Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Shree Etc., Fir No. 347/08, Ps ... on 28 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT (NORTH):
ROHINI: DELHI
Sessions Case No : 58294/2016
State
Versus
1). Jai Shree
W/o Shri Ram Sewak
2). Mahadev @ Sharad
S/o Sh. Ram Sewak
Both R/o C3/4, Amar Jyoti Colony,
Sector17, Rohini,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 347/08
Police Station : Bawana
Under Sections : 363/366/376/377/506/342/34 IPC
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 30.05.2009
Date on which Judgment reserved : 25.05.2019
Date on which Judgment announced : 28.05.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The investigating agency came into motion only after it was directed by Ld. M.M. U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register and investigate the rape and abduction case.
State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 1 of 18
2. The accused was residing just one street away from the house of prosecutrix and he used to tease her when she was studying in school, saying that she should become his friend. One day, while studying in 7 th Class, when she was going to school, the accused met her on the way and insisted for friendship which she refused. He felt offended due to which she was put forcibly in the car one day and was raped. She was left at some distance from her house by the accused with the threat of life. She felt frightened and hence, did not disclose anything to anybody and gave up study. She did not tell her family members about the reason of dropping from school thinking that it would not be in the interest of her parents. She was again dragged in the car by the accused while she was going to the market and taken to a deserted place where she was raped. The accused promised her marriage and under that assurance, she was taken to Mukundpur where she was kept in illegal confinement and was raped daily. His parents came there after a week and took her to their house bearing no. C3/4, Amar Jyoti Colony clandestinely and kept in illegal confinement. She became pregnant and gave birth to a female child. The accused and his parents used to beat her in Amar Jyoti Colony's house and did not allow to step out. She was raped by accused's father Ram Sewak in May 2008 for which he was duly supported by his wife Jai Shree. When she became ill, accused Mahadev brought a person to her who also raped her. She decided to commit suicide when harassment became beyond control. She alongwith her child left the house of the accused when accused Jai Shree left the door slightly open while serving food to her, reached to her parental home and State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 2 of 18 disclosed the whole incident to her mother and thereafter, went to PP Shahbad Dairy with her father, but the police did not take any action for several days. Ultimately, she filed a case in the Court which directed police to register the FIR.
3. On 17.02.2010, charge U/s 342 read with section 108 IPC and charge U/s 344 read with section 34 IPC was framed against accused Jai Shree and separate charge U/s 363/366/376/377/506II & Section 344 read with section 34 IPC was framed against accused Mahadev. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses.
5. PW5 prosecutrix deposed all the facts stated in her complaint Ex.PW5/E. Additionally, she deposed that accused Mahadev met her near Nepali Market when she was going to the market and dragged her inside the car, took to a lonely place and raped her. She was taken to a house situated in Mukundpur where also she was raped. His friends came there at 1112 mid night and they also raped and committed sodomy with her. She next deposed that she was kept there for about 15 days and was raped continuously by Mahadev and his friends. One day, accused Mahadev's parents came there and took her to H. No. C3/4, Amar Jyoti Colony, where she was wrongfully confined and Mahadev and his father committed sodomy with her and at that time, accused Jai Shree was also present. She claimed that Mahadev was arrested at her pointing out from Mumbai Bandra Terminal vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW5/A and State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 3 of 18 Ex.PW5/B respectively and his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/C was recorded.
In cross examination by Ld. Additional PP, she admitted it correct that her father had filed complaint Ex.PW5/D U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court and she made statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. before Ld. MM.
PW10 Smt. Raj Rani is the mother of the prosecutrix. She deposed that she had adopted prosecutrix as she did not have any issue. The prosecutrix was born on 17.01.1991 and was residing with her since childhood. The accused Mahadev who used to reside one or two lane away from her house, enticed prosecutrix in June 2006 and took somewhere. She had taken cash and jewellery from home. Her husband tried to get the case registered, but the police did not pay any heed. She next deposed that they came to know later that accused Mahadev had put garland around the neck of her daughter. Her husband disowned prosecutrix by getting issued disownment notice in July 2006 in a newspaper and only thereafter, they came to know that she was residing with the accused persons. She next deposed that the victim came to her house with her daughter in June 2008 and expressed desire to reside with them but her husband refused. There was some commotion due to which public gathered and in their presence, the victim declared that she would live with them otherwise she would die and on such declaration, the public put pressure upon them due to which they had to bow before the wishes of the prosecutrix. She further deposed that the complainant told her on enquiry that accused Mahadev had enticed her and under his instigation, she had taken money and jewellery from the State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 4 of 18 house. She had further told that Mahadev had forcefully married with her by putting garlands in her neck. Accused Mahadev and his parents used to beat her daughter.
6. PW2 Dr. Jai Kumar examined prosecutrix medically on 07.10.2008, prepared MLC Ex.PW1/A and referred her to Gynae Department.
PW1 Dr. Sumita Rani examined prosecutrix in M.B. Hospital on 07.10.2008 at 3.00 pm as she was referred to her by the doctor on casualty duty. She had history of kidnapping three years back and had returned to her house with a daughter after escaping from custody. She deposed that she collected her three blood samples and handed over the same to W/Ct. Nirmala in sealed condition alongwith sample seal of the hospital.
PW17 W/Ct. Nirmala had taken prosecutrix to M.B. Hospital, Pooth Khurd on 07.10.2008, got her medically examined and thereafter, the doctor had handed her over sealed pullanda which she handed over to IO and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A. PW6 Dr. N.S. Khurana prepared MLC Ex.PW6/A of the accused on 09.12.2008 at 1.20 pm and found him competent to perform sexual intercourse. He collected samples of blood, nail, public hair and semen and handed over the same to Ct. Mathi Vanan.
PW7 SI Prem Singh registered case FIR Ex.PW7/A on 03.10.2008 at 7.30 pm on production of tehrir by ASI Kishore.
State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 5 of 18 PW4 Mrs. Usha Sethi is Principal of M.C. Primary School, Prashant Vihar and she placed on record the admission form of the prosecutrix with photostat copy of birth certificate which was annexed by parents at the time of admission in school. As per those documents, her date of birth is 17.03.1991. In this regard, she placed on record a letter Ex.PW4/A on the letter head of the school.
PW3 Mr. Gulshan is SubRegistrar, Birth and Death from MCD office and he placed on record the birth certificate of the child of prosecutrix in which her father's name is mentioned as Sharad.
7. PW9 HC Suresh Kumar was working as MHC(M) when SI Satpal Singh deposited with him three pullandas and a sample seal on 07.10.2008 for which he made entry no. 328 Ex.PW9/A in register no. 19. On 09.12.2008, he made entry no. 372 Ex.PW9/B when SI Satpal Singh had deposited with him five pullandas and a sample seal. He next deposed that all pullandas and sample were were sent to FSL on 26.02.2009 through Ct. Sayar Mal vide R.C. No. 27/21/09 Ex.PW9/C and after deposit, the acknowledgement receipt Ex.PW9/D was handed over to him.
PW12 Ct. Sayar Mal had deposited case property in FSL on 26.08.2008 after taking delivery from PW9 HC Suresh Kumar.
PW14 Ms. Anita Chhari is Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini and she examined eight pullandas biologically and serologically and gave reports Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B respectively.
8. PW13 Ms. Sunena Sharma, Ld. Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board1, Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp had recorded the statement State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 6 of 18 of the prosecutrix U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
9. PW8 Ct. Mathi Vanan, PW11 ASI Balwan Singh and PW15 Ct. Suresh Kumar were instrumental in the arrest of the accused.
They deposed unanimously that they alongwith complainant and her father went to Mumbai in search of accused Mahadev. He was apprehended at Bandra Railway Station Platform Nos. 2 & 3 at the instance of complainant and after interrogation he was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B and his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/C was recorded. The accused was produced in the Court of Ld. ACMM and transit remand was taken for Delhi. After producing him in Delhi Court, he was taken on police remand in which he pointed out the place where he had raped the complainant and hence, pointing out memo Ex.PW8/A was prepared.
10. PW16 ASI Ashok Kumar had registered DD No. 27 Ex.PW16/A on 25.04.2008 in PP Shahbad Dairy, PS Bawana.
11. PW18 IO Inspector Satya Pal Singh deposed that the investigation was assigned to him on 03.10.2008 after registration of FIR. He alongwith Lady Ct. Nirmala went to the house of complainant on 07.10.2008 and got her medically examined and seized her exhibits vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A. Her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded on 10.10.2008. He next deposed that Ct. Suresh, Ct. Mathi Vanan, prosecutrix and her father were sent to Mumbai on 06.12.2008 for arresting the accused and the party returned to Delhi on 09.12.2008 with accused whose custody was handed over to him and thereafter, he was State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 7 of 18 interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/C was recorded. He was medically examined and his exhibits were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/C. He next deposed that the accused was taken on one day police remand and during that period, he pointed out the place of rape and pointing out memo Ex.PW18/D was prepared. Accused Jai Shree was formally arrested on 21.02.2009 vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/E as she was on anticipatory bail. Exhibits were sent to FSL on 26.02.2009 and chargesheet was filed.
12. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both accused denied the whole incriminating material.
13. In defence, the accused examined 8 witnesses.
14. DW5 accused Mahadev deposed that family members of the prosecutrix had arranged a function and solemnized his marriage with her on 07.07.2006 in Shiv Mandir, Amar Jyoti Colony and after marriage, he took her to his house where she resided happily with his parents. She went to her house after four months of marriage and made a false complaint against them in CAW Cell but the matter was compromised and she returned to his house and a female child was born on 02.10.2007. He relied upon the birth certificate Ex.DW1/DX7 of the female child. After giving birth to the child, she again lodged a false complaint Mark DC2 against them in CAW Cell. He next deposed that the prosecutrix left his house on 15.04.2008 for which he had to lodge missing report in the form of DD Ex.PW2/A. The prosecutrix again returned to his house by giving in writing that she herself had left his house on her own on which DD No. State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 8 of 18 27A Mark DC1 was registered.
DW1 accused Jai Shree deposed that on 07.07.2006, prosecutrix came to her house and told that she wanted to marry accused Mahadev and thereafter, she (DW1) demanded two month's time as at that time, circumstances were not well and thereafter, the prosecutrix left for her house. She further deposed that after sometime, prosecutrix dressed like a bride, came near to the temple situated near their house, alongwith her mother. Prosecutrix and her mother gave Rs. 800/ to one Seema Vasudev, who was residing in their neighbourhood, to be given to Mahadev, to buy clothes if he was not having the same. Seema Vasudev handed over the amount of Rs. 800/ to Mahadev who purchased clothes for him, wore the same and went to the temple where prosecutrix, her mother, Raj Rani and Mahadev were present besides the public persons. She saw from the Jangla (window) of the temple that Raj Rani, mother of prosecutrix, had applied Tilak on the forehead of Mahadev and gave five utensils. Thereafter, Jai Mala Ceremony took place between Mahadev and prosecutrix and both touched her feet and she blessed them. On enquiry, the prosecutrix had told her age as 19 years. She brought the prosecutrix and Mahadev to her house. At that time, neighbours and other public persons were also with them. The prosecutrix started living peacefully at her house. She used to cook food also. After sometime, she and her son Mahadev @ Sharad received summons from CAW Cell and came to know that the prosecutrix had lodged a complaint against them. They appeared before CAW Cell. They lodged counter complaint to senior police officers and Lt. Governor, State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 9 of 18 Delhi against prosecutrix and her family members for falsely implicating them in the case and for threatening them to kill. She proved the copy of complaint as Mark DW1/DX. She next deposed that the matter was compromised and the prosecutrix withdrew the complaint and started living with them. The copy of compromise is Mark DW1/DX1. On 05.12.2006, parents of the prosecutrix had given in writing to the Incharge, Police Post Shahbad Dairy that they (accused party) had not made any demand for dowry and that they had disowned the prosecutrix. The copy of the same is Mark DW1/DX2. The prosecutrix again came to their house and became pregnant. During pregnancy, she took treatment from BSA Hospital and gave birth to a female child on 02.10.2007 in MCD Maternity Home, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi. The copies of medical treatment documents are Mark DW1/DX3 (colly.).
Thereafter, the prosecutrix had filed a complaint against them in CAW Cell in 2008 in which she had appeared. During the pendency of that complaint, she approached an NGO namely Sampoorna where the complainant and her parents had appeared. He relied upon her application filed before NGO and proceedings of the NGO as Mark DW1/DX4. She next deposed that the prosecutrix and her parents used to demand money from her during the pendency of the complaint and when her demand was not fulfilled, the prosecutrix had filed false case against them in the Magistrate Court upon which the present false case was registered. She relied upon the photograph of accused Mahadev, prosecutrix and their daughter as Mark DW1/DX6.
State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 10 of 18
15. DW6 Lateef is medical record keeper in Dr. BSA Hospital and he placed on file the treatment record Ex.DW6/A of the prosecutrix. She was admitted in that hospital on 09.07.2007 at 6 pm and was discharged on 12.07.2007.
16. DW7 Umesh, Pharmacist at Maternity Home, Shahbad Daulat Pur, deposed that the prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital on 01.10.2007 and was discharged on 03.10.2007. During that period, she had given delivery to a female child. Consent of delivery was given by mother i.e. accused Jai Shree.
17. DW2 ASI Ramesh Kumar proved DD No. 21PP dated 21.04.2008 regarding missing of a lady namely prosecutrix aged about 20 years alongwith seven months female child as Ex.DW2/A. He deposed that the prosecutrix came to PP Shahbad Dairy on 25.04.2008 and got lodged DD No. 27PP Ex.DW2/B to the effect that a quarrel had taken place between her and her husband and due to that reason, she had left the house of her husband on 15.04.2004. He next deposed that as per DD, she had left the house of her husband of her own with free consent and after return, she accompanied house her husband to his house.
DW3 HC Naresh Kumar was to produce diary no. 22297 dated 09.11.2006 regarding withdrawal of complaint by the prosecutrix. He deposed that the said record had been destroyed by order dated 06.04.2011 passed by ACP Prem Nath. Copy of the same is Ex.DW3/A. DW4 HC Sukhbir Singh placed on record complaint Ex.PW4/A dated 25.04.2008 made by prosecutrix and her statement Ex.DW4/B dated State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 11 of 18 30.06.2008 vide which she withdrew the complaint.
18. DW8 Counselor Ms. Kalpana placed on record the proceedings done by her as Counselor of NGO Sampurna. She deposed that a lady namely Jai Shree had moved an application on 10.06.2008 due to problem with her daughterinlaw. She prepared registration form of NGO and conducted proceedings from 10.06.2008 to 23.06.2008. The prosecutrix and her adoptive and natural fathers had also attended the proceedings. Thereafter, the complaint was referred to legal aid counsel Sh. Vivek. During counseling, the prosecutrix had taken the stand that she did not want to go to her matrimonial home. Her father did not want to take her back in his house and hence, he also had advised her to go to her matrimonial home.
19. Ld. defence counsel argued that the accused and prosecutrix were in love with each other. They married on 07.07.2006. As per prosecution case, the accused had raped her twice before marriage. After marriage also, he had committed rape. He submitted that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 17.03.1991 and so, on the date of marriage i.e. 07.07.2006, she was of 15 years and 4 months. Sexual intercourse by a man with his wife, who is above 15 years, is not rape within the meaning of IPC. He submitted that two incidents of rape before marriage are not believable because there are various contradictions between the statement of the prosecutrix U/s 164 Cr.P.C. and her evidence recorded before the Court. He further submitted that if the complaint Ex.PW5/D filed by her father before Ld. MM U/s 200 Cr.P.C. is read, it would lead to the State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 12 of 18 conclusion that there is a big difference between the statement of the prosecutrix and her evidence one side and complaint of her father Ex.PW5/D on the other side. He next submitted that the prosecutrix did not intimate any public authority about both the incidents before marriage. She opened her mouth after three years i.e. in 2008 by getting the case FIR registered. He submitted that the delay is inordinate.
On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP argued that at the time of first two incidents of rape, prosecutrix was minor and hence, her consent for the same is immaterial. He submitted that the accused has failed to prove that the prosecutrix had married him on 07.07.2006 and so, the physical relations established by him from 07.07.2006 till the date of registration of FIR, also amount to rape.
20. The first question to be decided by this Court is whether the accused and the prosecutrix had married or not. In statement before police, the complainant is completely silent about her marriage with the accused. To the effect is her examination in chief. In statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., she told Ld. MM that when she was residing in the house of accused situated at Amar Jyoti Colony, accused Jai Shree asked her to marry Mahadev but she refused on which she was beaten. She further told that she married accused in a temple on 07.07.2006. So, as per her statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., she had married accused Mahadev. Both accused deposed on oath that marriage between Mahadev and prosecutrix was solemnized on 07.07.2006.
Marriage between them is corroborated by DD No. 21 Ex.DW2/A recorded on the statement of accused Mahadev to the effect that State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 13 of 18 he had gone to Rajasthan with his mother on 12.04.2008 leaving behind his wife/prosecutrix and daughter Kashish of seven months. His wife took her daughter to a doctor to take medicine. The girl of the colony who had accompanied her to BSA Hospital returned but his wife did not return home. Then he told about the physical appearance of his wife.
The marriage is further corroborated by DD No. 27A dated 25.04.2008 Ex.DW2/B recorded on the statement of prosecutrix herself to the effect that she had a quarrel with her husband on 15.04.2008 due to which she left the house without informing anybody. She concluded the statement saying that she was accompanying the accused to his house.
The marriage is further corroborated by complaint Ex.DW4/A of the prosecutrix in which it is mentioned that her marriage with the accused was solemnized on 07.07.2006 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and a daughter namely Kashish was born from that wedlock on 02.10.2007. It is further mentioned that she wanted action against her husband and parentinlaws because they used to beat and maltreat her for dowry.
The marriage is further corroborated by her statement Ex.DW4/B dated 30.06.2008 vide which she withdrew the complaint dated 25.04.2008 against her inlaws saying that she had no complaint against her husband and inlaws.
The marriage is further corroborated by evidence of DW8 Ms. Kalpana, Counselor. She deposed that Jai Shree had filed a complaint on 10.06.2008 against her daughterinlaw / prosecutrix due to dispute with her. The dispute could not be resolved as the prosecutrix did not want to go State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 14 of 18 to her matrimonial home.
21. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the prosecutrix and accused married with each other on 07.07.2006.
The next question is what was her age at the time of marriage. As per Principal PW4, the prosecutrix was born on 17.03.1991. In this regard, she placed on record admission form Ex.PW4/C filled up by the parents of prosecutrix while admitting her in that school on 17.04.1997 in first class. With that form, the parents of the prosecutrix had attached her birth certificate dated 27.03.1991 Ex.PW4/D issued by MCD in which her date of birth is mentioned as 17.03.1991. So, on the date of marriage i.e. 07.07.2006, the prosecutrix was of about 15 years and four months. As per Section 376 IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his wife who is above 15 years, is no rape. In this regard, the case of the accused is squarely covered by Sakshi Vs. State & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 1189/2010, decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on November 26, 2010.
"It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was minor at the time of marriage as she was born on 6th August 1990 and the marriage had taken place on 16th February 2006 and, therefore, even if there was consent of the girl in the marriage still the marriage being void marriage, the accused/respondent Akshay Kumar was guilty of rape. I consider that this argument must fail. No doubt consent of a minor girl is no consent in the eyes of law where sexual intercourse is done with a minor by the person with the consent of the minor and it amounts to rape. However, this sexual intercourse must be when parties are not married. This is clear from a bare perusal of Section 376 IPC where State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 15 of 18 intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 15 years of age, is not rape. In the case in hand, even if we go by the arguments of the counsel for appellant that she was born on 6 th August 1990, she was above 15 years of age on the date of marriage. The marriage was attended by her parents. Sexual intercourse by her husband with her was therefore not rape."
22. Both incidents of rape before marriage, have remained unproved due to following reasons:
(A). Contradictions:
I). In statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C, prosecutrix stated that she was in 7th class when she was raped first time. In examination in chief, she deposed that she was in 6th class at that time.
II). U/s 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she slapped the accused due to consistent harassment and due to that reason, she was dragged in the car and taken to Mukundpur. In examination in chief, she deposed that after two days of slapping, he dragged her in a car and took her to a lonely place near the canal of Sector15, Rohini where she was raped. III). In statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that at the time of first incident, before dragging her in the car, the accused made her to smell handkerchief due to which she became unconscious and when she regained senses, she returned home from Mukundpur in an Auto. In examination in State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 16 of 18 chief, she deposed that the accused himself left her on a road near market near her house.
IV). In statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that at the time of first incident, she was raped by accused as well as other boy who was accompanying him. But in examination in chief, she deposed that only accused had raped her. V). In statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that after second incident of rape, she was confined in Mukundpur for 3 4 months. In examination in chief, she deposed that she was kept there only for 15 days.
VI). In statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she was married with the accused by his family members on 07.07.2016, but in examination in chief, she is completely silent on marriage.
VII). In statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that the accused used to take other boys also to Mukundpur, who used to rape her. In evidence, she did not depose that she was raped by other boys also.
VIII). Both statements of the prosecutrix are totally in contradiction with the complaint of her father Ex.PW5/D filed in Magistrate Court.
(B). The incidents of rape before marriage are said to have taken from the beginning of 2006 to July 2006, but no complaint was given to the police. No information was given on 100 number. The prosecutrix State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 17 of 18 was once admitted in the hospital for treatment. Second time, she was admitted in the hospital for delivery. She did not tell any hospital staff that she was ever raped. She had lodged 1 or 2 DDs against the accused for dowry. She had also attended the proceedings before NGO Sampurna. At both places, she did not allege that she was ever raped by the accused.
(C). There is inordinate delay of about two years in registration of FIR as the incident took place in 2006 and FIR was registered in 2008.
23. Accordingly, accused Jai Shree and Mahadev @ Sharad are acquitted of the offences, they were charged with.
24. The personal and surety bonds of the accused are hereby cancelled. Sureties are hereby discharged. The endorsement made, if any, on any document of soundness of surety, be cancelled and the documents be returned to surety.
25. However, in terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., accused persons have furnished the fresh personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety of the like amount, which are accepted with the directions to appear before higher Court, in the event, they receives any notice of appeal or petition against the judgment.
File be consigned to record room. UMED Digitally signed
by UMED
SINGH SINGH GREWAL
Date: 2019.06.01
GREWAL 00:12:56 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Umed Singh Grewal)
On this 28th May 2019 ASJ: Special FTC (North)
Rohini Courts: Delhi
State Vs. Jai Shree etc., FIR No. 347/08, PS Bawana Page No. 18 of 18