Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Sultan @ Tipu Etc. on 3 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH ACMM1/NW/RC/DELHI
State Vs. Mohd. Sultan @ Tipu etc.
FIR No. 203/10
PS: Keshav Puram
U/s 379/411/34 IPC
ID No. 02404R0205562010
JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : 157/2
B) The date of commission : 19.06.2010
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : Sh. Ghanshyam
s/o Sh. Ram Sahya
r/o 550, Raj NagarII, Palam, Delhi
D) The name & address of accused : 1. Mohd. Sultan @ Tipu
s/o Mohd. Tayaib
R/o N17B/194, JJ Colony, Patharwala Bagh
Wazirpur, Delhi
2. Birender @ Sonu
s/o Sh. Ram Avtar
r/o N17A/178, JJ Colony, Patharwala Bagh
Wazirpur, Delhi
E) Offences complained of : U/s 394/411/34 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
G) Final order : Convicted
H) The date of such order : 03.08.2011
Date of Institution: 20.08.2010
Judgment reserved on: 26.07.2011
FIR no. 203/10 Page no.1/17
2
Judgment announced on: 03.08.2011
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 19.06.2010 at about 9.30 pm at Kanhiya Nagar Bus Stand near Metro Station, Delhi, the accused Mohd. Sultan @ Tipu in furtherance of his common intention with coaccused Birender @ Sonu voluntarily committed theft of one mobile phone make Nokia from the possession of complainant Ghanshyam by way of pickpocketing and gave the said mobile to his associate Birender @ Sonu who fled away from the spot but accused Mohd. Sultan @ Tipu was apprehended at the spot. Thereafter on 26.06.10, accused Birender @ Sonu was also apprehended at Shanti Nagar Bus Stand, Inderlok, Delhi and he was found in possession of mobile phone make Nokia belonging to complainant Sh. Ghanshyam which was stolen on 19.06.10.
The present case was registered on the basis of statement given by complainant Sh. Ghanshyam to the effect that on 19.6.10 when he was going in bus of route no. 39 for attending his duty at P.S Keshav Puram and the bus reached at Kanhaiya Nagar bus stand near Metro Station at about 9.30 P.M, one person standing near him committed pick pocketing of his mobile phone and handed over the same to his associate and both of them tried to flee away. He chased them and succeeded in apprehending one out of said two persons whose name was subsequently revealed as Mohd Sultan @ Tipu while his accomplice succeeded to run away. Public persons also gathered at the spot and gave beatings to said accused and ultimately, he was handed over to the police. On the basis of said statement, FIR was got registered and investigation was taken up by PSI Subhash Chandra. On 26.6.10, other co accused namely Birender @ Sonu was apprehended during FIR no. 203/10 Page no.2/17 3 morning hours on the basis of secret information received by IO and the stolen mobile phone was also recovered from his possession. Said mobile phone of complainant was seized.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet in respect of offences U/s 379/411/34 IPC was prepared and filed in the Court against accused and accordingly cognizance was taken by Ld. Predecessor.
Complete copies were supplied to accused as per compliance of section 207 Cr.PC and arguments on charge were heard. This Court framed the charge for the offences U/s 379/411/34 IPC against both the accused persons and in alternative charge for offfence u/s 411 IPC against accused Birender @ Sonu vide order dated 07.10.10.
In support of its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses in support of its case till 04.04.2011 namely PW1 Ct. Sidheshwar, PW2 Ghanshyam, PW3 HC Ram Singh, PW4 Sh. Pankaj, PW5, Ct. Harish Kumar and PW6 SI Subhash Chander.
Thereafter, the statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C in which the stand of the accused persons was of general denial. Accused Birender @ Sonu stated that he is innocent and was lifted from his work place i.e a Tent Shop situated in Tri Nagar. He further stated that he is falsely implicated in this case and nothing was recovered from his possession. Accused Sultan @ Tipu stated that he is innocent and on 19.06.10 at about 10.00 pm, he was coming from the house of his sister and was present near Canal Keshav Puram, Kanhiya Nagar Metro Station when some police officials stopped him FIR no. 203/10 Page no.3/17 4 and asked to accompany them. They took him in PS Keshav Puram and thereafter, he was arrested in this case. He further stated that he did not commit any theft of mobile phone and did not know accused Birender @ Sonu. However, accused persons have chosen not to lead any D.E. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsels on behalf of accused persons. The main star witness cited by prosecution i.e complainant Ghanshyam has been examined as PW2. He deposed that on 19.06.10 at about 9.00 pm, he left his house for going to PS Keshav Puram. He boarded a local train and came to Sarai Rohilla Railway Station. From there, he boarded bus plying on route no. 39 and was to get down at Bus stand near Kanhiya Nagar Metro Station. He was having mobile make Nokia 1209 in his front pocket of wearing jeans pant. When he was at the front gate of bus for getting down, one person took out his mobile phone and jumped from the running bus. The speed of the bus was very slow at that time and it had to stop at bus stand of Kanhiya Nagar Metro Station. He also jumped from the bus and chased the thief. However, said thief passed on said mobile to his associate who fled away. The accused was apprehended at some distance. He disclosed his name as Mohd. Sultan @ Tipu. In the meantime, SI Subhash Chand alongwith Ct. Harish who were on patrolling reached there. He narrated the incident to IO SI Subhash Chand. Accused was produced before IO. His statement was recorded as Ex.PW2/A. IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B. During investigation, IO conducted raid to apprehend the other associate of accused Mohd. Sultan @ Tipu. After 23 days, IO apprehended other accused but he did not join the raiding party. IO informed him that mobile phone was FIR no. 203/10 Page no.4/17 5 recovered. Mobile phone was taken on superdari vide superdarinama as Ex.PW2/C. PW2 also correctly identified accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu during his testimony recorded before the Court. He also proved seizure memo Ex PW2/B of said accused and also produced mobile phone Ex P1 before the Court. IMEI Number of said mobile phone was duly tallied with the number as reflected in the photograph produced by complainant. PW2 also identified accused Bijender @ Sonu as the accomplice of accused Mohd. Sultan @ Tipu by explaining that he had seen the said accused at the spot when accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu had handed over his mobile phone to said accused and he (A2) managed to flee away from the spot.
PW2 was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. During such cross examination, he deposed that on 26.06.10 at about 6.25 am when he was going towards bus stand Inderlok Shanti Nagar there Ct. Sudheshwar met him and had apprehended accused Birender @ Sonu. He stated that he did not remember whether IO SI Subhash Chand was also present at bus stand with Ct. Sudeshwar or not. Mobile phone was already in the hand of Ct. Sidheshwar when he reached at bus stand. It was not recovered from accused Birender in his presence. His statement was recorded by SI Subhash Chand at bus stand. PW2 further deposed that said mobile phone was seized vide recovery memo Ex PW1/A in his presence and accused Bijender @ Sonu was also arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW1/B. During his cross examination on behalf of accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu, he deposed that about 8 to 10 persons were travelling while standing in the said bus and both the accused were also travelling in the same bus. Initially, he had noticed only accused Mohd. Sultan @ FIR no. 203/10 Page no.5/17 6 Tipu at the time when he saw him (accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu) jumping from the bus and noticed other accused when accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu passed away his mobile to him. IO had prepared site plan Ex PW2/DB on the same day and he remained with IO during investigation for about 90 minutes on 19.6.10. IO had requested some public persons to join the investigation. His statement was recorded by IO two times during investigation. The personal search memo of accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu was prepared in his presence but he did not sign the same. However when confronted with personal search memo Ex PW2/DA of accused Mohd. Sultan @ Tipu, PW2 admitted that his signature appears at point A on the said memo. However, said PW explained that since he did not know the meaning of personal search memo being appearing as witness for the first time, he previously stated that he did not sign the personal search memo.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Birender @ Sonu, PW2 deposed that his duty hours were from 12 mid night till 8 A.M on 26.6.10. At about 6.30 A.M on 26.6.10, he was called by IO at Shanti Nagar bus stand but he did not make any entry while leaving Police Station. He reached there at about 6.30 A.M. The writing work was done while sitting at the bus stand Shanti Nagar. He remained there for about one hour and photographs of mobile phone were taken by IO in his presence.
PW3 HC Ram Singh is DO and has proved carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW3/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW3/B. The said witness has not been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
FIR no. 203/10 Page no.6/17 7
PW4 Sh. Pankaj deposed that he is running a shop at Kingsway Camp with the name of North West Marketers Pvt. Ltd. One mobile make Nokia was sold to Ghanshyam on 12.11.08 vide bill no. 13509. During cross examination, he deposed that he was working as Manager in the said shop since the year 2008. Said bill was prepared by his executive namely Mr. Pratap who has already left the showroom. IO came to him and inquired in the year 2010 but he did not remember the date and month when IO visited said showroom.
PW5 Ct. Harish Kumar has deposed on 19.06.10, he alongwith PSI Subhash were on patrolling duty on official motorcycle bearing No. DL1SN9690. At about 9.30 pm when they reached Kanhiya Nagar Metro Station, they saw that Ct. Ghanshyam had apprehended one person. IO PSI Subhash made inquiry from Ct. Ghanshyam who informed that said person had committed theft of his mobile phone and passed away the same to his associate. IO recorded statement of Ct. Ghanshyam and prepared rukka. On the instruction of IO, he took rukka to PS and got the FIR registered. He came back and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to IO. Said accused whose name was revealed as Mohd Sultan was brought to PS. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and Mohd. Sultan went to JJ Colony to search the associate of accused. He proved arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Mohd Sultan as Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/D. During his cross examination on behalf of accused Mohd. Sultan, he deposed that public persons had already gathered at the spot when they reached. IO had requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. The place of occurrence was situated at about one k.m from PS Keshav Puram. He did not know as to whether IO had recorded FIR no. 203/10 Page no.7/17 8 disclosure statement of accused Mohd Sultan in his presence or not. However, he had signed the disclosure statement of said accused. Said witness was however not cross examined by accused Bijender @ Sonu.
PW1 Ct. Sideshwar and PW6 SI Subhash Chandra deposed on the lines of prosecution story as already discussed above. PW1 deposed that he had joined the investigation of the case with IO SI Subhash Chandra on 26.6.10 at about 6.25 A.M when co accused Bijender @ Sonu was apprehended and mobile phone of complainant was recovered from his possession. PW1 proved seizure memo of said mobile phone as PW1/A, arrest memo of accused Bijender @ Sonu as PW1/B and personal search memo of said accused as PW1/C respectively. Both the said PWs also correctly identified the accused during their testimonies recorded before the Court. PW6 has also proved rukka Ex PW6/A and pointing out memo Ex PW6/B during chief examination.
During his cross examination on behalf of accused Bijedner @ Sonu, PW1 deposed that secret information was received by IO at about 6 A.M at PP Shanti Nagar on 26.6.10. Some public persons were passing through the spot and IO had requested those passers by to join the investigation at that time but none agreed. He did not remember the place where IO prepared those documents at the spot. He further deposed that complainant had also reached the spot at about 7 A.M. He did not remember as to who had taken photographs of the mobile phone. Said PW has not been cross examined on behalf of accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu despite grant of opportunity.
PW6 deposed during his cross examination on behalf of accused Mohd Sultan @ FIR no. 203/10 Page no.8/17 9 Tipu that he made departure entry vide DD no. 20A while leaving for patrolling duty on 19.6.10 and this fact is mentioned in the rukka (Ex PW6/A). They were on patrolling duty on official motorcycle no. DL1SN 9690. He could not record names and addresses of public persons who refused to join the investigation as those persons did not disclose their identity and left the spot. The entire writing work was done by him while sitting on the bus stand of Kanhiya Nagar.
During his cross examination on behalf of accused Bijender @ Sonu, PW6 deposed that on 26.6.10, at about 5.30 A.M, secret information was received in PS but no DD entry was made in this regard and he also did not convey said information to any senior officer. He intimated Ct. Sideshwar (PW1) on telephone to reach Kanhiya Nagar traffic signal. Complainant Ganshyam also reached at the spot after apprehension of accused Bijender @ Sonu but prior to search of the said accused he had carried out writing work while standing and keeping the clip board on his motorcycle.
At the outset, this Court agrees with the argument raised by Ld counsel on behalf of accused Bijender @ Sonu that recovery of mobile phone from the possession of said accused on 26.6.10 seems to be doubtful as there are several material contradictions in the statements of PW1 Ct Sideshwar, PW2 i.e complainant and PW6 i.e IO. PW1 deposed that secret informer had met IO in his presence on 26.6.10 and at about 6.40 A.M, accused Bijender @ Sonu was seen coming to the spot and was apprehended at the pointing out of the informer. However, PW6 i.e IO deposed that he alone was present in PS Keshav Puram when secret information was received by him on 26.6.10 and thereafter, he had telephonically asked Ct. FIR no. 203/10 Page no.9/17 10 Sideshwar(PW1) to reach Kanhiya Nagar traffic signal. Not only this, he further deposed that he had gone to the spot on his personal motorcycle whereas Ct. Sideshwar came on official motorcycle and accused Bijender @ Sonu was already present at Shanti Nagar bus stand prior to their arrival. Similarly, the case of prosecution is that complainant namely Ganshyam(PW2) was also present at the time when mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Bijender @ Sonu but testimony of PW2 on this aspect is contrary to the prosecution story in the sense that said PW testified before the Court that mobile phone was already in the hand of Ct. Sideshwar when he reached the bus stand and he did not remember as to whether IO was also present there at that time or not. He categorically deposed that mobile phone was not recovered from accused Bijender @ Sonu in his presence and also that IO did not conduct search of said accused in his presence whereas arrest memo and personal search memos Ex.PW1/B and PW1/C of said accused bears the signatures of complainant Ghan Shyam. Moreover, there are over writings at the place of date mentioned on arrest memo and personal search memo Ex PW1/B and PW1/C. Ld counsel Sh Sanjeev Tomar Adv of accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu argued that PW2 i.e complainant namely Ghanshyam could not tell during his testimony about the name of shop keeper from whom he had purchased the mobile phone. The said argument of Ld defence counsel is devoid of any merit for the reason that prosecution has examined PW4 namely Sh, Pankaj who categorically deposed before the Court that he had sold the said mobile phone Ex P1 to complainant Ganshyam on 12.11.08 against bill no. 13509 mark A. Moreover, the name of shop keeper from whom complainant had purchased the mobile phone is totally immaterial and has no relevance for the purpose of deciding the present case where FIR no. 203/10 Page no.10/17 11 allegations are that both the accused committed pick pocketing of mobile phone of the complainant in running bus.
The next argument of Ld defence counsel of accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu was that no independent witness has been joined during investigation by IO despite the fact that it has come on record that many public persons had gathered at the spot.
Ld. APP for the State, on the other hand, had argued that efforts were made by IO to join independent public persons during investigation but none agreed as explained by PWs more particularly PW2, PW5 and PW6 and therefore, no fault can be attributed on the part of investigating agency on this issue.
As already discussed above, PW2 i.e complainant as well as PW6 categorically deposed during their testimonies recorded before the Court that public persons were requested to join the investigation but none agreed and all of them left the spot without disclosing identity. The accused persons have failed to show any reason as to why they would be falsely implicated by complainant Ghanshyam. It is nowhere the case of either of the accused persons that the complainant had any previous enmity or object to falsely implicate them.
Moreover, it is not uncommon these days that people are reluctant to become witness in criminal trial cases. In such circumstances, no benefit can be given to the accused for non joining of independent public witnesses. It has been held in a number of judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts that merely because public witnesses are not joined FIR no. 203/10 Page no.11/17 12 in a case, prosecution case cannot be thrown out.
13. Hon'ble Supreme court in the case Ambika Prasad & anr vs. State 2002 (2) CRIMES 63 (SC) held that it is known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured witnesses of the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not to depose the truth before the Court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance. Other reason may be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournments in the Court. In any case if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, prosecution cannot be blamed at and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses. It was also held that non examination of investigating officer of the case is no ground to discard the evidence of eye witnesses. Similarly in the case of State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998 ; Dr Krishna Pal and another vs. State of U. P. 1996 (7) SCC 194 and in the case of Appabhai Vs. State Of Gujrat AIR 1988 SC 696, it was held that These days people in the vicinity where the incident took place avoid to come forward to give evidence and civilized people are insensitive when crime is committed even in their presence and they withdraw both from the victim and vigilante.
14. Law is not that testimony of police officers is absolutely untrustworthy or that it can never be acted upon. Rather, the law is that even the testimony of a police officer can be acted upon and a conviction can be based on such testimony if the testimony is unimpeached and is found to be trustworthy.
FIR no. 203/10 Page no.12/17 13
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil @ Andya Sadashiv Nandorkar Vs. State J. T. 1996 (3) SC 120 has held that testimony of the police officials cannot be discredited merely because they are police officials if otherwise, their testimony is found to be cogent, trustworthy and reliable. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Akmal Ahmad Vs. State of Delhi J. T 1999 (2) SC 388 held that ''it is now well settled that evidence of search and seizure made by police will not become vitiated only for the reasons that the evidence is not supported by independent witnesses.''
16. In the present case, I have already mentioned above that there is nothing on record to suggest untrustworthiness of the witnesses. Although the accused in their statements claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the police but the defence taken by the accused persons does not inspire any confidence whatsoever. It would be anybody guess as to why police officials would do this. If the accused want this court to believe that they have been implicated falsely, the least which was expected from the accused was to at least come out as to what could have been the motive for the police for their false implication and as to what was that reason for which police official could have done so. But no such reason is even mentioned or suggested to the witnesses. The accused cannot expect this court to believe their version by simple bare allegations that they are falsely implicated. At least some reason should have been put forth by the accused to suggest as to what could have been motive of the police in implicating them. In the absence of this, I do not find any reason to throw out the testimony of witnesses.
17. At this juncture, it is also appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 134 FIR no. 203/10 Page no.13/17 14 of Indian Evidence Act which expressly provides that no particular number of witness shall in any case be required for proving any fact. In the matter titled as "Sheelam Remesh & Anr. Vs. State of A.P." reported in JT 1999 (8) S.C. 537, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court as under: "Courts are concerned with the quality and not quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on a sole evidence of a witness, if it inspire confidence".
18. vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998, it was held Similarly in the case of State of U.P. that in some cases the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out to the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable.
Next limb of argument raised by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons was that since there are contradictions appearing in the statements of prosecution witnesses, sufficient doubt is created in the prosecution case and benefit of doubt should be given to them. However, this Court does not find any merit in the said argument. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are quite natural and bound to occur in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses but the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on this ground. Still if any authority is required then reference with advantage can be made to the judgment reported at JT 1999 (9) SC 43 titled as "State of H.P. Vs. Lekhraj and another", wherein it FIR no. 203/10 Page no.14/17 15 was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "In the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like".
It was further observed in the said judgment as under: "The traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial"
It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Krishnamurti, AIR 1981 S.C. 617 that a minor discrepancy between the statement of a witness in examination in chief and in cross examination should not affect his credibility. In another matter titled as "State of Punjab Vs. Wassan Singh" reported in A.I.R 1981 S.C. 697, it has been held that truthfulness should be tested on the whole.
Next point of contention raised by Ld counsel for accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu was that the testimony of PW2 i.e complainant is not reliable as he himself was not sure as to whether theft of his mobile phone was committed in bus or subsequently. In this regard, Ld counsel referred to the relevant portion of the testimony of PW2 as discussed above.
However as rightly submitted by Ld. APP for the State, PW2 has clearly explained that accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu had picked pocketed his mobile phone when he (complainant) went to the front gate of the bus for getting down and speed of the bus was very slow at that time since it was just to reach at bus stand of Kanhaiya Nagar. He has further deposed that co accused Bijender @ Sonu was also present at that time and he had seen even said FIR no. 203/10 Page no.15/17 16 accused also at that time when mobile phone was passed by accused Mohd Sultan to him and he (Bijender @ Sonu) had managed to run away from the spot alongwith the mobile phone. For similar reasons, the argument raised by Ld counsel Sh Anil Dagar Adv on behalf of accused Bijender @ Sonu that there is no evidence against the said accused that he committed theft of mobile phone within the meaning of Section 379 IPC, does not carry any weight. Both the accused have been charged with offences U/s 379/34 IPC and the testimony of PW2 i.e complainant clearly proves that both the accused had shared common intention to commit theft of his mobile phone in pre planned manner.
It is well settled law that there must be pre arranged plan and meeting of minds in order to attract Section 34 IPC and such meeting of minds may develop on the spot itself and can be inferred from the conduct of the accused preceding and/or following the occurrence. (Reliance placed on 1986(2) C.R.L. 261 (Orissa)).
It goes without saying that when an offence is committed in furtherance of common intention of two or more accused then all of them are guilty. While taking this view, I am also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter "State of Punjab Vs. Surjeet Singh" reported at AIR 1987 SC 1045. It is equally well settled that in order to convict a person vicariously liable U/s 34 IPC, it is not necessary to prove that each and every one of them had indulged in overt acts. It has been held so by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported at AIR 1989 SC 1593. The said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court suitably meets the argument raised by Ld counsel for accused Birender @ Sonu that since there is no allegation against him of having pick pocketed the mobile phone of the complainant, he cannot be held guilty for committing the offence of theft.
FIR no. 203/10 Page no.16/17 17
It has been clearly established on record in the present case that both the accused were present at the time of commission of offence and the accused Mohd Sultan @ Tipu committed theft of mobile phone from the pocket of complainant Ganshyam and thereafter passed it on to co accused Birender @ Sonu who fled away from the spot but accused Mohd. Sultan @ Tipu was apprehended by complainant on being successfully chased. The conduct of the accused Birender @ Sonu in running away from the spot and keeping in view the entire evidence that has come on record as already discussed above, it can be safely inferred that both the accused had shared common intention and committed theft of mobile phone in furtherance of such common intention and therefore, both the accused are held guilty of committing offence U/s 379/34 IPC and stand convicted for the said offence accordingly. Let they be heard on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VIDYA PRAKASH)
COURT TODAY ON 03.08.2011 (ACMM1/NW/RC/DELHI)
FIR no. 203/10 Page no.17/17