after hearing my shouting. I told all the facts to them. My husband came at the house at the night time as he had gone to attend the bereavement. I also told all the facts to my husband and he also upset after hearing these facts. On the next day we did not go to our work place as we were depressed.
11. Regarding the incident dated 14.03.2009, the relevant deposition of PW2 Kishan Lal is reproduced as under :
On 14.3.2009 I along with one of my relatives Rameshwar went to the house of the accused SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 19 of 42 20 from the back side as the entry to his house on the first floor is from the back lane. In the back lane I made inquiries from some persons about the accused on which I was told that the accused Akhilesh Mavav is sitting in the balcony on the first floor. On hearing this I again came to the front side and I saw the accused sitting in the balcony. With folded hands I told the accused Aap bare aadmi ho. Aapko to aur mil jayenge. Aapne meri biwi ke saath galat aur ashlil harkatein ki hain. Aap bare loog ho. Aage se aisa no ho. On hearing this the accused started abusing me by shouting at me (chilla ke maa behen ki galoyaan di) and said dhobi teri itni aukat ki tu muje aurtoon ke bare mein batayega. Tum dhobi, chamar, khatik ki autroon ki koi izzat hoti hai kya. Yeh to hamre purane zamaner se dil behlane ke kaam aati rahin hai. While the acused was screaming at the top of his voice, the neighbours and the public persons gathered in a crowd. He also shouted ab tu jaa nahin to yahan se jinda wapis nahin jayega. On this I got scared and felt insulted on which I sat there and started crying and after some I and my relative returned SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 20 of 42 21 home after which I was down with fever due to the shock of the treatment which I had received in the hands of the accused. On 16.03.2009 I requested some college students in the area to write down my complaint which I thereafter filed in the police station. The said complaint is Ex.PW2/A bearing my signatures at point A.
12. PW2 complainant Kishan Lal has deposed regarding two incidents dated 12.03.2009 regarding molestation and uttering of obscene words by the accused qua his wife, however, the nature of his testimony qua the incident dated 12.03.2009 is of hearsay nature and second hand version, therefore, is not admissible in evidence. However, his version regarding the incident dated 14.03.2009 of uttering casteist words in public view is reproduced herein below :
"Dhobi teri itni aukat ki tu muje aurtoon ke bare mein batayega. Tum dhobi, chamar, khatik ki autroon ki koi izzat hoti hai kya. Yeh to hamre purane zamaner se dil behlane ke kaam aati rahin hai."
13. He was subjected to crossexamination, wherein he has stated as under :
SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 21 of 42 22 He has no permission to put his thiya before B58 C. C. Colony. It is correct that Raj Kumar Dagga is resident of B58, and he had taken permission from him to put his table. He further deposed that he was not aware, whether accused had made number of complaints against him to police and MCD alleging he had put his table unauthorizedly. He further deposed that he was not aware that pursuant to query put by accused to MCD regarding his complaint, they had replied vide Ex. PW2/DX1 and PW2/DX2. He further deposed that it is correct that MCD had lifted and removed his table, however, he denied that on 19.06.2009 MCD lifted his table. He further deposed that it belonged to some other person. He had admitted that it was correct that the said person had put table with his permission and was related to him whose name is Jaipal.
He further deposed that he does not know whether reply of MCD in this regard is Ex. PW2/DX3. He further admitted that it is correct that Ex. PW2/DX5 are his photos which show that he was putting his table outside now, inside. He further admitted that it is correct that Raj Kumar Dagga asked him to remove table or leave the spot, who has a business selling cosmetics in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He further deposed SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 22 of 42 23 that he is illiterate and complaint made by him was written by one Manu, law student.
He admitted that the original complaint Ex. PW2/A was a photocopy and it was the same copy which he had given to the police and another photocopy was returned to him, which does not bear his original signatures and the witness also produced the said photocopy of the complaint which was returned to him by the police, which was exhibited PW2/DX6. Thereafter, the following court observation was made :
The same is a photocopy and it is evident that the signatures of the complainant present on the same are at different places and therefore is not a ditto copy.
Court Quest : I put it to you that both Ex. PW2/A present on the judicial file and Ex. PW2/DX6 are photocopies. Where is the original?
Ans: I cannot tell. I have given it to the police.
14. In his further crossexamination, various improvements, which were made by him in his examination in chief were confronted to him viz a viz his previous statement recorded u/S. 161 CrPC by the Ld. Defence Counsel. He further stated in his crossexamination as under :
It was correct that he gave information to the SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 23 of 42 24 police for first time on 16.03.2009. He further admitted that it was correct that accused wanted him to be removed from the spot. He further admitted that it is correct entry to house of accused is from back side. He further deposed that Rameshwar is his cobrother and he is dhobi by profession. He further admitted that it is correct that they have close knit community. It was correct that incident dated 14.03.2009 was witnessed by the family members of Pranav Gupta and Radhey Shaym (but both of them have not been cited as a witness in this case).
15. The probative force of this witness is greatly diminished due to the fact that he had axe to grind against accused due to various previous complaints made by him to remove him from the spot. He was harbouring a grudge against the accused. Delay in lodging of FIR is also there. He is also a hearsay witness with regard to the incident dated 12.03.2009 of molestation / obscene words. Further, the original complaint was not produced. Difference in copy of complaint with him and that on the record further creats doubt on the entire episode, as a whole there appears to be a bias in his testimony. Consequently, probative force of his testimony is reduced to great extent, therefore, he is not a reliable witness. Possibilities of making false complaint on the prompting of other public persons cannot be ruled out, in the present case.
SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 24 of 42 25
16. PW4 is Mahesh Taneja, who is a chartered accountant by profession, who has claimed himself to be an eye witness to both the incidents dated 12.03.2009 of alleged molestation and uttering of obscene words to PW5 Bhagwati as well as uttering of casteist words in public view on 14.03.2009. He claimed that first incident took place at around 2 - 2:30 pm and another at around 5:00 pm. He was subjected to crossexamination, where in he had deposed as under :
He was practicing as charted accountant at Karol Bagh. He further deposed that normally on Saturday / Sunday, he worked half days. He had admitted that it was correct that he had been challaned by MCD issued on 22.01.2009 for 27.01.2009 as Ex. P4/DX1, but he cannot tell if it was on the complaint of accused. However, he denied that he had also been challaned on 21.05.2010 Ex. PW4/DX2 and also on 24.05.2010 Ex. PW4/DX3 and also challaned vide Ex.
PW4/DX4, DX5 and DX6.
17. From the testimony of the above witness it appears that he was challaned by the MCD repeatedly on the complaints of the accused. Therefore, he can be said to be biased witness qua the accused, as he must be holding grudge against the accused to settle scores against him. It is also not clear if he was a busy professional charted accountant at Karol Bagh, what he was doing SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 25 of 42 26 on both the occasion at his house in the afternoons of 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009. Therefore, the objectivity of this witness is highly doubtful and he appears to be a biased witness, and therefore, cannot be said to be an independent witness.
18. PW5 Bhagwati wife of PW2 has deposed regarding the incident dated 12.03.2009 in her examination in chief as under :
I used to iron the clothes alongwith my husband Kishan Lal on the patri in front of the House No. B58 CC Colony. On 12.03.2009 at about 2 - 2.30 p.m. I was in process of ironing the clothes, Aklesh Pratap Singh R/o. B59, CC Colony came from my back side and caught hold of me from behind (Peeche Se Kohli Bhar Li) and molested me and he was saying that Aaj Tere Ko Nahi Chorunga. I got scared and raised alarm. Thereafter, Akhlesh Pratap Singh ran away form there. Residents of the CC Colony gathered there after hearing my shouting. I told all the facts to them. My husband came at the house at the night time as he had gone to attend the bereavement. I also told all the facts to my husband and he also upset after hearing these facts. On the next SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 26 of 42 27 day we did not go to our work place as we were depressed.
However, her testimony with regard to the incident of making casteist remarks dated 14.03.2009 is hearsay or second hand version. Therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence. She in her crossexamination had stated as under :
She had deposed that she had not complained against the accused prior to the incident. She further deposed that she had no permission from MCD to press clothes. She further deposed that on 12.03.2009, her husband went to attend cremation of relative (name not specified). She further deposed that after her husband came back, she informed him regarding the incident, but he did not go to the police station on the same day. She also admitted that PW6 Rameshwar was her behnoi.
19. As already discussed above, PW5 is related to PW2 complainant being husband and wife and against whom the accused had made umpteen number of prior complaints for removal of their ironing table. Therefore, she was bound to depose as per the wishes and desires of her husband and she can also be said to be holding a grudge against the accused looking for a chance to get even with him.
It is not clear if such a dreadly incident had taken place with her on 12.03.2009, then why she did not make a call at 100 SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 27 of 42 28 number through some neighbourer or least her husband could have done was to visit police station to lodge his complaint regarding the said incident of molestation and uttering of obscene words by the accused. Therefore, all these factors greatly diminishes the probative force of the testimonial deposition of PW5. Therefore, she cannot be said to be an independent or impartial witness.
20. PW6 is Rameshwar Kataria, who has deposed regarding the incident dated 14.03.2009 and has corroborated the version of PW2 complainant Kishan Lal regarding uttering of the casteist words in public view. He was subjected to crossexamination. In his crossexamination, he had admitted that he was related to Kishan Lal i.e. PW2 and prior to 14.03.2009, Kishan Lal had not told him anything about the accused and he had also not told that MCD had removed his press table many times. He also admitted that he was dhobi by caste and he was related to Kishan Lal, therefore, the objectivity of this witness is doubtful in nature, as he cannot be said to be independent witness being related to PW2 being his behnoi.
21. PW7 is Satish Malik, who has deposed that he is residing in the same colony and PW2 and PW5 were ironing clothes in front of House No. B58 C. C. Colony and he has corroborated the version of PW5 and PW6 regarding the incident dated 14.03.2009 SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 28 of 42 29 regarding the uttering of casteist words.
He was subjected to crossexamination. In his cross examination, he stated that prior to this incident, there was no complaint against the accused at any point of time in RWA. He further deposed that he lives with his family i.e. mother, son and wife. He further deposed that his wife left after three months of the incident. He admitted that her name does not figure in list of voters. He further deposed that he does not remember that a quarrel took place between the accused and Vijay Gandhi and the matter was got compromised by him. The compromise deed dated 23.12.2006 was shown to the witness, who identified his signatures at point A. The said document is Ex. PW7/DB.
The probative force of the testimonial deposition of PW7 is greatly diminished by the fact that he was an interested witness, as he had participated in the compromise deed which took place between the accused and one Vijay Gandhi as a witness and his veracity is also doubtful, as he stated on one hand that he was living with his wife, mother and son, thereafter he stated that his wife had left after some months of the incident and her name does not figure in the voters list. Therefore, he also cannot be said to be an independent witness.
22. The next witness is PW8 Vijay Gandhi. He has deposed regarding both the incidents dated 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009 and has corroborated the version of PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 29 of 42 30 regarding both the incidents. He claims to have been present at the time of happening of both the incidents dated 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009.
In his crossexamination, he has stated that he was doing his business from Sardar Nagar at two places. He further deposed that he leave his house at 9:00 am and comes back at 2:00 - 2:30 pm and does his work by 56 pm. He further admitted that it was correct that he had named Mahesh Kumar, Tanaja ji and Raj Kumar Daga and Manoj, who witnessed the incident. He further admitted that it was correct that he had not made any complaint to police or lodge a call at 100 number. He further admitted that it was correct that a lawyer and DC resides in front of their houses. He further admitted that it was correct that a quarrel took place between him and accused, which was got compromised and the compromise deed is Ex. PW7/DB.
The above witness also cannot be said to be independent or impartial witness, as he had a quarrel with accused, which was ultimately compromised vide compromise deed Ex. PW7/DB. Therefore, he had an axe to grind against the accused and must have been harbouring grudge against him to get even, when given a chance. It is also not clear what he was doing at day time in his house, despite being a busy businessman in the afternoon hours of 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009. If he was such a conscious citizen, at least he could have done was to report the incident to the police by calling at 100 number, which was not done. Therefore, his SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 30 of 42 31 objectivity is highly doubtful and he cannot be said to be an independent witness as well.
23. PW9 is Manoj Kumar, who has deposed regarding both the incidents dated 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009 and has corroborated the version of PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 regarding both the incidents. He claims to have been present at the time of happening of both the incidents dated 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009. He was subjected to crossexamination, wherein he deposed that he was general merchant by profession having work at Sadar Bazar. He further deposed that Raj Kumar Daga used to supply goods to him and he was not related to Raj Kumar Daga.
24. The objectivity of this witness is also of doubtful nature despite being a businessman being a general merchant at Sadar Bazar, having his own business, he was present at his house in the afternoon on both the occasions i.e. 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009, which are usually busy business hours for any businessman and it is hard to believe that he would have commuted back from his work after going to the work and again gone to the work on both the occasions.
Therefore, it appears that he is a biased witness. In any case, he has admitted that he was having business relations with PW10 Raj Kumar and he never complained against the accused to the police. Therefore, it appears that he is also not an independent SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 31 of 42 32 witness.
25. Now adverting to the testimony of PW10 Raj Kumar, who has also deposed regarding both the incidents dated 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009 and has corroborated the version of PW4, PW5, PW6 PW7, PW8 and PW9 regarding both the incidents. He claims to have been present at the time of happening of both the incidents dated 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009. He was subjected to cross examination, wherein he deposed that he had not made any complaint to the police prior to this case. He further deposed that it was correct that he was a cosmetic dealer in Sadar Bazar. He further admitted that it was correct that Sadar Bazar remains close only on Sunday.
He further deposed that Manoj does not works for him, but takes goods from him. He further deposed that they are in the same business. He further deposed that he had not made any complaint to the police or on 100 number. He further deposed that PW2 was having press table since 2000. He does not know if accused made complaint against him to MCD and Delhi Police. He never gave any permission to Kishan Lal to install press table in side his boundary wall, but on rainy days, he used to install inside his house. After seeing photos Ex. P1 and P2, he deposed that a table has been installed inside his house. He further deposed that compromise deed Ex. PW7/DB, bears his signatures at point B. SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 32 of 42 33
26. The objectivity of the above witness PW10 is also of doubtful nature, as it is hard to believe that despite being a busy businessman, he was present at his house in the afternoon hours of 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009, which looks quite bizzaire. If he was such a conscious citizen, at least he could have done was to report the incident to the police by calling at 100 number, which was not done. Further he was having a vested interest to protect the table of PW2 and PW5 which was installed in front of his house and he also used to give them shelter in rainy days to install the said iron press table inside his house and he was also witness to the compromise deed, therefore, it appears that he was most interested witness having vested interest with the complainant PW2 and his wife PW5 and with that of PW8 with whom the accused had a quarrel which culminated into compromise Ex. PW7/DB. Therefore, he cannot be also said to be an independent witness.
27. Regarding the IO Retd. ACP Prem Nath, he has deposed regarding the investigations, as were carried out by him during the course of the case. He was subjected to crossexamination, wherein he deposed that no document has been placed on the file to show that he had been appointed IO in this case. He further deposed that the file was marked to him by DCP (North / West). He further admitted that it was correct that he was running an akhara in Gur Mandi and his son was also running a gym in same area. He further deposed that the investigations were marked to SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 33 of 42 34 him on 03.06.2009 and the same were completed on 14.10.2009 and he recorded the statements of witnesses on 05.06.2009 and 08.06.2009, he also stated that he belongs to Sonkar caste. He further deposed that he had filed original complaint along with charge sheet.
The witness after going through the entire file sated that the original complaint was not on the record. He further deposed that he never gave any notice to the complainant that he was coming to record statement. He had not given any notice(s) to the witnesses for recording their statements. The incident of 14.03.2009 took place inside the house of the accused at first floor and that is why he had not filed the site plan of said incident dated 14.03.2009. He also admitted that it was correct that no document in the entire challan was in his handwriting, but were prepared at his instructions. He further deposed that till date, there was no FIR against him. He further deposed that FIR No. 120/12, PS Model Down is mark A (3 pages), but he was not aware about FIR No. 180/12, PS Model Town.
28. From the testimony of the IO, as discussed above, it appears that he had not carried out fair investigations in this case, and he appears to be biased as he and his son were both operating in the same area, he was running akhara, whereas, his son was running a gym in the same area. The IO has failed to prove the original complaint and has failed to explain as to what happened to the SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 34 of 42 35 same.
The IO also had not called any of the witnesses at any point of time, by giving them notices u/S. 160 CrPC. He himself did not record statement of any of the witnesses in his handwriting. No order regarding his appointment as IO in this case has been placed on the record. Further, from the perusal of the FIR Mark A, which is FIR bearing no. 120/12, PS Model Town, which was an FIR u/S. 325 IPC, lodged by one complainant Chintu and in the said FIR, it was mentioned as under :
"That the retired A.C.P. namely Premnath Sonkar who is residing at Roshanara Road, Delhi making the telephonic call to the present applicant again and again regarding to make compromise the matter with the accused person and also pressurize upon the applicant / Complainant regarding to make the compromise with the accused persons."
Further, as per Mark B, an FIR bearing no. 180/12, PS Model Town, u/S. 341/506/34 IPC was also lodged against the present IO along with some other pehalwan and public persons by the accused himself. Though, the above FIRs have not been exhibited but they are public documents and are the documents in public domain, rather the same are also available on the website of Delhi Police, therefore, judicial notice can be taken of them. In any case, the IO had not categorically denied the registration of the said FIRs against him. From the FIR bearing no. 120/12, it SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 35 of 42 36 appears that this IO had been pressurizing the complainant of the above FIR to compromise the matter with the accused persons of that case despite being police officer, whose job was to rather give justice to the complainant against the excesses made by the accused persons. It also shows that the IO had not conducted the investigation in a fair manner.
Further, it appears from the above circumstances, that he did not carry out the investigation himself at all despite the clear mandate of law and more specifically Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 which says that an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and that he Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State / Director General of Police / Superintendent of Police after taking into his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.
The said Rule seems to be have been flouted by the IO, which should have been complied by him in letter and spirit. The investigations in a case under SC / ST Act are given to the officer of the rank of ACP, because of his vast experience and knowledge about the investigations, whereas, in the present case, he seems to have carried out perfunct investigations through some subordinate police officials.
SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 36 of 42 37
29. The accused himself had stepped into witness box u/S. 315 CrPC and has examined himself as DW1. In his testimonial deposition, he has stated that he had lodged number of complaints against the complainant and his wife and other neighbours before lodging of the present FIR against him and he has also proved the copies of the complaints as Ex. DW1/A to DW1/R, which includes the various letters written by him to the DCP as well as the response received to his letters and also the replies received on his RTI applications. He has deposed that the present case had been falsely lodged against him by the complainant in collusion with the local police, higher authorities, builder mafia and advocate. He was also crossexamined but barring giving suggestions, nothing affirmative has emerged from his crossexamination.
30. From the perusal of Ex. DW1/D (Colly) it appears that the accused had lodged various complaints starting from 24.12.2006 till 21.03.2009 to various authorities from time to time including PW8 Vijay Gandhi, PW9 Raj Kumar, PW2 Kishan Lal, PW4 Mahesh Taneja. All these complaints have been made on 09.11.2008, 24.11.2008, 16.10.2008, 07.12.2008 including the complaint made against PW7 Satish Malik, as also dated 12.01.2009 against the complainant.
It appears that he had been making various complaints from time to time against all the above public witnesses for one reason SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 37 of 42 38 or another. These complaints show that all these witnesses had a serious grudge and feeling of rancour / illwill against him and they were looking for a chance to teach him a lesson. Therefore, due to all these complaints, the impartiality or the objectivity of the witnesses is greatly dented and they cannot be said to be independent witnesses, as are required u/S. 3 (1) (x) and (xi) of SC / ST Act.
31. As already discussed above, the expression public view is to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties by close relationship or association with the complainant.
32. As already discussed above, all the relevant prosecution witnesses with regard to this charge i.e. PW2 complainant Kishan Lal, PW4 Mahesh Taneja, PW5 Smt. Bhagwati, wife of the complainant, PW6 Rameshwar, relative of the complainant, PW7 Satish Malik, PW8 Vijay Kumar Gandhi, PW9 Manoj Kumar, PW10 Raj Kumar, were all interested witnesses either having some score to settle with the accused or having some axe to grind against him due to previous enmity with him, as already discussed in detail above or having business relations with each other or were related to the complainant, therefore, they cannot be said to be independent witnesses. Therefore, the said words cannot be said to have been made in public view, which is the most necessary SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 38 of 42 39 ingredient of the above section.
33. Further, even otherwise no call was made to the police immediately with regard to the incident dated 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009 at the time of the incident or shortly thereafter, therefore, the chances of false implication of the accused in this case due to previous enmity is highly probable. All the public persons who had deposed against the accused with regard to the incident dated 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009 were busy business people. It is not clear what they were doing at home twice in the afternoon of 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009 respectively. Their conduct being present at home on both the occasions is quite unnatural. Further, most of the depositions in this case of so called independent witnesses is almost the reproduction of each other testimony.
Therefore, the chances of confederacy cannot be ruled out, as it is not possible that two or more witnesses having observed a similar incident from a similar situation would depose exactly in the same manner, unless they have been tutored or there is a confederacy between them. Nobody in this case had made a police call at 100 number despite being conscious citizens of the locality, as claimed by them with regard to the incident dated 12.03.2009 and 14.03.2009 respectively.
34. Further there is a delay of two days in lodging the FIR, SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 39 of 42 40 which has not been explained. The IO has carried out biased investigations, as he and his son were operating akhara and gym respectively in the same area. Original complaint was not produced for the perusal of the court nor it has been explained what had happened to the original complaint. The IO had failed to produce any order by which the investigation of this case was marked to him, which was mandatory requirement of law. Further, it appears the IO himself had not carried out the investigations himself at all and seems to have delegated the investigation to someone else, as he never called any of the witnesses by giving them notices u/S. 160 CrPC nor recorded the statement of any of the witnesses himself which is totally contrary to the mandate of the Law more specifically Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which says that an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and that he Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State / Director General of Police / Superintendent of Police after taking into his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and he shall investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.
35. Therefore, the probative force of the prosecution case as a whole is greatly diminished due to all these assorted factors. The SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 40 of 42 41 said probative force lies in the range of highly unlikely region or even doubtful to happened or taken place, as projected. The defence evidence further diminishes the probative force of the prosecution evidence to large extent, thereby further pulling it down, due to multifarious prior complaints lodged by the accused against all the witnesses deposing against him, as discussed in the testimony of DW1.
36. Therefore, the probative force of the defence version is quite high on the probative scales, where the probability of happening of any event is measured or assessed.
37. In nut shell, taking the probative force of the prosecution evidence as a whole on the probative scales, where the probabilities of happening of any event is measured or assessed, the same is on the lower side, whereas the defence version on such scale of 0 to 1 is on the higher side. If the same has to be quantified on the said scale, it can be numbered randomly to around .6 or 60%, whereas the prosecution version would be around .4 or 40%.
On such kind of inconclusive evidence, the accused cannot be convicted. In these circumstances, the accused stands acquitted of the charge(s) u/S. 354/509 IPC as well as for offence(s) punishable u/s 3(1)(x) & (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 41 of 42 42 His previous bail bonds are cancelled. Previous surety stand discharged. Original document(s), if any be returned after cancelling the endorsement(s), if any on the same, if the same are not resubmitted while furnishing bail bonds u/S. 437A CrPC.
38. The Accused had already furnished his bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C, which will remain valid for a period of six months from today, as per the provisions of Section 437A CrPC.
39. File on completion be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Sanjeev Aggarwal) th on 28 day of Nov. 2018 Addl. Sessions Judge02,North Rohini Courts, Delhi 28.11.2018 SC No. 58335/16 FIR No.177/2009 PS Model Town State Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh Page No. 42 of 42