Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh S/O Sameer, on 17 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE03
(NE): KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
SC No.243/10
Unique ID No.02402R0181922010
Date of institution: 5.7.2010
Date of transfer: 6.8.2010
Date on which reserved for orders:13.10.2011
Date of delivery of order: 13.10.2011
State vs Rajesh s/o Sameer,
R/o Awaragard, 2nd Pusta Usmanpur, Delhi.
FIR No.146/10
PS New Usmanpur
U/s 354/376/511 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1. It is necessary for the courts to have a sensitive approach when dealing with cases of child rape. The effect of such crime on the mind of the child is likely to be lifelong. A special safeguard has been provided for children in the Constitution of India in Article 39 which, inter alia, stipulates that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the tender age of the children is not abused and the children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. In the present case, the victim at the time of occurrence of rape FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 1/19 was a child aged seven years.
2. The prosecution case is based on the complaint of one Mazda Khatoon wherein she stated that on 3.5.2010, her daughter aged about 7 years had gone to play outside the house but did not return back for long. She started searching for her. At about 8 P.M., when she reached near the drain, Second Pushta Old village, Usmanpur Pulia, she found a crowd beating a boy. Her daughter was also found crying there. When she asked as to why she was crying, she told her that the boy who was being beaten up by the crowd had brought her there on the pretext of giving her something to eat and when they reached there he took off her knickers and started fondling with her private parts. He also put his finger inside, as a result of which, she experienced severe pain. She started crying. He also took off his pants and was trying to put his penis into her private parts. Hearing the noise people gathered there and caught hold of the boy and gave beatings to him. On enquiry, he revealed his name as Rajesh. During this commotion police also reached there and accused was handed over to the police. Her daughter was got medically examined from GTB Hospital. That accused had committed 'CHHERCHHAR' with his daughter and also tried to commit rape on her.
3. On the basis of the statement of complainant Mazda Khatoon, FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared by IO SI Suresh Chand. Accused was also got medically examined and was arrested. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by the IO ASI Sheela. She got her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 2/19 Exhibits were sent to FSL and after completing necessary formalities, chargesheet was filed in the court.
4. Accused was initially charged for the offence u/s 376/511 IPC. However, in view of the statement of the prosecution witnesses charge was amended on 1.4.2011 and accused was charged for the offence u/s 376(2)(f) IPC.
5. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. ● PW1 is the prosecutrix aged 7 years who proved her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW1/A and also identified the blue knickers that she was wearing at the time of the incident as PW1/P1 and underwear of the accused as Ex.PW1/P2. PW2 is Mazda Khatoon, mother of the prosecutrix who proved her complaint given to the police as Ex.PW2/A. ● To prove medical evidence against accused, prosecution examined PW8 Dr. Reena who proved the MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW8/A. Since the defence was not disputing the genuinity of FSL report, MLC of accused Rajesh and proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the same were exhibited as Ex.PA, Ex.PB and Ex.PC and the corresponding witnesses i.e. Dr. Harish and Ld. M.M. Vinod Kumar Gautam were dropped from the array of the witnesses. ● The prosecution has examined seven police witnesses in support of its case. PW10 Const. Dharmender Kaushik is also a relevant witness who first reached the spot hearing the uproar.
● PW7 SI Suresh Chand is the first IO of the case who stated that on 3.5.2010 at about 8.20 P.M., PW10 Const. Dharmender Kumar had given him information FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 3/19 over telephone that one boy who had committed sexual intercourse with a minor girl had been apprehended by the public and on this information he reached near bridge, 2nd Pusta drain, New Usmanpur, Delhi. He saw gathering of many persons there. Accused had been given beatings by the public. Prosecutrix and her mother Mazda Khatoon also met him. Lady Ct. Saroj was called at the spot. PW4 Const. Saroj Yadav accompanied prosecutrix and her mother to GTB Hospital. After examination, doctor handed over two sealed parcels and two sample seals to Const. Saroj Yadav which were proved by her vide Ex.PW4/A. Accused was sent to the Police Station in the morning. The MLC of the prosecutrix was received. He recorded statement of mother of the prosecutrix Mazda Khatoon and made endorsement at about 6 A.M. on the same on 4.5.10 which is proved vide Ex.PW7/A. PW6 ASI R.P. Pandey recorded FIR which has been proved as Ex.PW6/A. With the help of the complainant he prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/B. Accused was got medically examined. ● PW3 Const. Shish Pal took the accused to GTB Hospital for his medical examination. MLC was handed over to him alongwith one sealed parcel stated to be containing undergarments of the accused, one semen sample and one blood sample which he further gave to the IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. IO arrested the accused and took personal search of accused in presence of PW5 Const. Anil Kumar vide memo Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. Accused was again medically examined regarding his potency. The MLC is Ex.PB. Further investigation was handed over to PW9 ASI Sheela.
FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 4/19 ● PW9 ASI Sheela got the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 164
Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW1/A. She recorded the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Exhibits were deposited in the FSL and FSL report was obtained which is Ex.PA.
6. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. In his defence accused has stated that the prosecutix and her mother gave false evidence against him with an intention to extort money from him. Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Mr. Gaurav Vashisht, Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused and have very carefully scanned and scrutinized the evidence on record, in particular the evidence of the prosecutrix with a view to find if the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt or not.
8. The prosecution case hinges on the testimony of the prosecutrix, her mother and medical evidence. To the prosecutrix PW1 aged seven years certain preliminary questions were put to find out if she was capable of understanding the questions and was in a position to answer them. Before recording her testimony, I was satisfied that she was understanding the questions and was in a position to answer the same despite being quite young. Considering her tender age, oath was not administered to her. Her statement was recorded in camera (in the chamber) on 29.11.2010. In her testimony before the court she stated that on FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 5/19 3.5.2010, in the evening she was playing near Pusta dirty drain alongwith her friend. Accused, present before the court (the witness correctly identified the accused by pointing her finger towards him) came there and took her away with him on pretext of giving 'chizzi'; near ganda nala (dirty drain) and nobody was there. Accused pulled down her underwear. He put his penis (witness uttered word 'juji') on her vagina (witness uttered word 'peshab karne ka raasta'). Thereafter, some persons saw them and gave beatings to the accused. Some people had collected on alarm being raised by her. She further stated that 'usne apana juji mere peshab ke raaste pe dala, mujhe dard hua, main chilai, usne mera muh aur gala daba'. Police came there and she was taken to hospital. She was examined there and her underwear was taken by the doctor. She further stated that her statement was recorded by Judge Sahab in his chamber (by Ld. Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C.). Judge Sahab read over the contents of her statement and she put her thumb impression. She identified the documents bearing her thumb impression and she also identified the clothes which she was wearing on the date of incident as also the clothes which the accused was wearing. She identified one blue colour half pant (knickers) which she was wearing at the time of the incident as Ex.PW1/P1 and underwear of the accused which he was wearing at the time of incident was identified by her as Ex.PW1/P2. She was cross examined by the defence. In her cross examination she stated that she did not know her age. She was studying in second class. The accused had put his penis on her vagina and not inserted it. The accused had shut her mouth after FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 6/19 lifting her in his arms so she could not raise alarm. She denied the suggestion that it was not the accused who had committed sexual act with her. Since there was ambiguity in her testimony, she was reexamined by the prosecution and in her reexamination the question was put as under: "Q.MUZLIM NE KITNA JUJI AAP KE PESHAB KE RAASTE MAIN DALA THA JISSE KHOON AAYA THA?
ANS. USNE THORA SA HI DALA THA. USNE
UNGLI BHI DALI THI".
9. Since the accused was initially charged for the offence punishable u/s 376/511 IPC , in view of a testimony before the court charge was amended and he was charged for the offence u/s 376(2)(f) IPC and on the charge being amended she was recalled for her further examination. In her cross examination, she again stated that "ISNE PEHLE UNGLI DALA PHIR JUJI DALA". She stated that she had not narrated anything to the doctor.
10. The prosecutrix has been supported by her mother PW2 Mazda Khatoon who stated that on 3.5.2010, her daughter aged about seven years was playing outside the house. She was searching for her daughter as she had not returned despite it being late evening. She reached Dusra Pushta Pulia at about 8 p.m. and saw gathering of many people. Accused (the witness correctly identified the accused) was beaten by the public. Her daughter was weeping there. On enquiry, her daughter told her that accused had taken her on pretext of giving some 'chizzi' (toffees). Thereafter he removed her pants and raped her. Public FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 7/19 persons who got collected there, apprehended the accused and gave him beatings. In the meantime, police officials reached there and accused was handed over to them. Her daughter was taken to hospital by the police. She admitted that she had not seen the accused raping her daughter and she reached the spot subsequent to the occurrence. She stated that she observed some scratch marks around her neck and her daughter told her that the accused had shut her mouth.
11. Another important prosecution witness who immediately reached the spot is PW10 Const.Dharmender Kaushik who stated that on 3.5.2010 in the night he was on patrolling duty. At about 8 P.M., when he reached near nala he saw gathering of many persons and accused was being beaten up by the public. He saw a girl of seven years old standing there with her mother. He was weeping. He rescued the accused from the public and gave message to the police station. He handed over the custody of accused Rajesh and prosecutrix to the IO.
12. The testimony of the prosecutrix regarding the accused having raped her is also corroborated by PW8 Dr. Reena who stated that she had seen the MLC of prosecutrix which was prepared by Dr. Rashmi and Dr. Rashmi was no longer working in the hospital and her present whereabouts were not known. She identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Rashmi as they worked together in department of Obs and Gynae. She stated that the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Rashmi on 4.5.2010 at about 12.30 a.m. who was brought by Const. Saroj with the alleged history of fondling of genitalia by a boy in evening. On local FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 8/19 examination, external genitalia and thigh were found stained with blood. There was spot present over undergarment of the patient. Hymen of the patient was found ruptured, introitus gaping, bleeding through introitus was also present. The patient being of tender age had not allowed the doctor to examine further, so further examination was done under anesthesia. Her hymen was found ruptured, small bruises were present on both labia majora. There was a small tear at forchette present around 1 cm but not bleeding. The underwear of the girl was also taken, converted into the parcel and handed over to Const. with sample seal. She has proved the MLC prepared by Dr. Rashmi as Ex. PW8/A.
13. The defence did not dispute the genuinity of the FSL report and therefore, the same was proved u/s 294 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PA. As per the FSL report dated 24.1.11, blood was detected on Ex.1 i.e. dirty knickers belonging to the prosecutrix and human semen was detected on Ex.3 i.e. underwear of accused.
14. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused has given only an evasive reply to the specific questions put to him: "Q.3. It is further in evidence against you that you pulled down your underwear and put your penis (prosecutrix uttered word 'juji') on the vagina of prosecutrix (prosecutrix uttered word 'peshab kerne ka raasta'). What do you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
Q.6. It is further in evidence against you that prosecutrix uttered that 'usne (you) apni 'juji' mere (prosecutrix) peshab ke raaste pe dala, mujhe dard hua, main chilai, FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 9/19 usne (you) mera muh aur gala daba'. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect."
Accused has alleged false implication, however, he has not led any defence evidence to show any false implication. The accused has stated that the prosecutrix and her mother gave false evidence against him with an intention to extort money from him. This is just a mere allegation which has no basis. There is no ground for false implication. Accused was not even known to the prosecutrix and her mother. Prosectrix, all of seven years cannot be imputed to have known about sexual acts and falsely implicate the accused.
15. It has been submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecutrix being a child witness is gullible and is susceptible to be tutored by her family members that initially the case was of attempt to rape and after coming to the court prosecutrix and her mother improved upon their earlier version. He has contended that at best the case of fingering or outraging of modesty u/s 354 IPC is proved against the accused by the prosecution. It is further contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that as per the prosecution story the accused was caught by the public at the spot itself while he was trying to commit rape upon the prosecutrix and thereafter he was given beatings. However, the MLC of the accused Rajesh does not reflect any external injury on his person though PW10 Const. Dharmender Kaushik stated that the accused was bleeding from his eye portion. As per the MLC, no external injury on the person of the accused is reflected. PW7 SI Suresh Chand, first IO stated that accused was given beating so he was FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 10/19 also medically examined and accused was arrested. Accused was again medically examined regarding his capability to perform sexual activity vide MLC Ex.PB which means MLC Ex.PB is only in relation to his potency test. Prosecution has not placed his other MLC on record. However, this lacuna in the prosecution case is not so fatal as to demolish the entire prosecution case. It is also contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that the MLC of the prosecutrix Ex.PW8/A is reflecting that hymen is ruptured. That could not give any conclusive opinion that she had been raped. That as per Medical Jurisprudence, hymen could be ruptured due to number of reasons. He has contended that there is material change and improvement in the statement made by the victim as what she had stated before the police during investigation and therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. That the testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from infirmities and makes it unsafe to base the finding of guilt.
16. It is trite that the evidence of a child witness is required to be evaluated carefully as the child may be swayed by what others may tell him or her as the child is an easy prey to tutoring. Wisdom requires that the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. In Panchhi vs State of U.P. (1998) SCC (Crl.) 1561, it was observed by the Apex Court that: "The evidence of a child witness cannot be rejected outright but the evidence must be evaluated carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. The court has to assess as to whether the statement of the FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 11/19 victim before the court is the voluntary expression of the victim and that she was not under the influence of others."
17. In Mohd. Kalam vs State of Bihar, (2008) 3 SCC (Crl.) 27, it was observed that: "The evidence of a child cannot be rejected outrightly and the same must be evaluated with great circumspection."
18. Ld. Prosecutor has contended that there is no defence evidence brought out by the accused to show that he has been falsely implicated. The testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW10 are cogent, clear and consistent and there is no possibility of false implication. Accused was caught red handed at the spot and there is no dispute regarding his identity. The testimony of the prosecutrix recorded before the court is the substantive evidence which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Ld. Prosecutor has put thrust on the point that there cannot be tear in the hymen by mere insertion of finger. Because of rape, prosecutrix was in so much of pain that she did not allow the doctor to conduct her internal examination and her further examination was done under anesthesia. It is also stated by him that it is nobody's case that the tear in the hymen was old and there was fresh blood found near genitalia and thighs of the prosecutrix and even her knickerss was found bloodstained.
19. FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of PW2 Mazda Khatoon, mother of the prosecutrix Ex.PW2/A in which she stated "USKA knickers UTAAR KAR USKI PESHAB KARNE WALI JAGAH PER HAATH PHERNE FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 12/19 LAGA TATHA APNI UNGLI ANDAR DAAL DI, JISSE USEY DARD HUA AUR VAH CHIKHANE LAGI, TABHI OOS LADKE NE APNI ZIP KHOL KAR APNE LING KO USKI PESHAB WALI JAGAH LAGANE KI KOSHISH KI OSSI SAMAY SHOR SUNKAR AAS PASS KE LOGON NE IKATTHA HOKAR OOSEY PAKAR LIYA."
20. After the incident, the prosecutrix was taken for medical examination by Const. Saroj who stated that she was also accompanied by her mother at that time and the alleged history of fondling by a boy in the evening was given. As per the MLC hymen was found ruptured. There was small bruise on both labia majora and there was small tear at fourchette present around 1 cm but not bleeding. The statement of mother of the prosecutrix Ex.PW2/A was a hearsay as she did not see the offence being committed and before the doctor the alleged history was given by the lady Const. Saroj. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. That was the first opportunity for the prosecutrix to give her statement in her own words before any judicial officer. Her statement is Ex.PW1/A. In her statement she stated, "MERA KACHCHHA UTTAR DIYA. PHIR USNE UNGLI PHERI AUR APNI PANT KE CHAIN KHOLI AUR KOSHISH KAR RAHA THA TO MERE KHOON NIKAL AAYA AUR USNE KAHA KI MUHN MAIN LO TO MAIN CHILLA MAARNE LAGI". From the tenor of the statement of the prosecutrix it is clearly reflected that when she is saying "APNI PANT KI CHAIN KHOLI AUR KOSHISH KAR RAHA THA TO MERE KHOON NIKAL AAYA AUR USNE KAHA KI MUHN MAIN LO TO FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 13/19 MAIN CHILLA MAARNE LAGI", it meant accused was penetrating his penis into her vagina, as a result of which, she started bleeding. She only stated that he touched her private parts with his finger. In her testimony before the court PW1, prosecutrix stated that accused pulled down her underwear. He put his penis (witness had uttered word juji) on her vagina (she uttered 'PESHAB KERNE KA RAASTA). The witness also stated that "USNE APANA JUJI MERE PESHAB KE RAASTE PE DALA, MUJHE DARD HUA, MAIN CHILAI, USNE MERA MUH AUR GALA DABA". Without penetration of penis there could not have been any pain. In her cross examination she stated that accused had put his penis on her vagina and not inserted it. However, that cannot be of any benefit to the accused as the witness has clarified in her re examination as to what actually happened with her. While scrutinizing her testimony it should not be ignored that the prosecutrix was merely seven years of age at the time of incident. She did not understand the sexual act done with her and if due to confusion she stated once that the accused had not inserted his penis in her vagina it would not discard / water down her entire statement. It is necessary for the courts to have a sensitive approach when dealing with cases of child rape. The effect of such crime on the mind of the child is likely to be lifelong, though the child at such a tender age does not understand the act fully.
21. In her reexamination she clarified on the question being put to her by the prosecution:
"Q. MULZIM NE KITNA JUJI AAP KE PESHAB KE FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 14/19 RAASTE MAIN DALA THA JISSE KHOON AAYA THA?"
ANS. USNE THORA SA HI DALA THA. USNE UNGLI BHI DALI THI" (He had penetrated with his penis a little and he had also inserted his finger)"
and when she was called after amendment of charge she stated stated that ISNE (The witness pointed out towards the accused present behind curtains) PEHLE UNGLI DALA PHIR JUJI DALA". (He first inserted his finger and then his penis). From the testimony of the prrosecutrix it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused penetrated his penis into the vagina of the prosecutrix.
22. In cases of sexual assault generally there is no eye witness except the prosecutrix and therefore, the next question which arises before the court is whether the conviction for the offence u/s 376 IPC can be based on the sole testimony of a rape victim. The law is settled on this point by the plethora of judgments by the Apex Court. A girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where here testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the occurrence of incident are FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 15/19 cogent and convincing. I find no reason as to why a child of her age i.e. prosecutrix would get an innocent person named for an offence which was undisputedly committed on her. The deposition of the prosecutrix and her mother is cogent, credible and has grain of truth and same is not in any manner can be said to be influenced by tutoring. It is proved from the record that the prosecutrix stated correct version and she has not falsely implicated the accused as she has no axe to grind against the accused.
23. In these facts and circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond any shade of doubt that accused Rajesh committed rape upon the minor i.e. prosecutrix aged seven years and therefore, I hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(f) of IPC.
Announced in open court (Nisha Saxena)
Dated: 13.10.2011 Addl. Sessions Judge03(NE):
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 16/19
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 03(NE): KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
SC No.243/10
State vs Rajesh s/o Sameer,
R/o Awaragard, 2nd Pusta Usmanpur, Delhi.
FIR No.146/10
PS New Usmanpur
U/s 376(2)(f) IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. I have heard Ld. Addl P.P. for the State and Cl. Mr. Gaurav Vashisht, Amicus Curiae for convict Rajesh on the point of sentence.
2. Ld. Prosecutor has demanded maximum sentence for the convict. He has contended that sentence in such cases should provide deterrence and send a message across to the society.
3. The defence counsel has requested for taking a lenient view against the convict on the ground that the convict is a young person of 21 years. On enquiry, convict has revealed that his father is working as an auto driver and has one sister besides his parents. It has been contended by Counsel for the convict that this is his first offence and he has no previous criminal antecedents of any nature whatsoever. Ld. Counsel for the convict has relied upon Devalla Rathavulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2005 Cri. L. J. 1041 and Mohd. Kalam vs State of Bihar, 2008 Cri. L.J. 3194. However, the same are of no help to the accused as the circumstances of the accused are entirely different FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 17/19 from the above referred cases.
4. For the offence u/s 379 (2)(f), the minimum sentence prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years. However, for adequate and special reasons the sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than 10 years can be awarded. In the instant case there are no such special circumstances which entitles the accused for a lighter sentence.
5. Child rape cases are cases of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of sexual pleasure. It is a crime against humanity. In such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. Children are the natural resource of our country. They are the country's future. Hope of tomorrow rests on them. In our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position and one of the modes of her exploitation is rape besides other modes of sexual abuse.
6. Child sexual abuse being one of the most serious and damaging criminal offences, I sentence the convict as hereunder:
i) u/s 376(2)(f) IPC sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/, in default of payment of fine, convict is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
7. The convict will be entitled to get the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. and the period of detention already undergone by him during investigation, inquiry or FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 18/19 trial in the case shall be set off against the sentence awarded. The fine amount if realized shall be paid to parents of the prosecutrix, she being a minor after the expiry of the period of appeal.
8. A copy of this order as well as of judgment be given to convict free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Nisha Saxena)
Dated: 17.10.2011 Addl. Sessions Judge05(NE):
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR No.146/10 PS New Usmanpur 19/19