Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak Kumar, on 27 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.20/14.
Unique Case ID No.02405R0024092014.
State Vs. Deepak Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o H. No.145, Village Baghipur,
P.S. Hathigate,
Distt. - Ettah (U.P.).
Date of Institution : 27.1.2014.
FIR No.674 dated 09.12.2013.
U/s. 376/366/328/506 IPC.
P.S. Dabri.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 22.5.2014.
Date of pronouncement : 27.5.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. The abovenamed accused has been chargesheeted by the prosecution for the offences u/s.376/328/366/342/323/506 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was residing as a tenant in the house of the prosecutrix's father. He used to have sweet and obscene talks with the prosecutrix. On 01.2.2011 at about 3 p.m., when the prosecutrix was present alone in the house, he lured her to come to his room where he administered to her something mixed in cold drink whereupon she became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she realized that the accused had raped her. She told the accused that she will SC No.20/14. Page 1 of 19 disclose the incident to her family members and the police, upon which the accused told her that he has prepared her obscene video and threatened her that in case she disclosed the incident to anybody, he would show the video to everybody and would kill her family members. Consequently, prosecutrix kept mum about the incident. The accused thereafter used to blackmail her and used to establish physical relations with her whenever he got opportunity. On 22.4.2012, the accused took the prosecutrix forcibly to West Bengal and kept on raping her there also. He brought her back to Delhi on 16.5.2012. He as well as his mother and other family members forced her to marry him at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi, and thereafter he took her to a rented house where also he continued to rape her. The mother of the accused used to beat her and abused her. They never permitted her to talk to her family members. The accused brought her to Dwarka Court on 21.5.2013 to attend hearing of a case where she got the opportunity and ran away to her house. On account of fear, she could not reveal her ordeal to her family members for a very long time. It was when she came out of the fear and trauma that she disclosed the whole incident to her parents and then lodged a complaint against the accused.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix appeared in the police station on 09.12.2013 and submitted a written complaint to the SHO. The complaint was assigned to SI Domnica Purty for suitable action. She got the FIR registered on the basis of the complaint of the prosecutrix. Thereafter she took the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital where her medical examination was conducted. She also prepared the site SC No.20/14. Page 2 of 19 plan of the spot of incident. The accused was arrested. His medical examination was got conducted at DDU Hospital. Accused made disclosure statement admitting his guilt. The statement of the prosecutrix u/s.164 Cr.PC was got recorded on 10.12.2013.
4. After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was prepared and submitted to the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, charges u/s. 363 IPC, u/s.366 IPC, u/s.328 IPC, u/s.376 IPC, u/s.506 IPC and u/s. 342 IPC were framed against the accused on 05.3.2014. The accused denied the charges and accordingly trial was held.
5. At trial, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. The statement of the accused u/s.313 Cr.PC was recorded on 22.5.2014 wherein he denied the prosecution case. However, he admitted that he had taken a room on rent in the house of prosecutrix's father Ram Abhilash in April, 2011. He further stated that the prosecutrix was in love with him and this fact was known to her parents. He further stated that the prosecutrix had made a call to him during the day on 22.4.2012 and they decided to run away. Accordingly, prosecutrix came to him during the night at about 3 a.m. when he was sleeping in his Tavera car in the market. He stated that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied him to West Bengal and stayed with him there on her own will and wish. He further stated that the prosecutrix had willingly solemnized marriage with him at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi, and nobody had exerted any pressure upon her. He denied that he had ever established physical relations with her. He further stated that when he brought the prosecutrix to court on SC No.20/14. Page 3 of 19 21.5.2012 as the parents of the prosecutrix had filed a case against him, the prosecutrix had appeared before the Ld. Magistrate and told her that she has solemnized marriage with him on her own wish. He further stated that one day in the month of October, 2013, when he was doing his duty in the evening hours, prosecutrix called him saying that her father has come to take her as her mother is seriously ill and accordingly prosecutrix left alongwith her father not to return thereafter. He also stated that he was lifted by the police officials from the house of the prosecutrix on 09.12.2013 when he had gone there pursuant to her call.
6. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record.
7. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW1. She deposed that her father had inducted the accused as a tenant in their house in September, 2011. She used to talk to the accused very briefly whenever they saw each other in the house. The room of the accused was just opposite her room. On 01.2.2012 at about 2 p.m. or 3 p.m. when she was present alone in the house, the accused called her and when she came outside her room, she saw him standing in the verandah. Accused was having a glass in his hand which contained black colour Coca Cola cold drink which he offered to her. On consuming the cold drink, she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness after about one and a half hours, she found herself in the room of the accused and her Salwar as well as underwear had been taken off. She was SC No.20/14. Page 4 of 19 feeling pain in her private part and was slightly bleeding from her private part. She realized that the accused had raped her during her unconsciousness. The accused was also sitting in the room at that time and was watching a video on his mobile phone. When he asked the accused why he had done so, he threatened her that in case she narrated the incident to anybody, he will kill her as well as her family members. He also told her that he has prepared obscene video and would expose the video to everybody, if she disclosed the incident to anybody. She started weeping and went to her room. She did not apprise her family members about the incident. Thereafter, the accused used to call her to his room whenever he liked and used to commit sexual intercourse with her. She had no option but to oblige him as he used to threaten her that he would expose her obscene video.
8. She further deposed that on the night intervening between 22.4.2012 and 23.4.2012 at about 1.30 a.m., when she had gone to toilet to answer nature's call, accused and his two friends Rajender and Jagminder were standing there. They gagged her mouth and did not permit her to raise alarm. They made her to smell something, upon which she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found herself travelling in a bus and the accused was also with her. The accused took her to a place known as Das Dargah in West Bengal and kept her confined in the house of his maternal aunt (Mausi). There also, he used to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her almost daily. The accused brought her back to Delhi on 15.4.2012. He alongwith his mother Manju Devi and other family members took her forcibly to Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi, where she was forced to SC No.20/14. Page 5 of 19 solemnize marriage with the accused. Thereafter, accused took a rented room in Aaya Nagar and kept her there. His mother also had come alongwith them. Accused's mother did not permit her to go out of the room and used to beat her. She used to give her something mixed in curd, upon taking which she used to become unconscious. She further deposed that on 21.5.2012 the accused brought her to Dwarka Court for some court hearing. He had threatened her not to open her mouth in the court and not to speak to anybody.
9. She further deposed that in the month of October, 2013, she somehow found opportunity and escaped from the aforesaid rented house and straightway reached her home. Initially, she was not be able to tell anything to her parents out of fear. However, after intense cajoling by her parents, she was able to narrate the entire incident to them. Her parents took her to P.S. Dabri on 08.12.2013 where she submitted a written complaint Ex.PW1/A. From the police station, she was taken to DDU Hospital for her medical examination. Thereafter, she was produced before a Ld. Magistrate, who recorded her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC, which she proved as Ex.PW1/B. She further deposed that due to inadvertent mistake, the date of first incident of rape has been wrongly mentioned as 01.2.2011 in the complaint Ex.PW1/A instead of 01.2.2012.
10. In the cross examination, she deposed that she has three sisters and two brothers. She was appearing in 12th class examination in March/April, 2012. She did not mix up with the accused before the date of incident. She stayed with the accused SC No.20/14. Page 6 of 19 at Noida, Aaya Nagar, two or three places in Gurgaon and Sangam Vihar. They shifted to Sangam Vihar in August, 2013. She admitted that the room at Sangam Vihar was arranged by her sister Annu and her husband. A rent agreement dated 04.8.2013 in respect of the room at Sangam Vihar was shown to her during cross examination and she admitted the signatures of the accused at point A and that of her sister Annu at point B on the same. She further stated that the signatures of Raj Kumar appearing at point C was appended by her. The rent agreement is Ex.PW1/D1. She also admitted that her Aadhar Card had been prepared from Sangam Vihar address but added that she was forced to do so by accused's mother. She deposed that she was fully conscious when she was taken to concerned office for preparation of Aadhar Card. Many public persons and police officials were present in that office but she did not narrate her tale of woes to anybody as her obscene video was in possession of the accused. She stated that she had told her sister Annu on phone that accused had kidnapped her, confined her in a room and had been raping her. She told so to her sister Annu when they were staying in Gurgaon.
11. She further deposed that she did not tell the Pandit of Arya Samaj Mandir that she is not willing for the marriage as he did not ask her anything in this regard. She admitted that the photograph Ex.PW1/D2 was taken at the time of marriage. According to her, photograph Ex.PW1/D3 was taken after about one year of the marriage. She admitted that during her stay with the accused, whenever she fell ill, accused used to take her to the doctor for treatment. She admitted that the accused had got her ultrasound and other tests conducted in General Hospital, SC No.20/14. Page 7 of 19 Gurgaon. She denied that she had become pregnant twice on account of sexual intercourse with the accused. She was shown nine photographs by the Ld. Cross examining Counsel and she admitted that she alongwith the accused are seen in these photographs and these were taken while they were staying at West Bengal. The photographs are Ex.PW1/D4 to Ex.PW1/D12. She deposed that she had not seen any obscene video in mobile phone of the accused. She denied that she had performed marriage with the accused voluntarily and had willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with him. She further deposed that there were other tenants also residing in the house, in which she stayed with the accused and his mother at Noida and Sangam Vihar. She did not tell any of those tenants that she had been confined by the accused forcibly and he had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She also did not tell so to the landlords of those houses. She also did not tell either the doctor or to the Nurse in General Hospital, Gurgaon, about her plight.
12. In reply to the certain court questions, she deposed that she had not told the Mausi of the accused at West Bengal that the accused had brought her forcibly after making her unconscious. She also did not tell her that the accused is committing sexual intercourse with her. The sons, daughter-in-law and the grandchildren of accused's Mausi resided in that house.
13. The father of the prosecutrix namely Ram Abhilash has been examined as PW6. He deposed that the accused was residing as a tenant in his house in the month of April, 2012. On the night intervening between 22.4.2012 and 23.4.2012, he was not present SC No.20/14. Page 8 of 19 at his house as he had gone to his native village. At about 1.30 a.m. he received a call from his son Ram Anuj saying that prosecutrix is not present in the house and has gone missing. He returned to Delhi in the evening of 23.4.2012. Meanwhile, his son Ram Anuj had already lodged a missing complaint in the police station. On 24th April or 25th April, 2012, he took the police officials to the house of the accused's sister at Meethapur, Jaitpur, Delhi, to obtain any clue about the accused. The sister of the accused told them that the accused is a vegabond as well as drunkard and she has snapped relations with him. Thereafter they alongwith police officials made efforts to search the prosecutrix but could not find her. He deposed that the prosecutrix returned home on her own one day in the month of August, 2012. At that time, she was intensely sick and mentally disturbed and could not tell them anything. After few days when she became perfectly alright, she told him that she was kidnapped by the accused alongwith his two associates, was kept confined in West Bengal and the accused used to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her. She also told him that the accused had solemnized marriage with her forcibly and without her consent. In the cross examination, he admitted that he came to know that after the marriage, prosecutrix and accused had taken a room on rent in Sangam Vihar near the residence of Annu and stayed there. He denied that the prosecutrix had filed a complaint against him apprehending that she alongwith the accused may be killed by him as she has solemnized marriage with the accused voluntarily, which was not acceptable to him. He was shown a writing dated 30.9.2013 during the course of cross examination. He admitted his signature on the same at point A and deposed that he does not know where and SC No.20/14. Page 9 of 19 when did he sign the same. The writing is Ex.PW6/D1.
14. Scrutiny of the deposition of prosecutrix, as noted herein above, reveals that it suffers from various contradictions, embellishments and prevarications which make it highly improbable and doubtful. There are contradictions between her testimony and that of her father PW-6. The conduct of PW-6 also appears to be highly unnatural.
15. So far as the first incident of rape dated 01.02.11 is concerned, the prosecutrix has not stuck to one date. She has mentioned the date differently in her statements. In the FIR as well as in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW1/B she has mentioned the date as 01.02.11 whereas in her testimony as PW-1 she has mentioned the date as 01.02.12. At the end of her examination in chief she has made an attempt to clarify that she has mentioned the date of first incident of rape incorrectly in her complaint Ex. PW1/A as 01.02.11 and infact it is 01.02.12. It is evident that she did not tell police officials during the course of investigation that she has mentioned the date of first rape incident incorrectly as 01.02.11 and necessary correction should be made. It is also not clear when and how did she realise that the date mentioned by her is not correct.
16. Further in the written complaint Ex. PW1/A submitted by the prosecutrix in the police station which is the basis of the FIR, she has stated that the accused found her alone in the house on 01.02.11 at about 3.00 p.m and took her to his room by SC No.20/14. Page 10 of 19 allurement where he administered her something mixed in cold drink after consuming which she became unconscious. In the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW1/B she states that on 01.02.11 when nobody was present in her house, accused talked to her and offered her cold drink and then took her to his room. He had mixed something in the cold drink on consuming which she became unconscious. However, in her deposition before this Court she stated that the accused called her and when she came outside her room, she saw him standing in the varanda and having a glass containing coca-cola cold drink in his hand which he offered to her and on consuming the cold drink she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness after about one and a half hour she found herself in the room of the accused.
17. The prosecutrix has thus narrated the incident differently in her aforesaid three statements. As per her complaint Ex. PW1/A the accused had offered cold drink to her in his room and to the same extent in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C in this regard. This implies that she was conscious when the accused took her to his room and he offered her cold drink in the room but in her testimony before this Court she states that accused offered her cold drink in the varanda outside his room where upon she became unconscious. She does not know how she had reached the room of the accused. It is difficult to find out which of her statements is correct in this regard. Did the accused administer her stupefied cold drink inside his room or in the varanda outside the room? If her statement in the complaint Ex. PW1/A and in the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW1/B is correct, in that case also it is not clear why did she accompany the accused to his room. She SC No.20/14. Page 11 of 19 has nowhere explained as to what kind of allurement was offered by accused to her. She also does not explain why she accepted the cold drink offered to her by the accused, when she was not on friendly terms with him before that date and did not mix up with him. The conduct of the accused is indicative of the fact that she was on friendly terms with the accused and thus may have willingly accompanied accused to his room.
18. It is the case of prosecution that after taking prosecutrix to his room on the aforesaid date, the accused raped her during her unconsciousness. The prosecutrix in her complaint Ex. PW1/A and in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW1/B, has stated that after regaining consciousness in the room of the accused, she realised that she has been raped. However, she has nowhere stated as to what made her to realise so. What did she observe that gave her the impression that she had been raped? It is for the first time in her testimony before this Court that she deposed that on regaining consciousness, she found that her salwar as well as underwear had been taken off. She also stated that she was feeling pain in her private part and was slightly bleeding from her private part.
19. This part of her deposition is a clear improvement upon her previous statements and thus has to be taken out of consideration. The prosecutrix has further deposed that when she asked the accused why he had done so, the accused told her that he has prepared her obscene video and would expose the same to everybody if she disclosed the incident to anybody and thereafter the accused used to blackmail her to commit sexual intercourse SC No.20/14. Page 12 of 19 with him whenever he got the opportunity. However, the prosecutrix had mentioned in her cross examination that she had not seen any obscene video in the mobile phone of the accused. Therefore, where arose the question of the accused exposing her obscene video or blackmailing on the pretext of same, when there was no such obscene video in the mobile phone of the accused.
20. Coming to the incident dated 22.04.12 when the prosecutrix is stated to have been abducted by the accused to West Bengal. In the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the prosecutrix has stated that on 22.04.12, the accused took her to West Bengal after issuing threats to her. She does not say what kind of threats were issued to her by the accused. In her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW1/B she simply stated that accused lifted her from her house on 22.04.12 and took her to West Bengal. Both of the statements appear to be vague and unbelievable on the face of it. It is not clear from her statements where did the accused meet her on that day, who else was present at her house at that time and why could not she raise any alarm or cry for help when the accused took her away. She has given a totally different version in her testimony before this Court. She has deposed that on the night intervening between 22.04.12 and 23.04.12 at about 1.30 a.m., when she had gone to toilet to answer nature's call, accused and his two friends Rajender and Jagminder were standing there. They gagged her mouth and did not permit her to raise alarm. They made her to smell something upon which she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she found herself travelling in a bus. The accused was also wit her and he took her to a place known as Das Dargah in West Bengal. It is thus evident that her deposition SC No.20/14. Page 13 of 19 before this Court is totally contrary to what she has stated in her complaint to the police and in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. There is no mention of Rajender and Jagminder in her previous statements. In her complaint as well as in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C, she states that she was abducted on 22.04.12 but in her testimony, she has given the time as 1.30 a.m during the night. There is no mention in her complaint or in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C that she was made to smell something upon which she became unconscious and the accused took her in unconscious state.
21. In view of the aforementioned embellishments, discrepancies and prevarications in the testimony of the prosecutrix, I find her version totally untrustworthy and far from being credible. It does not inspire confidence in any respect. It appears that she had accompanied the accused voluntarily to West Bengal pursuant to a mutual agreement and this lends credence to what the accused has stated in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
22. It is the case of prosecution that the accused kept on committing rape upon the prosecutrix throughout her stay with him till she escaped from his custody in the month of October, 2013. The prosecution case in this regard too seems to be improbable and unbelievable. The prosecutrix did not tell the paternal aunt (Mausi) of the accused at West Bengal or her sons and daughters-in-law that she had been brought by the accused forcibly after making her unconscious and he is committing sexual intercourse with her against her consent. She stated that the SC No.20/14. Page 14 of 19 accused kept her at various places in Noida, Aya Nagar, two or three places in Gurgaon and Sangam Vihar but did not tell any of the tenants residing in these houses or their land lords that she is not staying with the accused voluntarily and the accused has been sexually assaulting her. She was with the accused for about one and a half years and they had been shifting from one place to other during this period. It does not appear from her testimony that she raised any alarm at any of those place during such a long period or made any attempt to escape. She admitted that the room at Sangam Vihar was arranged by her sister Annu and her husband in August, 2013 and a proper rent agreement dated 04.08.13 Ex. PW1/D1 was executed. She identified her signatures at Point A on the same and that of her sister Annu at Point B on the same. This indicates that her sister Annu was having knowledge that she is staying with the accused. Prosecutrix had the occasion to meet her sister at the time of execution of the rent agreement but she did not tell her that the accused is keeping her forcibly with him and is engaging in forcible sexual intercourse with her. She would have easily accompanied her sister Annu and her husband and thus escaped from the clutches of the accused but she preferred to stay with the accused and did not go with her sister. She was also taken to the concerned office for preparation of Adhar Card from the said Sangam Vihar address. All this goes against the version of abduction, forcible confinement and forcible sexual intercourse.
23. It is not discernible why the prosecutrix's sister Annu did not inform her parents that she has arranged a room on rent for the prosecutrix and the accused at Sangam Vihar near her SC No.20/14. Page 15 of 19 place of residence. The conduct of prosecutrix's sister and her father appears to be absolutely unnatural and also make the prosecution case doubtful. If infact the prosecutrix had been kidnapped by the accused, her sister should not have helped them to find a room on rent near her place of residence. She should have informed the police immediately and got the accused apprehended and the prosecutrix freed from his clutches. She did not inform the police regarding the whereabouts of the prosecutrix and the accused. She also does not tell her parents that she knows the whereabouts of the prosecutrix as well as accused. The father appearing as PW-6 has nowhere deposed in his testimony that his daughter Annu had informed him that the prosecutrix is staying alongwith the accused at Sangam Vihar.
24. PW-6 has deposed that his son Ramanuj had lodged a missing complaint in police station when the prosecutrix had disappeared from the house on the night intervening between 22.04.12 and 23.04.12 as he was not present in the house during that night and had gone to his native village. However, neither IO nor any other police officials has mentioned about any such missing complaint lodged by Ramanuj. No such complaint or DD Entry recorded pursuant to the same has been produced or proved by the prosecution. PW-6 further deposed that on 24.04.12 or 25.04.12 he took the police officials to the house of accused's sister at Mithaipur, Jaipur, Delhi to obtain any clue about the accused. This indicates that he was aware about the relations between his daughter i.e. the prosecutrix and the accused and thus suspected that she might have gone with the accused. He has further deposed that the prosecutrix returned home on her own SC No.20/14. Page 16 of 19 one day in the month of August, 2012 which is contrary to the testimony of the prosecutrix who has deposed that she escaped from the rented house in the month of October, 2013 and straight away reached home. A writing dated 30.09.13 Ex. PW6/D1 was shown to him in his cross examination and he admitted his signatures on the same at Point A. He did not know when and where did he sign the same. The said writing appears to have been written by the prosecutrix saying that she has got married to accused Deepak on 16.05.12 and now she has come to stay with her parents for six months and thereafter she would go to stay with her husband. PW-6 does not say that his signatures were taken forcibly or fraudulently on the said document or that whatever is written on the same is not true and correct. It is thus manifest from the aforesaid document that the prosecutrix had voluntarily solemnised marriage with accused on 16.05.12 and that she had no complaint against the accused. She intended to go and stay with the accused again after spending six months with her parents. This too falsifies the prosecution case.
25. It is the case of prosecution that the accused and his family members had forced the prosecutrix to solemnise marriage with him in Arya Samaj Mandir. A certificate of marriage issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamna Bazar, Delhi has been annexed with the charge sheet by the IO, though he has not mentioned anything about the same in his testimony. Since this document has been brought on record by the prosecution itself, its genuineness cannot be doubted. It shows that the prosecutrix and the accused got married on 16.05.12, the date mentioned in the document Ex. PW6/D1, as mentioned herein above. The prosecutrix has deposed SC No.20/14. Page 17 of 19 in her cross examination that she did not tell the Pandit at Arya Samaj Mandir that she is not willing for the marriage. According to her, the photograph Ex. PW1/D2 was taken at the time of marriage. In this photograph she is seen wearing bridal dress with a flower garland around her neck. It appears from the said photograph that she is being forced to solemnise marriage. The photographs Ex. PW1/D4 to Ex. PW1/D12 also seem to have been taken either at the time of marriage or immediately after that as in these photographs also the prosecutrix is seen wearing bridal dress with a flower garland around her neck. In one of the photograph the accused is seen applying vermilion on the parting of hair of the prosecutrix, in one photograph they are seen offering some sweets to each other and in one photograph prosecutrix is seen touching the feet of accused and taking his blessings. She seems to be in a very cheerful and happy mood in all these photographs. There is no indication from any evidence on record that the prosecutrix had been forced to marry the accused.
26. According to the prosecutrix she had escaped from the confinement of the accused in the month of October, 2013 and straight away reached home. She has nowhere explained what mode of transport did she use and who was present at her house when she reached there. The prosecutrix has kept silent for about two months as she has submitted the complaint in Police Station on 08.12.13. I do not find any satisfactory explanation from the side of prosecution regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecutrix, though has stated that on reaching home, she was not able to tell her parents anything initially, out of fear, but later on she was able to narrate the entire incident to them. When did she SC No.20/14. Page 18 of 19 apprise her parents about the entire incident is not discernible from her testimony. It appears that the prosecutrix and her parents took considerable time in fabricating false story to implicate the accused in this case.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the prosecution has failed to produce any clinching and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused is liable to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted as such.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 27.5.2014. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.20/14. Page 19 of 19