Delhi District Court
Is Reported As '' State Of Himachal ... vs . on 21 September, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
State
Vs.
1. Wahid Ahmed
S/o Sh. Ismail Khan
R/o H. No. 1312, Gali No.42,
Jafrabad, Delhi.
2. Mazhar-Ul-Islam
S/o Sh.Wahid Ahmed
R/o H. No. 1312, Gali No.42,
Jafrabad, Delhi
3. Jafar-Ul-Islam
S/o Sh.Wahid Ahmed
R/o H. No. 1312, Gali No.42,
Jafrabad, Delhi
FIR No.: 615/2005
PS: Seelampur
Under Section 302/34 IPC
Sessions Case No. : 38/2009
Date of Institution of case : 27.01.2006
Date on which reserved for Judgment : 28.08.2010
Date of Judgment : 09.09.2010
JUDGMENT:
In brief the facts of the case are that on 11.10.2005 Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 1 /39 2 a PCR call vide DD No. 14-A was received in Police Station Seelampur regarding burning of a woman in House No. 1312, Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, Delhi and the said DD was handed over to S.I. Har Prasad for necessary action. On receipt of the said DD No. 14-A, S.I. Har Prasad along with Constable Surender Kumar reached at the spot i.e. House No. 1312, Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, where he came to know that the injured had been taken to GTB Hospital by PCR Van. S.I. Har Prasad left Constable Surender Kumar at the spot and he reached at GTB Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Shabana Anjum The injured was declared fit for statement by the doctor. Sub Inspector Har Prasad recorded the statement of the injured Shabana Anjum, who had sustained about 60% to 65% burn injuries. In her statement the injured Shabana Anjum stated that she lived in House No. 1312,Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, Delhi and was a house wife. She was married to accused Mazhar-Ul-Islam 11 years ago and she had two daughters namely Amrin aged 9 years and and Riza @ Honey aged 5 years. She further stated in her complaint that on 11.10.2005 at about 3.20 p.m. she was present at her house and her both the daughters were playing outside the room in the veranda. Her husband was harassing her for the last several months and he used to leave the house after leaving her alone in the house. Her husband Mazhar-Ul-Islam and brother-in-law( jeth) Jafar-Ul-Islam came down from roof. Jafar-Ul-Islam, who is her jeth was having a bottle of Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 2 /39 3 oil in his hand. Without giving her any chance of taking care of her, Jafar-Ul-Islam poured kerosene oil on her and her husband lit match stick and had thrown it on her, as a result of which, her clothes caught fire. Her father-in-law Wahid Ahmed was standing out side the room and was saying "Aaj Ise Khatam Kar Do, Baad Mein Main Sab Dekh Loonga, Yah Aurat Aise Manne Wali Nahi Hai''. She further stated in her complaint that her both daughters were seeing this incident from outside the room. These persons attempted to kill her by burning her after pouring the kerosene oil on her. The legal action be taken against all of them.
S.I. Har Parsad made endorsement on the complaint of Shabana Anjum and got the case registered in the Police Station Seelampur through Constable Surender Kumar.
During investigation S.I. Har Prasad prepared site plan, recorded statements of witnesses, collected exhibits from the scene of crime and seized the same, arrested the accused Mazhar-Ul-Islam and Wahid Ahmed. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to SI Nitin Kumar. The injured Smt.Shabana Anjum remained admitted in GTB Hospital till 15.11.2005. She was again admitted in the hospital on 5.12.2005 when her condition deteriorated. She succumbed to her burn injuries on 5.12.2005. On 6.12.2005 the postmortem of the dead body was got conducted in GTB Hospital. The case was converted into section 302 IPC. After completion of Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 3 /39 4 investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused Wahid Ahmed and Mazhar-Ul-Islam.
On 13.7.2006 the anticipatory bail application of the accused Jafar-Ul-Islam was rejected by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Thereafter the accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, supplementary charge sheet was filed against the accused Jafar-Ul-Islam.
The Ld.M.M after supply of copies etc, committed the case to the court of Sessions.
Vide order of my Ld. Predecessor dated 02.06.2006, charge for offence punishable under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC was framed against all the three accused persons. All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses.
PW-1 is Dr. S. Lal is Jr. Specialist, Sabzi Mandi Mortuary. He stated that on 6.12.2005 at 11.00 a.m. he was posted as a Senior Demonstrator in GTB Hospital Mortuary. He conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Shabana Anjum aged about 30 years. Her body was identified by Rashid Ahmed and Asif Iqbal. The body was brought by SI Nitin Kumar of P.S. Seelampur with the alleged history of burns by her husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law on 11.10.2005. She was admitted in GTB hospital at 4.00 p.m. on 11.10.2005. The postmortem report is Ex. PW-1/A. The Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 4 /39 5 cause of death was septicemic shock due to superficial to deep ante mortem flame burns. Time since death was 20 to 24 hours.
PW-2 Amreen is daughter of accused Mazhar-Ul- Islam.
(As this witness was aged 11 years, certain preliminary questions were put to her by my Ld.Precedessor to ascertain whether the child witness was able to understand and testify with respect to the facts of this case. After satisfying himself my Ld. Predecessor observed that the witness was able to understand the sanctity of oath and could enlighten the court about the facts of the case. Her statement was recorded on oath).
PW-2 Amreen stated that in October 2005, she was residing with her parents and sister at House No. 1312, Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, Delhi. On 11.10.2005 in the afternoon, she and her sister Honey were playing in the veranda of the house. Her mother was lying in the house. Then, her father, her grand father and her Tau ji came down. Her father and her Tauji entered the room where her mother was lying and her grand father remained outside the room. She further stated that on seeing them, her mother got up. Her grand father uttered about her mother ''Aaj Isse Khatam Kar Do. Main Baad Mein Sab Dekh Loonga''. Thereafter, her Tau Jaffar-Ul- Islam threw kerosene oil on her mother. Thereafter her father threw lighted match stick on the body of her mother, as a Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 5 /39 6 result of same, the clothes of her mother caught fire. Her mother, she and her younger sister ran out of the house crying. Some people from the street put off the fire of her mother. One of them informed the police on telephone. Police came there. Her mother, she and her younger sister were taken to hospital by the police in police van. This witness correctly identified all the accused persons.
PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey is also daughter of accused Mazhar-Ul-Islam.
(As this witness was aged 7 years, certain preliminary questions were put to her by my Ld.Precedessor to ascertain whether this witness would speak truth. My Ld. Predecessor was satisfied that this witness could throw some light on the facts of the case . She was examined without oath.) PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey stated that '' Mere Papa Mazhar Ul Islam, mere Dada Master Wahid Ahmed, mere tau ji Jaffar-Ul-Islam upar se aaye jis kamre mein meri mumy thi, usme mere papa aur Tau ghus gaya aur Dada Kamre ke bahar hi ruuk gaye. Us ke bbad meri mummy unko dekh kar khari ho gayi. Uske baad mere dada ne kamre ke bahar hi khade ho kar, kaha ki is aurat ko khatam kar do, ye aise manne wali nahin hai. Baad mein main sab dekh loonga. Yeh sun kar, uske bbad mere tauji ne meri Mammy ke upar bottle se mitti ka tel dall diya. Uske baad mere Papa ne machis ki teeli jala kar meri mummy ke upar faink di. Is se Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 6 /39 7 meri Mummy ko aag leg gayi aur who chillanti hui, neeche bhagi. Peche Peche main aur meri bahan Amreen bhi chillate hui neche bhage. Bahar ke logo ne jeans ki panto se meri mummy ki aag bujhai. Uske baad police aayi aur meri mummy ko Hospital le gayi.'' ( English Translation ) PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum has stated that her father Mazhar -Ul-Islam, her grand father Wahid Ahmed and her tau ( elder brother of her father ) Jafar-Ul-Islam came from the upper floor of the house and entered the room where her mother was present. Her father and tau (elder brother of her father ) entered the room and her grand father stood out side the room. Her mother on seeing her husband and her jeth (brother-in-law) stood up. Her grand father who was standing out side the room said that her mother should be killed and that she would not listen like that and her grand father would see and would manage the things later on. Then the accused Jafar-Ul-Islam poured kerosene oil on her mother from a bottle and soon after her father accused Mazhar-Ul-Islam lit a match stick and threw it on her mother. Her mother caught fire and she shouted, shrieked and came down stairs. Behind her mother, she and her sister Amreen also came running. Persons from out side doused the fire on the person of her mother with the help of jeans pants. Thereafter the police arrived and removed her mother to the hospital.
PW-4 Rashid Ahmed is the father of deceased Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 7 /39 8 Shabana Anjum. He deposed that Shabana Anjum was his daughter. She was married to accused Mazhar-Ul-Islam on 16.11.1994. He had given sufficient dowry in the marriage as per his capacity. About 15 days after marriage, his son-in- law Mazhar-Ul-Islam, his elder brother Jafar-Ul-Islam and his father Wahid Ahmed started telling her daughter that if they had married Mazhar-Ul-Islam to some other lady, they would have got a car in the marriage. He further stated that her daughter was being harassed by all the three accused persons for not bringing sufficient dowry. Her daughter was taunted by all the three accused persons and other family members as she was unable to procreate a male issue. He further stated that on 11.10.2005 at about 4.00 or 4.15 p.m. he received a telephonic information that her daughter had been burnt by her in-laws and PCR van had rushed her to GTB Hospital. He along with his wife and son Asif Iqbal went to GTB Hospital. Her daughter had undergone treatment in the hospital at his expenses. The in-laws of his daughter managed her discharge from the hospital on 11.11.2005 despite her not being fit for discharge. On 5.12.2005 when the health of her daughter drastically deteriorated, he took her to GTB Hospital, where she was again admitted and on the same day, her daughter succumbed to the burn injuries. On 6.12.2005 he identified the dead body of his daughter in the mortuary of GTB Hospital vide his statement Ex. PW-4/A. After the postmortem, the dead body of her daughter was handed over Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 8 /39 9 to him.
PW-13 Asif Iqbal (In fact he is PW-14 but due to inadvertence he has been mentioned as PW-13) is the brother of deceased Shabana Anjum. He stated that after the marriage, her sister was harassed on the ground that she was not able to deliver son or that she was ill fated and due to her no business could be accomplished. His sister had filed two complaints with the police, which are dated 25.6.2005 and 10.10.2005 and both the complaints were signed by his sister, which are Ex. PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B. On 6.12.2005 he went to GTB Hospital Mortuary along with his father, where he identified the dead body of his sister and in this regard his statement was recorded by the police, which is Ex. PW-13/A. PW-5 is SI Mukesh Jain, Draftsman. He deposed that on 22.12.2005 he went to the spot i.e. House No. 1312,Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, Delhi and took rough notes at the instance of I.O. S.I Nitin Kumar and then prepared site plan, which is Ex. PW-5/A. PW-6 is Dr. Rajni Sachan. She stated that on 11.10.2005 while she was working as Junior Resident in GTB Hospital, one Shabana wife of Mazhar Islam was produced before her for medical examination. After her examination, she prepared MLC which is Ex. PW-6/A. The burnt area was chest, abdomen, lower chin, neck, both upper limb, back throat, back abdomen and was approximately 60% to 65%. After examination the patient was referred to SR Surgery.
Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 9 /39 10PW-7 is Kapileshwar, Medical Record Technician from GTB Hospital, who proved the death summary of deceased Shabana which is Ex. PW-7/A, which was prepared by Dr. Santosh Kumar Sonkar, Senior Resident, who has left the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known. He identified the hand writing and signatures of said Dr. Santosh Kumar, as he has seen him writing and signing during his official course of duties.
PW-9 ASI Satpal Singh, was Duty Officer. He stated that on 11.10.2005 while he was working as Duty Officer in Police Station Seelampur from 5.00 p.m. to 1.00 a.m, at about 5.15 p.m., he received a rukka from Ct. Surender Kumar which was sent by SI Har Prasad, on the basis of which, he recorded FIR No. 615/05 U/s 307/34 IPC. The carbon copy of the FIR is Ex. PW-9/A. After recording the FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR to Ct. Surender Kumar for further investigation by SI Har Prasad. He also recorded the DD No. 18-A, copy of which is Ex. PW-9/B. PW-10 is Constable Gurpreet. He stated that on 11.10.2005 while he was posted at PHQ ( PCR) Channel No. 124 from 2.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., he received a call from unnamed male caller who told him that in H. No. 1312, Gali No. 43, Jafrabad, ''makan me aag'', thereafter, he disconnected the phone. He reduced the same into writing in PCR Form, the copy of the same is Ex. PW-10/A. The copy of this information was sent to Wireless Operator, Command Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 10 /39 11 Room, Duty Officer, Inspector REX, Hot Line and CAT Ambulance.
PW-11 is S.I. Har Prasad Singh. He stated that on 11.10.2005 he was posted at police station Seelampur. On that day, on receipt of call vide DD No. 14-A, (Mark PW11/A), he along with constable Surender Kumar went to the spot at Gali No. 42, House No. 1312, Jafarabad, Delhi, there he came to know that the injured had been shifted to GTB Hospital. He left constable Surender at the spot to guard the spot and he left for GTB Hospital. In the hospital, he found Smt. Shabana Anjum w/o Mazhar admitted vide MLC No. 3750/05. The injured was burnt upto 60 to 65 percent. The injured was fit for statement. He recorded the statement of the injured, which is Ex.PW11/A, on which the injured put her thumb impression. She stated in her complaint that she was living in House No. 1312, Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, Delhi and was a house wife. She was married to accused Mazhar-Ul-Islam 11 years prior to the incident. She was having two daughters namely Amreen and Riza @ Honey. She further stated that on 11.10.2005 at about 3.20 p.m. she was present at her house and her both the daughters were playing outside the room in the veranda. Her husband was harassing her for the last several months and he used to leave the house after leaving her alone in the house. Her husband Mazhar-Ul-Islam and brother-in-law( jeth) Jafar-Ul-Islam came down from roof. Jafar-Ul-Islam, who is her jeth was Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 11 /39 12 having a bottle of oil in his hand. Without giving her any chance of saving her, Jafar-Ul-Islam poured kerosene oil on her and his husband lit match stick and had thrown it on her, as a result of which, her clothes caught fire. Her father-in-law Wahid Ahmed was standing out side the room and was saying "Aaj Ise Khatam Kar Do, Baad Mein Main Sab Dekh Loonga, Yah Aurat Aise Manne Wali Nahi Hai''. She further alleged in her complaint that her both daughters were seeing this incident from outside the room. These persons attempted to kill her by burning her after pouring the kerosene oil on her. After recording the statement, he came back at the spot. He summoned the crime team and got the scene photographed. He put his endorsement Ex.PW11/B on the statement of the injured and got the case registered through constable Surender Kumar. He examined and recorded the statement of constable Sunil Kumar, the Photographer.
PW-11 further stated that he lifted one plastic bottle from the spot and some burnt cloths and put the same in a plastic bag. Then he put the same in a parcel of cloth and sealed with the seal of 'GRS'. Seal after use was handed over to Constable Surrender Kumar, who had come to the spot after getting the case registered. He seized the sealed pulanda vide memo Ex. PW8/A. He examined the daughters of injured and recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He brought Wahid and Mazhar to the police station for interrogation. He sent Constable Surender Kumar to GTB Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 12 /39 13 Hospital. Constable Surender Kumar brought a sealed parcel sealed with the seal of GTB hospital, which he seized vide memo Ex. PW8/B. He deposited the two sealed pulandas in the malkhana. He arrested the accused Mazhar and Wahid vide memos Ex. PW8/D and Ex.PW8/C and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW8/E and Ex.PW8/F. In a leading question put by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State after the permission of the court, this witness has admitted that he prepared site plan, which is Ex. PW11/C. He searched for the third accused Jafar -Ul-Islam but he was evading his arrest. On 15.10.2005 he was transferred and the investigation was handed over to some other I.O.
PW-8 is Constable Surender Singh, who had joined the investigation of the present with SI Har Parsad. He deposed on the similar lines of the IO SI Har Parsad regarding seizure of plastic bottle and some burnt clothes and regarding arrest of accused Mazhar-Ul-Islam and Wahid Ahmed. He also took the rukka to the Police Station for the registration of the case and after getting the case registered, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the IO SI Har Parsad.
PW-12 is ACP Babu Lal Gautam. He stated that on 19.12.2005 while he was posted as Inspector at Police Station Seelampur, the investigation of the present case was Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 13 /39 14 assigned to him. During investigation, he recorded the statements of Photographer Constable Sunil & Draftsman SI Mukesh Jain. He arrested the third accused from Delhi High Court. He prepared the arrest memo and personal search memo. The personal search memo of the accused is Ex. PW- 12/A. He prepared the supplementary charge sheet against the said accused and same was filed in the court.
PW-13 Constable Amar Pal stated that on 13.7.2006 he had accompanied the IO of the case to High Court, there the anticipatory bail application of the accused Jafar-Ul-Islam was pending and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused Jafar-Ul-Islam vide memo Ex.PW-12/A. PW-14 S.I Nitin Kumar ( In fact he is PW-15 but due to inadvertence he has been numbered as PW-14), is also the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated that on 21.10.2005 he was posted at Police Station Seelampur. On that day, the investigation of this case was handed over to him. He obtained the NBW of accused Jafar-Ul-Islam and thereafter he obtained the process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the said accused. On 5.12.2005 an intimation was received in the Police Station that injured Shabana Anjum had died, which was recorded vide DD No. 19-A, copy of the same is Ex. PW-14/A. On the next day after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to her relatives i.e. father and brother, who were present in the hospital at that time. Thereafter, the Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 14 /39 15 case was converted into section 302 IPC. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to Insp. B.L. Gautam. He had obtained the postmortem report on the directions of Insp. B.L. Gautam.
PW-15 Constable Sunil (In fact he is PW-16 but due to inadvertence he has been numbered as PW-15) stated that on 11.10.2005 he went to the spot i.e. House No. 1312, Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, Delhi at the first floor and on the instructions of the IO, he had taken three photographs of the room at the first floor. He proved the photographs as Ex. PW- 15/A-1 to Ex. PW-15/A-3 and the negatives thereof as Ex. PW-15/B-1 to Ex. PW-15/B-3.
PW-16 is ASI Prem Chand ( In fact he is PW-17 but due to inadvertence he has been numbered as PW-16). He has produced the Complaint Register of Police Station Seelampur in respect of complaint dated 10.10.2006 made by Shabana Anjum regarding her physical harassment and criminal intimidation etc. The same was received vide DD No. 34-B and registered vide entry No. 1192. Thereafter, the same was received by the Record Mohrar and the relevant entry was made at Serial No.3. The original complaint is Ex. PW-16/A and the said complaint was marked to ASI Giri Raj.
The statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of all the three accused persons were recorded in which they denied the allegations against them. They have also stated that they are Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 15 /39 16 innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Mazhar-Ul-Islam has stated that it is a false case registered at the instance of his in-laws and his wife as he has divorced his wife prior to the incident. He has further stated that his daughters were constantly under the influence of their mother and after her demise, they came under the influence of their maternal grand parents ( nana & nani ) in general and grand mother ( nani ) in particular. His eldest daughter Amreen ran away from the custody of her nana & nani on 25th January 2010 and she took shelter at a place where his father was staying. His father informed the police in this regard and gave custody of Amreen to police.
Accused Wahid Ahmed has stated that he did not give any exhortation (lalkara). At the time of the alleged incident, he was in Dehradun along with his ailing wife. Jafar-Ul-Islam was at his shop at the time of alleged incident. He is not on visiting terms with his younger son Mazhar-Ul- Islam and vise versa. He had already disowned him.
Accused Jafar-Ul-Islam has stated that he was not present at the spot. He was at his shop. He being the jeth of the deceased was entitled to claim the dead body of Shabana Anjum. He further stated that he was not on visiting terms with his brother Majar-Ul-Islam and vise versa.
In defence, the accused persons have examined three witnesses.
DW-1 is Abdul Rehman. He stated that he had Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 16 /39 17 gone to Jafrabad to the house of his sister in October 2005 where he came to know that uncle of accused Wahid Ahmed was admitted in the hospital. Wahid Ahmed used to reside at Dehradun during those days. On 10.10.2005 at 12.00 noon, he informed Wahid Ahmed on phone about the illness of his brother and his admission in the hospital. Wahid Ahmed replied that he would come to Delhi on the next day and he asked him to come to his house as GTB Hospital is near to his house. He further stated that on 11.10.2005 he (Wahid Ahmed ) came to his house at 12.00 noon and thereafter, he took him ( Wahid Ahmed ) to GTB Hospital. He left Wahid Ahmed in hospital and he ( Abdul Rehman) went to his sister's house. On reaching Jafrabad, he came to know that there had been an untoward incident at the old residence of Wahid Ahmed. He phoned him and told him about the untoward incident. He had phoned him at 4.00 p.m. Next day, he came to know that he had been taken by the police.
DW-2 is accused Wahid Ahmed. He has stated that he was a teacher in Government School and retired from the service on 30.6.2003. He has a house in Dehradun where he has shifted after his retirement. He knows Abdul Rehman since 1992 as he was his colleague. He received a telephone call at Dehradun on 10.10.2005 in the night that his uncle was admitted in GTB Hospital with serious chest problem. He left Dehradun for Delhi at 5.00 a.m. in the morning on next day. He came straight to the house of Abdul Rehman and Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 17 /39 18 thereafter, he went to GTB Hospital. He remained there for about 1½ hour and then he received a phone from Abdul Rehman at 4.00 p.m. that there has been a fire incident in the house of his son Mazhar-Ul-Islam. He further stated that after hearing this, he came to his house. There are independent units of his both the sons adjoining his house and his house is separate from them. After that police came and took him away for interrogation. Thereafter, the police kept him in detention. He was produced before the Duty Magistrate and was sent to judicial custody. He further stated that about 50 to 60 people had signed a representation to the police regarding his innocence on 18.11.2005, which is Mark DW- 2/A. On 19.12.2006, he sent a Petition to President of India about his innocence and for impartial investigation. He has also sent a letter to the Chairman, National Human Rights Commission on 16.11.2005 for impartial investigation regarding the death of his daughter-in-law Shabana Anjum. The photo copies of the same are Mark DW-2/2 to DW-2/4.
DW-3 is Mohd. Haroon. He has stated that on 11.10.2005 he was present at Medical Store at 1312/42, Main Road, Jafrabad. This Medical Store belongs to Jafar-Ul-Islam. He works in the said medical store. On that day, at about 2.00 p.m. when he returned from his house after taking lunch, he saw father-in-law of Mazhar-Ul-Islam along with one lady in burqa and one person with beard, entering the house of Mazhar-Ul-Islam. At that time accused Jafar-Ul-
Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 18 /39 19Islam was at said medical store. He further stated that all the three persons stayed at the house of Mazhar-Ul-Islam for 15-20 minutes and thereafter, they left the house. At about 3.00 p.m. when these persons left the house, the neighbors told that some smoke was coming out of the house of Mazhar-Ul-Islam. They closed the shop and went to the roof and saw that heavy fire was there in the house. He along with other persons started throwing water on the fire. After some time, police came at the spot. He tried to tell these facts to the police but they did not listen to him. Many mohalla people gathered there. Thereafter, he went back to his house.
I have heard Shri Mukul Kumar Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, Sh. R.M. Tufail Ld. Counsel for accused Wahid Ahmed and Sh. K.K. Manan Ld. Counsel for the accused Mazhar-Ul-Islam and Jafar-Ul-Islam. I have also perused the file, written submissions & case law filed on behalf of the complainant. I have also perused the written submissions and case law filed by the accused persons.
It was submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that in this case there is statement Ex. PW-11/A which was made by the deceased Shabana Anjum on 11.10.2005 i.e. on the day of incident. It was submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P. that since the maker of the statement i.e. Shabana Anjum has expired and hence her statement Ex. PW-11/A is to be treated as her dying declaration u/s 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act.
It was further submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 19 /39 20 State that apart from the dying declaration of the deceased, there is direct evidence also in this case. It was submitted that PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey are the eye witnesses of the incident. It was submitted that both of them have supported the prosecution case and nothing could come in their cross examinations which could shake their version. It was submitted that from the Post Mortem Report Ex. PW-1/A, it is proved that Shabana Anjum died due to the burns which she had sustained in the incident on 11.10.2005. It was submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that the prosecution case stands proved and the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that in this case the alleged dying declaration cannot be believed. It was submitted that Ex. PW-11/A does not bear the thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum. It was submitted that the MLC of the deceased which is Ex. PW-6/A does not bear the thumb impression of the deceased. It was submitted that Dr. Rajni admitted that the palm of Shabana Anjum was in burnt condition and on the other hand, the Investigating Officer obtained the thumb impression on the statement of deceased Shabana Anjum i.e. Ex.PW-11/A. It was submitted that it was not possible to obtain the thumb impression of Shabana Anjum as her palm was burnt. It was submitted that no Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 20 /39 21 certificate was given by the doctor who was present at the time of recording of the statement of Shabana Anjum regarding her mental state and fitness before making the statement. It was submitted that dying declaration was not recorded by any Magistrate & therefore, the alleged dying declaration cannot be believed.
Admittedly, the statement Ex. PW-11/A was recorded by ASI Har Prasad on 11.10.2005 and it bears right thumb impression of Shabana Anjum. Now, the question is that whether the said thumb impression was put by the deceased Shabana Anjum. In this regard, it is important to note that during the cross examination of PW-11 SI Har Parsad, who has recorded the statement Ex. PW-11/A of Shabana Anjum, no suggestion was given to him that it does not bear the thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum. So far as the contention of the Ld. Defence Counsels that the Investigating Officer has not obtained the certificate from the doctor regarding mental state & fitness of Shabana Anjum before recording her statement, it is important to note that the deceased Shabana Anjum was brought to GTB Hospital on the day of incident and she was examined in the hospital at 4.00 p.m. on 11.10.2005 vide MLC Ex. PW-6/A. The perusal of the said MLC reveals that the patient was conscious oriented. The perusal of the said MLC Ex.PW-6/A further shows that in the said MLC it is mentioned that the patient was fit for statement. The MLC was proved by PW-6 Dr. Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 21 /39 22 Rajni. She was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons . In her cross examination also she has stated that the patient was able to speak well and that the patient was fit for making her statement. It is important to note that during the cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, no suggestion was put to PW-6 Dr. Rajni that the patient Shabana Anjum was not conscious oriented or that she was not fit for statement. So far as the contention of Ld. Defence Counsels that palm of the deceased Shabana Anjum was burnt then how thumb impression was taken by the Investigating Officer on her statement Ex. PW-11/A. It was also submitted that PW-6 Dr. Rajni has stated that thumb impression of the patient was not taken on the MLC as her palm was burnt. In this regard, it is important to note that the perusal of MLC Ex. PW-6/A shows that on the MLC it was mentioned '' Burnt area chest, abdomen, lower chin, neck, both upper limb, back throat, back abdomen approximately 60% to 65%. As burns were 60% to 65%, it means that palm was not completely burnt so under these circumstances, the Investigating Officer might have opted for taking the thumb impression of deceased Shabana Anjum whereas PW-6 Dr. Rajni did not opt for the same. It has been discussed above that nothing could come out in the cross examination of PW-11 SI Har Parsad that it does not bear the thumb impression of Shabana Anjum.
As discussed above, PW-6 Dr. Rajni was not cross Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 22 /39 23 examined on behalf of the accused on the point that the deceased Shabana Anjum was not fit for statement and was not conscious oriented. So, the testimony of Dr. Rajni remains unchallenged in this regard and the same has to be believed. In this regard, I am supported by a judgment, which is reported as '' State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Thakur Dass, 1983 Cr.L.J. 1694, 1701 (HP) wherein it was observed that whenever a statement of fact made by a witness is not challenged in cross -examination, it has to be concluded that the fact in question is not disputed.
In another case titled as Motilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 Cri.L.J. NOC 125 MP, it was observed that if there is no cross examination of a prosecution witness in respect of certain facts it will only show the admission of that fact.
Hence, under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that Shabana Anjum was fit for statement when her statement Ex. PW-11/A was recorded by SI Har Parsad.
So, far as the contention of Ld. Defence Counsels that the statement of deceased Shabana Anjum was not recorded by the Magistrate, in this regard, it is important to note that at the time of recording of Ex. PW-11/A it was not anticipated that Shabana Anjum would die and the case at that time was registered u/s 307 IPC. Hence, this contention of the Ld. Defence Counsels is without any merit.
Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 23 /39 24The contention of Ld. Defence Counsels that statement of Shabana Anjum was recorded on 11.10.2005 whereas she died on 5.12.2005 and hence the same cannot be believed. In this regard, it is important to note that it does not make any difference if maker of the statement survives for several days after making the statement. In this regard, I am supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported as 1998 Cr.L.J. 866 (SC) titled as Najjam Faraghi alias Najjam Faruqui V. State of West Bengal, wherein it was observed that there is no merit in the contention that the deceased died long after making the dying declaration and therefore, the dying declaration has no value. Such a dying declaration does not loose its value if the person lives for a longer time than expected.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that statement Ex. PW-11/A is relevant u/s 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act and it is to be treated as dying declaration of Shabana Anjum.
Apart from the dying declaration in this case, there is direct evidence also i.e. statements of PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza @ Honey. They both are eye witnesses of the incident.
PW-2 Amreen stated that in October 2005, she was living with her parents along with her sister at House No. 1312, Gali No. 42, Jafrabad, Delhi. On 11.10.2005 in the after noon, she and her sister Honey were playing in the veranda of Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 24 /39 25 the house. Her mother was lying in the house. Then, her father, her grand father and her Tau ji came down. Her father and her Tauji entered the room where her mother was lying. Her grand father remained outside the room. She further stated that on seeing them, her mother got up. Her grand father uttered about her mother '' Aaj Isse Khatam Kar Do. Main Baad Mein Sab Dekh Loonga. Thereafter, her Tau Jaffar-Ul-Islam threw kerosene oil on her mother and her father threw lighted match stick upon her mother. As a result of this, the clothes of her mother caught fire. She, her mother and her younger sister ran out of the house. Some people from the street put off the fire of her mother. One of them informed the police on telephone. The police came at the spot. She, her mother and her younger sister were taken to hospital by the police in police van.
PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey is daughter of deceased Shabana Anjum and younger sister of PW-2 Amreen. She is also a witness of the incident. She has corroborated the testimony of PW-2 Amreen on all the material points and has supported the prosecution case.
It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey are child witnesses and they have been tutored, therefore, their statements cannot be believed.
Now, the question is that whether the statements of child witnesses can be acted up or not.
Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 25 /39 26The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case reported as 2009 VIII AD ( DELHI)-190 Bindu Vs. State ( NCT ) of Delhi has held as under :
" As per the provisions of Section 118 of the Evidence Act all persons are compentent to testify, unless the court consider that by reason of tender years they are incapable of understanding the questions put to them and of giving rational answers but then it is for the Judge to satisfy himself as regards fulfillment of the requirement of the said provision. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. The evidence of a child witness cannot be rejected, per se, but the court as a rule of prudence is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and if it is convinced about the quality thereto and the reliability of the child witness can record conviction based on his testimony. If after careful scrutiny of child witness's statement the court comes to the conclusion that there is impressed of truth in it. There is no reason as to why the court should not accept the evidence of child witness. '' In view of the judgment 2009 VIII AD ( DELHI)-190 Bindu Vs. State ( NCT ) of Delhi ( supra ), it is clear that child witnesses are competent witnesses and their Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 26 /39 27 statements can be believed and relied upon if the court is satisfied that the child witness has made the statement voluntarily & the child witness is a reliable witness.
Before relying upon the statement of child witnesses, the court has to satisfy itself that child witness has made statement voluntarily. It is well-settled that the testimony of a child witness should only be accepted with great caution and circumspection. The rationale for this is that it is common experience that a child witness is most susceptible to tutoring.
Now, the question is that whether in the present case both the witnesses i.e. PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey have made their statements voluntarily.
It was submitted by Ld. Defence Counsels that both the said witnesses PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey were tutored by their nana & nani. It is important to note that statements of both the witnesses i.e. PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey were recorded in the hospital by the Investigating Officer SI Har Parsad before the arrival of their nana & nani. Thus, it is clear that when their statements were recorded neither nana nor nani nor any other person from the side of their nana & nani was present. Hence, there was no question of tutoring them by their nana & nani.
It was further the submission of Ld. Defence Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 27 /39 28 Counsels that both the child witnesses have obeyed the dictates of their nana & nani and they have deposed falsely at the instance of their nana & nani. It was further submitted that PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey has admitted in her cross examination that earlier she used to obey her mother and now she was obeying her nana & nani. It was contended that this means that PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum deposed on the directions of her nana & nani. In this regard, it is important to note that it is very much natural that a child would obey his parents or the guardian with whom he is living. Nothing could come out in the cross examination of both the child witnesses that they have deposed at the instance of their nana & nani. This has been stated by the witness in the context that they were residing with their nana & nani and they have to obey them. I am of the view that only this part of the statement of the witness cannot take away the testimony of the witnesses. It is well settled position of law that evidence of a witness has to be considered as a whole and its cumulative effect is to be considered. In this regard, I am supported by a judgment which is reported as AIR 1940 Oudh 35, wherein it was held that evidence has not to be considered merely as a number of bits of evidence, but the whole and cumulative effect of the same is to be weighed.
There is nothing in the cross examination of PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey which can shake their credibility. They are natural witnesses. They being Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 28 /39 29 daughters are supposed to be present in the house at the time of incident. It has come on record, it was holiday in their school on the day of incident. It is also an important factor to be noted that there is no reason for both the witnesses to falsely implicate their father, their grand father and their tau.
There is nothing on record to show that PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey were tutored by anyone or pressurized by any one to make false statement before the court.
In 2009 VIII AD (DELHI)-190 Bindu Vs. State ( NCT ) of Delhi ( supra ), it was held that conviction can be based on the testimony of child witness.
It was further contended by Ld. Defence Counsels that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the the case properly. It was further submitted that the I.O. has not seized the bed, mattress and earth control from the spot. It was further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsels that there are contradictions in the statement of the IO It was submitted that the I.O. has not shown in the site plan the place where the alleged empty bottle of kerosene and burnt clothes were lying. It was further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not conducted the investigation on the aspect that it could be a case of self immolation.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as AIR 1988 SC-1850 Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. has observed that it is settled law that Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 29 /39 30 when the direct testimony of the eye witnesses inspires confidence and fully establishes the prosecution version, failure or omission or negligence on part of IO cannot affect the credibility of the prosecution version.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case reported as 2009 IX AD ( DELHI)-71 Ahmed Ali Sardar Vs. State has observed that failure or omission or negligence on part of IO cannot affect credibility of prosecution version.
Therefore, in view of AIR 1988 SC-1850 Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. ( supra ) and 2009 IX AD ( DELHI)-71 Ahmed Ali Sardar Vs. State ( supra), the points raised by Ld. Defence Counsels do not have any merit.
It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that accused Wahid Ahmed was not residing in Delhi. It was further submitted that accused Wahid Ahmed has shifted to Dehradun in 2003 after his retirement from the service. It was further submitted that accused Wahid Ahmed was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. It was further submitted that he came to know about the incident at 4.00 p.m. when he came to Delhi from Dehradun to see his ailing uncle, who was admitted in GTB Hospital. In support of his plea, the accused Wahid Ahmed as examined himself as DW-2 and Abdul Rehman as DW-1 and both of them have supported the plea taken by accused Wahid Ahmed that at the Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 30 /39 31 time of incident, accused Wahid Ahmed was not present at the spot and at the relevant time he was present in GTB Hospital where his uncle was admitted.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as ''Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1997)1 SCC-283 has observed that the burden of proving an alibi is entirely on the accused and strict proof is required for establishing an alibi. The word alibi means 'elsewhere', and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as '' State of Haryna Vs. Sher Singh 1981 Cr.L.J. 230 (SC)'' has observed that if an accused takes the plea of alibi, he must establish it.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as ''Duth Nath Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1981 SC-911'' has observed that plea of alibi can succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed.
It is important to note that the accused Wahid Ahmed in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that at the time of the alleged incident, he was present in Dehradun along with his ailing wife. But in his defence evidence, he has Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 31 /39 32 taken altogether a different stand that at the time of incident, he was present in GTB Hospital where he had gone to see his ailing uncle. The accused Wahid Ahmed did not examine his wife to support his plea that at the time of incident, he was present at Dehradun along with his wife. Nor the accused Wahid Ahmed examined his uncle who was admitted in GTB Hospital at the relevant time to prove that at the relevant time accused Wahid Ahmed was with him. Nor the accused has produced any record from the hospital to show that his uncle was admitted in GTB Hospital at the relevant time. So far as the testimony of DW-1 Abdul Rehman is concerned, it has come in his statement that he left accused Wahid Ahmed in GTB hospital at 12.00 noon on 11.10.2005 and thereafter, he (DW-2) went to his sister's house. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of incident which took place at about 3.20 p.m. on 11.10.2005, DW-1 Abdul Rehman was not with accused Wahid Ahmed at the relevant time.
Therefore, in view of the above discussed facts and judgments, the accused Wahid Ahmed has failed to prove that he was not present at the spot and thus he is unable to prove his plea of alibi.
The accused Jafar-Ul -Islam has also taken the plea that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. As per his plea he was at his shop at the relevant time. In order to support his plea, he has examined one DW-3 Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 32 /39 33 Mohd. Haroon, who has stated that at the relevant time accused Jafar-Ul_Islam was with him in medical store at 1312/42, Main Road, Jafrabad. It is important to note that DW-3 Mohd. Haroon has not made any complaint or statement anywhere that at the relevant time, accused Jafar Ul-Islam was at his medical store along with him. Hence, in my considered opinion, the testimony of DW-2 Mohd. Haroon is of no help for the accused persons.
It was submitted by Ld. Defence Counsels that Investigating Officer did not record the statement of public witnesses, who were present at the spot and extinguished the fire on the body of Shabana Anjum.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a case reported as M.A. Abdulla Kunhi Vs. State of Kerala 1991 SC-452 has held that it is not necessary that all the persons who were witnessing the occurrence should be examined.
It has been held time and again by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is the quality of evidence which matters it and not the number of the witnesses. This contention of Ld.Defence Counsel is to be ignored in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which is reported as Lallu Manjhi and another Vs. State of Jharkhand, '' 2003 1 AD (SC)-597 '' wherein it has been held that conviction of accused can be based even on the testimony of a solitary witness when his evidence is found to be wholly reliable.
It is also to be noted that in this case the only eye Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 33 /39 34 witnesses were PW-2 Amreen and PW- 3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey. The other public persons regarding whom the Ld. Defence Counsels have pointed out that they were not cited as witnesses were the persons, who came at the spot after the incident and they have only extinguished the fire on the body of Shabana Anjum.
Thus, in my view, this contention of the Ld.Defence Counsel also has no force and is to be ignored.
It was submitted by Ld. Defence Counsels that alleged incident took place on 11.10.2005. Shabana Anjum got herself discharged from the hospital of her own against the advise of the doctor. It was submitted that the deceased Shabana Anjum died as she did not take proper medical treatment. It was submitted that if the deceased Shabana Anjum would have given proper medical treatment, she could have been saved. It was submitted that at the most section 307 IPC is attracted and section 302 IPC cannot be attracted in this case.
In this regard, I am not in agreement with the contention of Ld. Counsels for the accused. In this case deceased died due to burn injuries sustained by her in the incident dated 11.10.2005. In this regard, I am supported by a judgment which is reported as Noorsab alis Noor Ahmed V. State of Karnataka 2001 Cr.L.J.-425(Kant) (DB) wherein it was held that where the victim wife Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 34 /39 35 was set on fire by the husband, sustained 80% burn injuries and she got discharged from hospital against medical advice and on her re-admission in the hospital she succumbed to her injuries, the doctor who besides conducting postmortem examination had also treated the deceased at first instance and after re-admission, opined that deceased died on account of burn injuries sustained by her, the accused was found guilty under section 302, not under section 304 IPC.
Sh. R.M. Tufail Ld. Counsel for the accused Wahid Ahmed relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
1) 2006 (3) Crimes 428 2) 1999 Crl. J 4321 3) 1987 C.C. Cases 260 (HC) 4) 2007 (1) LRC 202 (DEC) (DB) 5) 1-1986 (1) Crimes 3 6) 2009 (1) JCC 491 7) 1993 (2) VII Crimes 695 8) AIR 1999 S.C. 883 9) 2005 Crl.L.J -1422 10) 1997 Crl. L. J- 2377
Sh. K.K. Manan Counsel for accused Mazhar-Ul- Islam and Jaffar-Ul-Islam has relied upon the following judgments:
1) 1992 Cri. L. J. 2644 ( Cal ) 2) AIR 1969 Supreme Court -53 3) 1976 Cri. L. J. 667 4) 2000 Cri. L. J. 29 5) 1992 (1) Crimes -371 ( MP). 6) 1970 Crl. L. J. 637 ( Orissa ) 7) (1983) 2 Supreme Court Cases 14 Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 35 /39 36
I have carefully gone through the case law relied upon by the Ld. Defence Counsels. In my view, the case law relied upon by the Ld. Defence Counsels is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
I am of the considered view that the statements of PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum are consistent and corroborative. There are no infirmities in their statements. Nothing could come out in their cross examination which could shake their credibility. Hence, in my view, they are reliable witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements.
Hence, from the statements of PW-2 Amreen and PW-3 Baby Riza Anjum @ Honey coupled with the statement Ex.PW-11/A made by deceased Shabana Anjum and the postmortem report Ex. PW-1/A, it is proved that on 11.10.2005 at about 3.20 p.m. at House No. 1312, Gali No. 42, Jafrabad,Delhi, accused JaffarUl-Islam threw kerosene oil on the deceased Shabana Anjum and accused Mazhar Ul- Islam threw lighted match stick on her body, while accused Wahid Ahmed exhorted the other two accused to kill Shabana Anjum. As a result of which Shabana Anjum sustained burn injuries and later on she succumbed to her burn injuries. Hence, it is proved that all the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Shabana Anjum.
Therefore, I hold all the three accused persons Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 36 /39 37 guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC and convict them thereunder.
They be heard separately on the point of sentence. Announced in open Court on 9th September '2010.
(Surinder Kumar Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge (North East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 37 /39 38 IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI State Vs.
1. Wahid Ahmed S/o Sh. Ismail Khan R/o H. No. 1312, Gali No.42, Jafrabad, Delhi.
2. Mazhar-Ul-Islam S/o Sh.Wahid Ahmed R/o H. No. 1312, Gali No.42, Jafrabad, Delhi
3. Jafar-Ul-Islam S/o Sh.Wahid Ahmed R/o H. No. 1312, Gali No.42, Jafrabad, Delhi FIR No.: 615/2005 PS: Seelampur Under Section 302/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE 21.09.2010 Present: Sh.Mukul Kumar Addl.P.P for the State.
All the three convicts in J.C Sh.R.M.Tufail Ld.Counsel for convict Wahid Ahmed. Ms.Sheela Ld.Counsel for convicts Mazhar-ul-Uslam and Jafar-ul-Islam.
Arguments heard on the point of sentence. It is submitted by Ld.Addl.PP for the State that this is not a case where the death penalty can be imposed.Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 38 /39 39
On the other hand, Sh.R.M.Tufail Advocate and Ms.Sheela Advocate for the convicts submit that a lenient view be taken against the convicts.
Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a case where death penalty should be awarded to the convicts.
All the three convicts are sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC. They are also imposed fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall undergo two months Simple Imprisonment. Order is passed accordingly.
Copy of Judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of cost today itself.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 21th September 2010.
(Surinder Kumar Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge (North East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Sessions Case No. 38/2009 Page 39 /39