Delhi District Court
State vs . : Ravi Kapoor on 24 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST)07, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 24/09
U/s : 224/186/353/332 IPC
PS : Safdurjung Enclave
State Vs. : Ravi Kapoor
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 05/1/14
b The date of commission : 19.10.2009
c The date of Institution of the case : 25.05.2010
d The name of complainant : ASI Umed Pal
e The name of accused : Ravi Kapoor S/o Sh. Pritam Singh
R/o F3/76, 77 Madangir, New
Delhi.
f The offence complained of : 224/186/353/332 IPC
g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on : 25.08.2014
i The final order : Convicted
j The date of judgment : 24.09.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 The aforesaid accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on
19.10.2009 at about 11 am near Xray Room, HBlock, S.J. Enclave, New Delhi he had escaped from custody in which he was lawfully detained in case FIR No. 69/09 u/s 363/302/201/34 IPC of P.S Vasant Kunj and intentionally offered resistance or illegal obstruction to lawful apprehension by ASI Umed Pal, HC Jagdish and Ct. Satya Pal. Further he voluntarily obstructed them in discharge of FIR No. 24/09 1 of 19 their public functions with intend to prevent or deter said public servants from exercising their duties or in consequence of anything or attempt to be done by such lawful discharge as such public servant. In the process the accused also caused hurt to ASI Umed Pal while he was discharging his duties as public servant. Thus the accused thereby committed offence punishable u/s 224/186/353/332 IPC. Investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed in the court on 25.05.2010. 2 Charge under above offences was framed upon the accused on 17.12.2009 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses.
PW1 is Ct. Satya Pal, who has deposed that on 19.10.2009 during his posting at Central Jail at about 8.30 am he alongwith ASI Umed Pal and HC Jagdish took the accused Ravi Kapoor for his treatment at Ortho department of Safdarjung Hospital ( Hereinafter SJH), where the xray of accused was conducted and upon collecting the report of Xray he heard noise and came to know that accused Ravi Kapoor, whom he correctly identified, after throwing chilly power in the eyes of the ASI Umed Pal and other staff ran away from there and he was chased by ASI Umed Pal, HC Jagdish and himself. He has further deposed that in order to warn the said accused to desist from fleeing, ASI Umed Pal fired three round in the air and while escaping from the same accused fell down on the ground. In between Duty Ct. Virender and HC Ashok also reached at the spot and accused was overpowered and IO has recorded his statement to this effect.
PW2 is HC Ashok, who in his deposition has deposed that during his visit to Safdarjung Hospital for his own treatment he saw accused Ravi Kapoor FIR No. 24/09 2 of 19 was running from the clutches of police official and he with the help of Ct. Virender overpowered him who was thereafter handed over to ASI Umed Pal. Later on SI Bhist also reached at the spot and he thereafter left the spot for his treatment. He proved Ex. PW2/A in cross examination which is his OPD Slip concerning his treatment and visit to hospital on that day. He also proved site plan Ex. PW2/D in cross examination.
PW3 is Jadish Singh Hudda, who in his deposition has narrated the same fact as deposed by PW1 Satya Pal and in addition to that he has also deposed about seizure of chilly power and Rs. 1000/ recovered from the pocket of UTP, seizure of empty used cartridges and seizure of one wrist watch, uniform of ASI Umed in the present case and all the said memos were duly exhibited and proved. PW3 has has correctly identified the case property i.e pocket of chilly power as Ex. P1, uniform of ASI Umed Pal as Ex. P2, currency note as Ex. P3, empty cartridges as Ex. P4 and P5 and two jail coupons vide Ex. P6.
PW4 is ASI Umed Pal who in his testimony has also reiterated the version as stated by PW1 Ct. Satya Pal and PW3 HC Jagdish and identified the accused as well as the case property when the same were produced before him during his testimony. Apart from the abovesaid the PW4 has also deposed about taking into possession of empty cartridges vide Ex. PW4/A, seizure of medical documents vide Ex. PW4/B, arrest of accused Ravi Kapoor in the present case vide memo Ex. PW4/C and preparation of personal search memo vide Ex. PW4/D. PW5 is Raghbir Singh who being posted as Security Guard at S.J. Hospital has also deposed that on the date of incident he saw the accused, whom FIR No. 24/09 3 of 19 he correctly identified, running from police custody and later on apprehended by police personnel.
PW6 is Rajnish Kumar who being the Warder of Central jail No. 1 has proved the letter issued by Deputy Supdt. regarding deployment of escort part for a prisoner vide Ex. PW6/A and has also proved the page of the hospital register dated 19.10.2009 containing the receiving of a prisoner by head of the escort party vide Ex. PW6/B and C. PW7 is Dr. S. Gaghavan, HOD Neurology, S.J. Hospital who in his deposition has deposed about suggesting the accused for CT scan of head and has proved the relevant medical document to this effect vide Ex. PW7/A. PW8 is Dr. Deepak Gulia, who being posted as SMO, Central Jail No. 1 has proved the referred slip dated 16.10.2009 for 19.10.2009 signed by Dr. Sanjay Lal and two payment of slips signed by Dr. Sajay Rai of Rs. 1000/ vide mark P, Q and R respectively.
PW9 is ASI Rajinder Singh, who being posted at Duty Officer in P.S. S.J. Enclave has proved the registration of FIR in the present case vide Ex. PW9/A and his endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW9/B. PW10 is Ct Virender, who has deposed that on 19.10.2009 while his posting as Duty Constable at S.J. Hospital at about 11 am heard noise of shooting fire bullet. Thereaftr he alongwith HC Ashok ran towards Bio Chemistry Lab Safdarjung Hospital and saw a person/accused running towards the Injection Room and apprehended him there and handed over him to ASI Umed who was also following the accused whose name later on revealed as Ravi. Police of P.S. FIR No. 24/09 4 of 19 Safdurjung Enclave also reached there, one SI conducted the personal search of accused wherein one chilly powder and Rs. 1000/ were recovered from the right and inner pocket of the wearing pant of the accused. Medical examination of ASI Umed and other police staff was got conducted and IO seized the cloth of ASI Umed vide Ex. PW10/A and sealed the same with seal of SJH.
PW11 is Hayat Singh, who being posted as Medical Record Clerk at Safdarjung Hospital has proved the OPD slip prepared by Dr. Mahesh on 24.09.2009 regarding accused Ravi Kapoor vide Mark11X and photocopy of the entry in OPD register vide Ex. PW11/A. PW12 is Dr. T.Sivakumar who being posted as Sr. Resident in department of Psychiatry, AIIMS Hospital has proved being advised the accused Ravi Kapoor for attending Adult Psychiatry OPD on 23.10.2009 at 8.30 am with old record and proved the OPD card prepared by him vide Mark X/12.
PW13 is SI S.S. Bisht, who is the IO in the present case and who in his deposition has also reiterated the version of aforesaid eyewitnesses and has deposed that on being apprehended the accused Ravi Kapoor was handed over to him, recorded statement of ASI Umed Pal, conducted personal search of accused wherein chilly powder and Rs. 1000/ was recovered, seized the same vide Ex. PW7/A, prepared rukka Ex. PW13/A, got the FIR registered through Ct. Virender, PW13 has further deposed about getting the medical examination of ASI Umed Pal, HC Jagdish and accused, preparation of site plan Ex.PW2/DA at the instance of ASI Umed Pal recovery of empty cartridges vide memo Ex. PW7/B, seizure of said cartridges vide memo Ex. PW4/A, seizure of cloth of ASI Umed Pal vide FIR No. 24/09 5 of 19 memo Ex. PW7/D and Ex. PW10/A, arresting and conducting the personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW4/C and PW4/D, seizure of medical documents of the accused vide Ex. PW4/B and marked 13/A to A23, recording of statement of witnesses, seizure of medical OPD card of HC Ashok vide Ex. PW13/B, collecting the result of MLC of aforesaid officials, depositing the exhibits at FSL Rohini, getting permission u/s 195 Cr.P.C from higher authority and filing the chllan after completion of investigation.
PW14 is Sachin Kumar Saini, who being UDC, AIIMS Hospital has proved the copy of the letter No. F.16/treatment/2009/Estt. (H) dated 22.09.2009 and same is mark X14.
PW15 is Dy. SP Gurmeet Singh, who has proved complainant u/s 195 Cr.P.C for prosecuting the accused Ravi Kapoor u/s 224/186/353/332 IPC vide Ex.PW15/A. PW16 is HC Pritam Chand who being posted as Duty Officer at Central Jail, Gate No. 2 has proved the DD entry No. 27 B regarding departure entry of UTP Ravi Kapoor alongwith police personnel, ASI Umed Pal, HC Jagdish and Ct. Satpal and one taxi bearing No. 2674 with its driver namely Baljit for Safdarjung Hospital vide Ex. PW16/A. All the material PWs were duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
4 Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused took the plea of false implication and pleaded innocence. No defence evidence was led.
5 I have heard Ld. APP for the State and accused as well as gone through case FIR No. 24/09 6 of 19
file very carefully. It is pertinent that vide separate statement dated 19.05.2014 accused stated that he does not need LAC at final arguments. In that statement accused also stated that he is a graduate and was making the said statement voluntarily.
6 The argument of Ld. APP is that there is enough material on evidence to prove the case against the accused.
7 Accused on the other hand has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated regarding which he has filed a separate complaint pending in this court only and is also at the stage of final argument which titled as UTP Ravi Kapoor Vs. ASI Umed Pal and others.
8 I have perused the case file very carefully and have duly considered the respective arguments.
Relevant Law:
9 It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to FIR No. 24/09 7 of 19 acquittal.
SECTION 224 IPC Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension: Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself, for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two year or with fine or with both.
The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of he was convicted.
SECTION 186 IPC It provides punishment for obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. Its ingredients are;
(i) Any public servant is in discharge of public functions.
(ii) During such time the accused has voluntarily obstructed such public servant.
SECTION 353 IPC It provides punishment for assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. Its ingredients are as follows:
(i) A public servant is in execution of duty as such public servant.
(ii) Any assault is made or criminal force is used to such public servant
FIR No. 24/09 8 of 19
with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging duty or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant.
SECTION 332 IPC It provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty. Its ingredients are;
(i) A public servant is in discharge of his duty as such public servant.
(ii)Any hurt is caused to that public servant with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging duty or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant.
III.Such hurt is caused voluntarily.
10 After consideration of the case, in my view following facts have been proved by the prosecution as per the evidence led:
(i) That the accused was brought by the complainant/PW4 ASI Umed Pal, PW1 Ct. Satya Pal and PW3 HC Jagdish Singh Hudda at Safdarjung Hospital relating to the treatment of accused. This fact has not been denied even by the accused that he was there for treatment. His only averment is that he was brought for CT scan and not for Xray as alleged by the prosecution and both the places are some distance apart i.e. Room for conducting for CT Scan as well as room for conducting Xray. The presence of the accused is even proved by the evidence of PW6 who is the Warden Central Jail No.1 who has proved Ex. PW6/A which concerns the deployment of escort party for the accused for bringing him to FIR No. 24/09 9 of 19 hospital and also proved the Ex. PW6/B and PW6/C which is the relevant page containing the IN and OUT entry of the accused in the hospital on that day.
Besides the said Pws namely PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW6 there are other independent witnesses namely PW HC Ashok who had come to the hospital for his own treatment proof of which is Ex. PW2/A ( Casualty Card dated 19.10.2009 for his treatment), PW5 Raghubir Singh who was working as Security Guard and saw the accused releasing himself from police custody and ran alongwith the police party in the chase. In this regard PW10 has also testified in the same vein and he alongwith PW2 HC Ashok apprehended the fleeing accused and being chased by the above said Pws.
(ii) It is clear from the testimony of all the Pws who were present and who either escorted the accused to the hospital or were already present at the hospital due to some reason that all of them saw the accused running away after releasing himself from the legal custody of the police officials. To explain it further PW1, PW3 and PW4 had escorted the accused and all of them have stated that while PW1 Ct. Sat Pal proceeded to collect the Xray report and PW3 and PW4 were waiting at the gallery of HBlock of SJH accused told them that he wants to go to the toilet which they allowed. However, after 2 minutes the accused came out and PW3 and PW4 caught his hand to take him to the custody. Accused was taken in open area due to security reasons and to avoid the rush of the gallery. The accused suddenly took out chilly powder from his right pocket of the pant and right hand and sprayed into the eyes of PW4 ASI Umed Pal, disentangled himself from custody and escaped there. Thereafter, he was chased FIR No. 24/09 10 of 19 and when the accused did not stop despite 3 warnings, PW4 had to fire 3 shots in the air due to which the accused fell down and then again gathered himself, stood up and started running again. However, on the way he was caught by PW2 HC Ashok Kumar and PW10 HC Virender. As already said PW2 HC Ashok Kumar was there for his treatment and PW10 Ct. Virender was already posted as Duty Constable at SJH. Other witnesses namely PW5 an independent witness and working as Security Guard also says that he saw the accused releasing himself from police custody and running away. PW5 also participated in chasing the accused.
(iii) PW2 HC Ashok Kumar,PW3 HC Jagdish Hudda including PW4 on whom chilly powder was thrown at face , PW10 Ct. Virender all say that they saw the chilly powder on the uniform and face of PW4/complainant.
(iv) PW3 has proved Ex. P1 which is the pant worn by the accused and the court observation is that the chilly powder was found in the said pant. Ex. P4 and Ex. P5 are the empty cartridges two in number fired from the pistol of PW4 in the air to warn the accused to stop fleeing. Said exhibits have been corroborated by other Pws namely PW4, PW10 and PW13 IO SI S.S. Bisht.
(v) It is stated by PW4 in his cross examination that after chilly powder was thrown on his face he could not see for some time but thereafter he could see and then started chasing the accused. He clearly states that the chilly powder was thrown at his eyes which would cause pain to any person. He states in cross examination that there was burning in eyes but he washed the eyes before the MLC was conducted. His MLC No. 219123 in this regard has been filed on FIR No. 24/09 11 of 19 record by the IO as per which, it is clear that at the time of examination PW4 had chilly powder on his face, scalp and near the eye. Thereafter he was referred to the eye department.
11 Now I will discuss the arguments of defence and deal with them simultaneously.
(i) The accused says that he has been falsely implicated as it is clear from the evidence of PW6 Rajnish Kumar Warder Central Jail No. 1 who has proved Ex. PW6/A to C ( relevant entry of register No. 16 containing the entry regarding coming and going of the escort party and receiving of the prisoner by the head of the escort party), as per which no chilly powder and other objectionable substance was disclosed as the prisoner used to be properly searched by the Tamilnadu Special Police and escorting party. PW3 also says that IO searched the accused outside the Casualty Room. PW4 says that the prisoner is checked in Jail Deodi and no person met the accused on the way. The accused argues that the whole case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of various PWs as well as Ex. P1 which is the pant of the accused wherein Chilly powder was found in packet that the accused after throwing chilly powder in the eyes of PW4 extricated himself from custody and ran away to flee from justice. However, in view of the prosecution witness it is clear that there was no chilly powder or other objectionable substance in his pocket. So it is improbable he will throw the chilly powder on PW4 to escape from legal custody.
However, in my view when there is overwhelming evidence as stated in the paragraph above regarding the facts proved and no contradiction FIR No. 24/09 12 of 19 could be brought in the testimony of Pws, it is clear that this defence of the accused does not have any merit. It is likely that the accused might have coordinated the keeping of chilly powder of SJH with some person who comes to meet and have talks with the accused ( Mulakat). It appears that this fact is only within the special knowledge of the accused as to how the chilly powder came in his pocket during his visit to hospital.
(ii) The accused further says that he was to be taken to CT Scan room as per the evidence of PW8 Dr. Deepak Gulia who had referred the CT Scan on 16.10.2009 for 9 am and has also suggested the payment of Rs. 1000/. But he was taken to the Xray room for which he was not referred and from where it is alleged that he was taken in an open area where chilly powder was thrown at PW4. Hence the accused says that the prosecution has not able to explain why he was taken at the Xray room/Ortho Department when he was referred for CT Scan which is at a different place.
I do not agree with this submission of accused because again as stated above there is overwhelming evidence to the point that the accused threw the chilly powder at PW4 and freed himself from the legal custody. Even otherwise PW1, PW3 and PW4 who escorted the accused from Jail to Hospital do not deny that they have taken the accused to the Xray department but they clearly say that they had gone there to collect the previous xray report. The said reference slip dated 25.09.2009 with advise of xray of spine and foot has been filed on the record.
(iii) Accused further says that the prosecution has not been able to
FIR No. 24/09 13 of 19
explain as to why and how the accused was at 8.30 am he could have been at the SJH even for the xray collection report when as per the evidence of PW16 HC Pritam Singh who was incharge of the rojnamcha register of the concerned gate No. 2 as per which DD entry Ex. PW16/A made at 9.45 am accused departed from jail. All the Pws especially PW2, PW3 and PW4 state that accused was at the hospital at 8.30 am.
Some force can be said to be in the arguments of the accused as the prosecution has not been able to explain the time gap but this lacuna in itself is not sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case in the light of the overwhelming evidence of the wrongful act of escaping from the lawful custody as well as obstruction to the public servant and use of criminal force during which hurt in the eyes of PW4 was caused by throwing chilly powder while the said witnesses were in the course of the performance of their official duties. No question on explaining this time gap has been asked from concerned PW(s).
(iv) Further the accused says that as per the arrest memo Ex.PW4/C his place of arrest has been shown to be near Xray room, H Block, SJH but as per the evidence of PWs namely PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW10 the accused was apprehended in front of the injection room. These two places are at some distance from each other and it is not possible that he would be arrested at Xray room whereas he was apprehended near injection room.
In my view this is no argument which reflects any inconsistency in the prosecution case as the IO has shown the place of arrest where he saw the other PWs having custody of accused after his apprehension. In this regard no FIR No. 24/09 14 of 19 illegality has been committed.
(v) Accused further argues that Dr. Anuhhav Agarwal prepared the MLC of PW3, PW4 as well as the accused but as per the RTI record there was no such doctor working there. This also shows that that prosecution has deliberately imposed a false case against him and could not cover all the defects while framing him.
Again this argument has no force as firstly the said RTI record has not been exhibited nor the accused has challanged the prosecution anywhere during the evidence of any PW. So a witness not confronted on a particular point will be deemed to be speaking truth on that point.
(vi) Further the accused argues that as per the Jail Rules he could not carried more than Rs. 100/ in his pocket but as per prosecution case when the search of the accused was conducted the accused had more than Rs. 1000/ in his pocket which point again prosecution has not been able to explain.
In my view even if there is any breach of Jail Rules it will not detract from the prosecution case.
(vii) As per the MLC at SJH accused has only three injury marks whereas as per the MLC of DDU the accused had 11 injury marks on the same day. Prosecution has not been able to explain this inconsistency and it also shows that the police was working hand in glove with each other to frame the accused.
However, this point will not give any benefit to the accused that the MLC conducted at DDU has not been exhibited and proved by the accused so that the prosecution witnesses could have been confronted with the same. Neither this FIR No. 24/09 15 of 19 question was put to the material witnesses nor the IO. Also there is overwhelming evidence to prove the case against accused.
(viii) It is further alleged by the accused that weapon issued to PW4 who fired in the air to give warning to the accused to stop from fleeing was revolver but the bullets recovered and exhibited by the prosecution in form of empty cartridges Ex. P4 and P5 are cartridges fired from a pistol which are different kind of weapons.
In my view the reason of declining this argument is same as previous one as PW4 as well as the IO PW13 has not been confronted with this fact and this point will not give any benefit to the accused. Even otherwise no record has been placed showing that the bullets fired by PW4 were not from a weapon issued to him.
Decision:
12 Hence, it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that on 19.10.2009 the accused obstructed PW1, PW3 and PW4 who were police officials of the escorting party in the discharge of their public functions by use of criminal force by throwing the chilly powder in the eyes of PW4, attempted to escape from legal custody and caused hurt PW4 in the process. Therefore, the accused is convicted u/s 186,353,332 as well as 224 ( all penal provisions of IPC). Let the accused be heard on the point of quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (Ashok Kumar)
Court on 23.09.2014 MM(South East)07,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 24/09 16 of 19
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST) 07, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 24/09
U/s : 224/186/353/332 IPC
PS : Safdurjung Enclave
State Vs. : Ravi Kapoor
ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE
Presence : Ld. APP for the State,
Convict produced from J/C with Ld. LAC Sh. Kishore Kumar. Vide separate judgment accused has been convicted for offence u/s 186, 353, 332 and 224 IPC.
Heard on point of sentence.
Ld. APP for the State says that no leniency should be shown in sentencing the convict and maximum sentence should be imposed upon him as provided under law.
Ld. Counsel for convict says that convict has already suffered more period in J/C then the punishment provided under the charge levelled against the accused and hence the convict may be given the benefit of the period undergonel by him.
FIR No. 24/09 17 of 19 I have heard both accused as well as Ld. APP for the State. The purpose of sentencing after conviction is a balancing act. On one hand, punishment should be sufficient to deter the accused not to repeat the offence in future and become a good member in the society. On the other hand, the punishment should not be too harsh which results in accused becoming a hardcore criminal.
The accused has been held guilty for the wrongful act that on 19.10.2009 the accused obstructed PW1, PW3 and PW4 who were police officials of the escorting party in the discharge of their public functions by use of criminal force by throwing the chilly powder in the eyes of PW4 and then attempted to escape from legal custody and caused hurt PW4 in the process. In my view such a conduct will spread a very encouraging signal to the people who do not hesitate to take law into their own hands and have the guts and the brazenness to commit such offence unless dealt with iron hands. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances the accused is sentenced to a period of 3 months RI for offence u/s 186 IPC, 3 years RI for offence u/s 332 IPC, 2 years RI for offence u/s 353 IPC and 2 years RI for offence u/s 224 IPC. No fine is imposed in any of these and these sentences are directed to be run concurrently as per section 71 IPC read with section 31 Cr.P.C in view of the fact that all these offences are a result of one single act of throwing chilly powder and thereafter escaping simultaneously from the legal custody and the accused is in J/C in the present case since the date of arrest i.e. from 19.10.2009 till today. It is pertinent to note that the accused was granted bail on 14.12.2012 but has not availed the benefit of bail as he FIR No. 24/09 18 of 19 has not furnished the bail bonds. Hence, the accused be released in the present case unless required in other cases as he has been given the benefit of the period already undergone by him in judicial custody. A separate copy of judgment and order on sentence by provided to LAC of convict free of cost.
Announced in the open (ASHOK KUMAR)
Court on 24.09.2014 MM07, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET, NEW DELHI,
FIR No. 24/09 19 of 19