Delhi District Court
State vs . Prem Etc. on 20 August, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03, (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
UID No.57477/2016
FIR No. 266/14
U/S 392/397/411/34 IPC
P S Mundka
State Vs. Prem etc.
J U D G E M E N T
1 Sl. No. of the case 57477/2016
2 Date of Committal to Sessions 24.09.2014
3 Name of the complainant Sh. Ramesh Kumar
4 Date of commission of offence 05.06.2014
5 Name and Parentage of (1) Prem, S/o Sh. Noor Singh
accused R/o H. No.H348, JJ Colony,
Bakkarwala, Delhi.
(2) Puneet, S/o Late Sh. Ganga
Prasad, R/o H. No. D273, JJ
Colony, Bakkarwala, Delhi.
(3) Mohd. Chand, S/o Mohd.
Tamanna, R/o H. No. H194, JJ
Colony, Bakkarwala, Delhi.
6 Offence complained of Under Section
7 Offence charged Under Section
8 Plea of guilt Pleaded Not Guilty
9 Final order Acquitted under Section
397/411/34 IPC
FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 1 of 27
2
Convicted under Section
392/34 IPC
10 Date on which order reserved 30.07.2018
11 Date on which order 20.08.2018
announced
BRIEF FACTS:
1. The present FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant Ramesh Kumar. It is alleged by the complainant that he was working in the agriculture field of Sh. Satish Kumar. That on the date of incident, he was working in the agriculture field alongwith his friends Sharda, Deshraj and Arun. The complainant alleged that around 11.00 am, four boys came there and asked them to hand over all the money. On their refusal, they four started beating them with leg, fist blow and sticks. One boy also threaten them to kill with knife. The complainant alleged that the said accused persons have forcibly snatched Rs. 40/ from him, Rs. 300/ from Sharda, Rs. 200/ from Deshraj and Rs. 200/ from Arun. Thereafter, some more FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 2 of 27 3 persons came there and apprehended the accused persons namely Prem, Puneet and Mohd. Chand at the spot. One person namely Kishan succeed in running away from the spot.
2. The police registered the case on the statement of the complainant Ramesh Kumar. Thereafter, investigation was conducted. All three accused persons namely Prem, Puneet and Mohd. Chand were arrested and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The case was committed to the sessions court as section 397 was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.
3. On 25.11.2014, the charge for commission of the offence under Section 392/397/411 read with Section 34 IPC was framed upon all the three accused persons namely Prem, Puneet and Mohd. Chand to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution to prove its case has examined total 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused persons denied the story of the prosecution and stated that they are falsely implicated in FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 3 of 27 4 the present case. The accused persons did not lead any evidence.
5. The prosecution to prove its case had examined total 10 witnesses. The relevant and material extract of the testimony of the witnesses are reproduced as under:
6. PW1 W/HC Sudesh is the Duty Officer who recorded the FIR on the basis of Rukka. PW 1 has proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW 1/A.
7. PW2 Ramesh Kumar is the complainant and victim of the present case. PW 2 has deposed that on 05.06.2014, he alongwith Arun, Sharda and Deshraj was working in the filed of one Satish Kumar. Thereafter, at about 11.00 am, 4 persons including the accused persons present in the court, came there and demanded money. On their refusal, they started beating them. PW 2 deposed that accused Puneet pointed out a knife towards him and snatched Rs. 40/ from him. The accused persons have also snatched Rs. 300/ from the possession of Sharda, Rs. 200/ from Arun and Rs. 200/ from Deshraj. On hearing the noise, Satish Kumar reached there, who also made FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 4 of 27 5 the call to the police. PW 2 deposed that the accused persons were apprehended before arrival of the police but one of their associate succeeded to run away from the spot. PW 2 has proved his statement Ex.PW 2/A. PW 2 has also identified the accused persons. PW 2 has also deposed that associate of the accused person who ran away from the spot, took away all the robbed money and nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused persons present in the court. PW 2 was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During cross examination PW 2 admitted that the person who ran away from the spot was Kishan. It is admitted that Puneet handed over the robbed amount to Kishan. It is also admitted that the other accused persons had not handed over the robbed amount to Kishan. During cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Prem and Puneet, PW 2 admitted that the Police Officer did not seize the dandas from the spot. It is also admitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons in his presence. During the cross examination by the Ld. FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 5 of 27 6 Counsel for accused Chand Mohammad, it is admitted by the witnesses that accused persons were beating him and his colleagues with fist, blows and dandas. It is also admitted that knife was shown to him but they did not give any knife blow.
8. PW3 Satish Kumar is the employer of the victims and owner/occupier of the field where the victims were working. PW 3 has deposed that on 05.06.2014, one boy came to him and told that some persons are robbing the labours working in his field. He also heard the noise of the labours and alongwith some other labours reached at the field. PW 3 deposed that at the spot, he found that the accused persons were beating his labours and snatching their money. PW 3 correctly identified the accused persons. He deposed that the accused persons were apprehended at the spot but one person ran away from the spot. During cross examination, PW 3 reaffirmed that he has witnessed the accused persons beating his labours and snatching money. PW 3 also admitted that he saw dandas in the hand of accused persons when he reached at the spot. PW 3 has stated that those dandas FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 6 of 27 7 were thrown on the spot and he did not hand over the same to the police. PW 3 was confronted with his statement under section 161 Cr.PC where the fact of carrying dandas was not mentioned. It is also admitted that no recovery was effected by the police in his presence.
9. PW4 Ct. Vipin is the police official who joined the investigation alongwith the IO. PW 4 deposed that on the receipt of PCR call, he alongwith ASI Phool Kanwar went to the spot and met the complainant. The complainant handed over the custody of three persons who are present in the court. The IO recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared a Rukka. Thereafter, the case was registered. The accused persons were interrogated vide their disclosure statement Ex.PW 4/A to Ex.PW 4/C. PW 4 deposed that from the possession of accused Puneet robbed cash amount of Rs. 40 was recovered and from the possession of accused Prem, the robbed amount of Rs. 200/ was recovered. PW 4 deposed that a sum of Rs. 200/ was recovered from the possession of accused Chand Mohammad.
FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 7 of 27 8 PW 4 correctly identified the case property.
10.PW5 Sh. Arun is one of the victim. PW 5 deposed that on 05.06.2014, the four accused persons came to the agriculture field at about 11/11.15 am and asked them to hand over the money. PW 5 deposed that on their refusal, the accused persons start beating them with dandas. One accused person threatened them for stabbing, if they did not give money to them. PW 5 deposed that they raised the noise and on hearing the same, some other persons came to help them. Three accused persons who are present in the court, were apprehended. Thereafter, police came there. PW 5 deposed that accused Puneet threatened to kill them with knife. During cross examination, PW 5 admitted that there was no specific identification mark on the currency notes. It is admitted that the dandas were not taken into possession by the police in his presence.
11. PW 6 Sh. Desh Raj is also one of the victim. PW 6 has also deposed that while he was working in agriculture field alongwith other victims at about 11/11.15 am, four persons FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 8 of 27 9 came there. PW 6 deposed that the accused persons demanded money from them and on refusal, threatened to beat them with dandas. One of the accused also threatened to stab them. Thereafter, on hearing the noise, some other persons came there to help them and apprehended the accused persons. PW 6 correctly identified the accused persons. It is admitted that PW 6 has identified the currency notes. During cross examination, PW 6 admitted that the statement of Ramesh was not recorded by the police in his presence. It is admitted that dandas were not taken into possession by the police in his presence.
12. PW 7 Sh. Sharda is also one of the victim who deposed on the same line. During cross examination, PW 7 admitted that the dandas were not taken into possession by the police in her presence. It is stated that the dandas remained in the field.
13. PW 8 HC Sudesh is the Duty officer who recorded the DD No. 20A regarding the incident vide Ex.PW 8/A.
14. PW 9 Lady Constable Archna is the Operator who deposed that she received the information on 05.06.2014 at about 11.42 FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 9 of 27 10 am regarding snatching which was passed to the operator of the communication. The copy of the said PCR form no. 1 is proved as Ex.PW 9/A.
15. PW 10 ASI Phool Kanwar is the IO of the present case. PW 10 deposed that on 05.06.2014, he received the information regarding DD No. 20A and went to the spot. The complainant Sh. Ramesh Kumar handed over the custody of the accused persons who are present in the court. The statement of the complainant was recorded vide Ex.PW 2/A. Thereafter, the Rukka Ex.PW 10/A was prepared and Ct. Vipin was sent for registration of the case. The site plan Ex.PW 10/B of the spot of incident was prepared. Thereafter, accused persons made the disclosure statement Ex.PW 4/A to Ex.PW 4/C. On the search of the accused persons, a sum of Rs. 200 was recovered from the possession of accused Prem, sum of Rs. 200/ were recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Chand and a sum of Rs. 40/ were recovered from the possession of accused Puneet. PW 10 deposed that all the recovered notes were FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 10 of 27 11 identified by the victims as were robbed by the accused persons. The arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused persons are proved as Ex.PW 4/E1 to Ex.PW 4/E6. PW 10 correctly identified the case property and the accused persons. During cross examination, PW 10 admitted that the arrival entry of the accused persons is not placed on record. PW 10 affirmed that Sh. Satish Kumar, owner of the agriculture field alongwith victims were present and the accused were present at the spot. PW 10 has deposed that the dandas could not be recovered as the same were thrown away in pond.
16. The statement of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.PC was recorded. It is submitted by the accused persons that it is a false case and they are falsely implicated in the present case.
17.I have carefully perused the material on record and have gone through the submissions made by Sh. Pravesh Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. B C Jain, Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons.
18.It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 11 of 27 12 in the present case has examined the victims and the eye witnesses of the incident. That the witnesses examined by the prosecution have corroborated the testimonies of each other and stood the test of cross examination. It is prayed that in view of the material on record, the accused persons may kindly be convicted for commission of the alleged offence.
19.On the other hand, it is submitted by Sh. B C Jain, Ld. Amicus Curiae / counsel for the accused persons that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. That they have nothing to do with the commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. That the witnesses have given contradictory statements which could not be reconciled. That no weapon of offence was recovered in the present case.
20.In the present case, accused persons are charged for commission of the offence punishable under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC. It is alleged that on 05.06.2014 at about 11.00 AM in fields (Khet) of Satish Kumar at village Hirankudna, Delhi, all the accused FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 12 of 27 13 persons namely Prem, Puneet and Mohd. Chand committed a robbery of Rs. 40/ from Ramesh Kumar, Rs. 300/ from Sharda, Rs. 200/ from Desh Raj and Rs. 200/ from Arun and also gave beating to the complainant with stick(danda), slaps and kicks and also extended threat to cause injury with knife while committing the robbery. That all the accused persons were found in possession of stolen property, i.e., (Rs. 200/ Prem), (Rs. 200/ Mohd. Chand) and (Rs. 40/ Puneet) knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
21.All three accused persons are charged for commission of the offence under Section 392/34 IPC. Section 392 IPC has laid down the punishment for robbery. It lays down that whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
22.Robbery is defined under Section 390 of IPC. It lays down that in all the robbery there is either theft or extortion. It further lays down that theft is "Robbery", if, in order to the committing of FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 13 of 27 14 the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
23.The prosecution to prove its case has examined 10 witnesses.
PW2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar, one of the victims and complainant of the present case. PW2 has deposed that he was working in the field alongwith Arun, Sharda and Des Raj and 4 persons came there and demanded money. On their refusal, they started beating them. PW2 deposed that accused Puneet pointed out FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 14 of 27 15 knife towards him and snatched Rs. 40/ and also snatched Rs. 300/ from Sharda, Rs. 200/ from Arun and Rs. 200/ from Des Raj. PW3 Sh. Satish Kumar is the owner of the agriculture field who reached at the spot on hearing the noise of the victims and witnessed the incident. PW5 Sh. Arun is also one of the victim who corroborated the deposition of PW2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar. PW6 Sh. Des Raj and PW7 Sh. Sharda are also the victims of the incident who specifically deposed about the commission of the offence by the accused persons.
24.All the five public witnesses have correctly identified the accused person namely Prem, Mohd. Chand and Puneet in the court during their deposition. The PWs have also correctly identified the robbed money recovered from the possession of the accused persons. All the five PWs have deposed that the accused persons were apprehended at the spot and handed over to the police. The public witnesses were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons but no material contradiction has emerged to shake their trustworthiness and FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 15 of 27 16 credibility. The five PWs have corroborated the testimonies of each other even during the lengthy cross examination conducted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police officials who remained associated with the investigation of the case. The testimony of the police witnesses have also corroborated the testimonies of public witnesses/victims.
25.It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that PW2, in his cross examination has admitted that nothing was recovered from the accused persons in his presence. That PW3 has also admitted in his cross examination that no recovery was effected by the police in his presence. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that PW4 Ct. Vipin and PW10 IO/ASI Phool Kanwar have deposed that robbed cash amount was recovered from the accused persons during cursory search. That the public witnesses have not supported the deposition of the police officials in this regard. It is also submitted that PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6 and PW7 in their deposition have admitted FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 16 of 27 17 that neither any weapon of offence nor any Danda was recovered by the police in their presence. It is also stated that PW4 Ct. Vipin has nowhere deposed recovery of any weapon of offence from the accused persons. It is also submitted that PW10 IO/ASI Phool Kanwar has deposed that weapon of offence were thrown by the accused persons in the pond. Therefore, same could not be recovered. Therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to accused persons.
26.Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has contended that PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that nothing was recovered from the accused persons in his presence. The perusal of the cross examination, would clarify the recovery of the currency notes, because in the next reply PW2 has stated that there was no specific identification mark on the currency notes of Rs. 10/. The PW2 in his examination in chief has specifically deposed that he was having Rs. 40/ which were 4 currency notes of 10 rupee denominations which were robbed by the accused persons. PW2 has correctly identified these currency notes in FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 17 of 27 18 the court. The cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State has also clarified the ambiguity of the currency notes. PW2 during his cross examination has admitted that the accused Puneet handed over the robbed amount to Kishan. It is also admitted that other accused persons did not handed over the robbed amount to Kishan. In view of the above, the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for accused persons in this regard is not sustainable.
27.It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for accused persons that PW2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar in his cross examination has admitted that no recovery was affected by the police in his presence. The PW2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar in his examination in chief has nowhere claimed that the robbed amount was recovered in his presence. Therefore, this admission of the PW2 does not contra dict his deposition. The deposition of PW4 Ct. Vipin and PW10 ASI Phool Kanwar regarding recovery of the alleged amount from the possession of accused persons during the cross exami nation is also corroborating the deposition of PW2 Sh. Ramesh FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 18 of 27 19 Kumar and other public witness. There is no contradiction in the deposition of the complainant / victims and the police officials relating to the investigation of the case. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused persons that the public witnesses have not supported the deposition of police officials regarding recovery is contrary to the record.
28.Another contention was raised by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons that the public witnesses / victims in their deposition have admitted that neither any weapon of offence nor any Danda was recovered by the police. It is true that the public wit nesses / victims,i.e., PW2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar, PW3 Sh. Satish Kumar, PW5 Sh. Arun, PW6 Sh. Des Rah and PW7 Sh. Sharda in their deposition have clearly deposed that no weapon of of fence was recovered from the possession of accused persons. PW10 IO ASI Phool Kanwar in his testimony has deposed that weapon of offence was thrown by the accused persons in the pond. Therefore, same could not be recovered.
FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 19 of 27 20
29.None of the PWs in their examination in chief had deposed re garding recovery of weapon of offence. Therefore, their admis sion of the fact that no weapon of offence was recovered in their presence does not contradict their deposition. In view of the co gent and clear deposition of the public witnesses / victims, the production of the dandas/weapon of offence is not fatal for the case of the prosecution to prove the commission of offence un der Section 392/34 of IPC.
30.The prosecution has examined the five eye witnesses/victims to prove the charge for commission of the offence under Section 392/34 IPC. The public witnesses have categorically deposed that the accused persons in furtherance of their common inten tion have robbed them. The removal of sum of Rs. 40 from the possession of Ramesh Kumar, a sum of Rs. 300/ from the pos session of Sharda, a sum of Rs. 200/ from the possession of Deshraj and a sum of Rs. 200/ from the possession of Arun is proved by public witnesses/victims. In view of the testimonies of the public witnesses corroborated with the police witnesses FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 20 of 27 21 relating to the investigation, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC by the accused persons.
31.The accused persons in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC have failed to give any plausible explanation sus tainable in the eyes of law to raise even a slight shadow of doubt upon the case of the prosecution. The accused persons have not examined any defence witness to demolish the case proved by the prosecution.
32.Accordingly, the accused persons namely Prem, Puneet and Mohd. Chand are convicted for commission of offence punish able under Section 392/34 IPC.
33.All the three accused persons are also charged for the commis sion of the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC. Sec tion 397 of IPC provides the enhanced punishment if any deadly weapon is used during commission of offence of robbery.
FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 21 of 27 22
34.The prosecution in the present case has claimed that all the ac cused persons have beaten the complainant/victims with stick(dandas), slaps and kicks and also extended threats to cause injuries with knife while committing the offence of robbery. The prosecution has claimed that the accused persons were armed with lathis and one of the accused namely Puneet was carrying a knife with him.
35.At the outset, it is to be mentioned that the prosecution has claimed that the accused persons were carrying lathis (dandas) in their hands. The lathi/wooden stick(danda) is not to be con sidered as 'deadly weapon' as mentioned in Section 397 of IPC. The lathi / wooden stick (danda) is not a deadly weapon. There fore, the accused Prem and Mohd. Chand are not liable to be convicted for commission of the offence under Section 397 of IPC. The prosecution has nowhere alleged that the accused Prem and Mohd. Chand were carrying the deadly weapon as de fined under Section 397 of IPC. The prosecution has not proved any MLC of injury upon the person of victims of case.
FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 22 of 27 23
36.It is claimed that accused Puneet was having a knife in his hand at the time of the commission of the offence of robbery. PW2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar /complainant in his deposition has stated that accused Puneet has pointed out a knife towards him and snatched Rs. 40/ from him. PW2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar during his cross examination stated that the knife was shown to him but they did not give any knife blow. It is stated that he do now know whether the police officials took into the possession the knife from the accused persons. PW3 Sh. Satish Kumar is the eye witness of the incident but in his deposition, he has nowhere deposed regarding possession or the use of the knife by any of the accused persons. PW5 Sh. Arun in his examination in chief has deposed that accused Puneet who is present in the court threatened them to kill with knife and he robbed his Rs. 200/. PW6 Sh Des Raj in his examination in chief has also deposed that accused Puneet who is present in the court has threatened to kill them with knife. PW7 Sh. Sharda has also deposed regard FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 23 of 27 24 ing the threats given by accused Puneet to kill them with knife at the time of commission of the offence.
37.It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Puneet that in the present case, no weapon of offence/knife was recovered from the possession or at the instance of accused Puneet. Therefore, the accused Puneet is entitled for acquittal for commission of the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.
38.It is true that in the present case, no weapon of offence was re covered or the possession or at the instance of accused Puneet The police had reached at the spot and the accused persons were apprehended at the spot by the victims and other public persons. PW10 Sh, ASI Phool Kanwar has deposed that all the dandas / wooden sticks could not be recovered as the same were thrown by the accused persons in the nearby pond. However, no expla nation has been given by PW10 ASI Phool Kanwar regarding the knife. The victims/ public witnesses have deposed regarding the knife alleged to be used by accused Puneet at the time of commission of the offence, however, they have failed to ex FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 24 of 27 25 plained the missing 'knife'. The accused Puneet was appre hended at the spot during the commission of offence of robbery. None of the witnesses or the police officials have deposed that the accused had an opportunity to remove or throw away the knife. The witnesses and the police officials are silent regarding recovery of the knife.
39.In view of the offence of recovery of the knife and the failure of the public witnesses or the police witnesses to furnish explana tion regarding the disappearance of the knife, I am of the con sidered opinion that the accused Puneet is entitled for the bene fit of doubt regarding commission of the offence under Section 397 of IPC. Therefore, considering all the facts and circum stances of the case and while granting the benefit of doubt, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for commission of of fence under Section 397 of IPC by accused Puneet.
40.All the three accused persons were charged with the commis sion of the offence under Section 411 IPC. All the three accused FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 25 of 27 26 persons have already been convicted by this judgment for com mission of the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC. All the three accused persons were apprehended at the spot while committing the offence of robbery and the robbed amount was also recovered from their possession at the spot. The ac cused persons have been apprehended at the spot and the robbed amount was also recovered in the chain/continuous circum stances. Therefore, the accused persons could not be held guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC as they have already been convicted for commission of the offence under Section 392/34 IPC. Accordingly, all the three ac cused persons namely Prem, Puneet and Mohd. Chand are ac quitted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.
41.In view of the above discussions, all three accused persons namely Prem, Puneet and Mohd. Chand are acquitted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 397/411/34 IPC. However, the accused persons namely Prem, Puneet and FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 26 of 27 27 Mohd. Chand are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC.
42.Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence separately. Announced in the open court today i.e. 20th August, 2018 (DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) ASJ03, WEST/DELHI This judgement contains 27 pages and all pages bears my signatures.
(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA)
ASJ03, WEST/DELHI
FIR No.266/14 State Vs Prem etc. Pages 27 of 27