Delhi District Court
State vs . Salim on 1 April, 2014
State Vs. Salim
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. 73/12
ID No. 02401R0483682012
FIR No. : 142/12
Police Station : Darya Ganj
Under Section : 302/396/397/412 IPC
State
Versus
SALIM
S/o Md. Hanif
R/o H. No. 416, Gali No. 20
Jafrabad
.............Accused
Date of Institution : 06.10.2012
Date of Institution : 20.10.2012
Date of judgment reserved : 18.03.2014
Date of judgment : 01.04.2014
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State
Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the
accused
J U D G M E N T :-
SC No. 73/12 Page 1 of 181. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on July 8, 2012 at about 11.30 PM, an intimation was received from duty constable Ajay (PW5) posted at JPN hospital that one unknown person aged about 25 years old was got admitted in the hospital by HC Jai Pal (PW11), in- charge of OSCAR-07 and doctor declared him brought dead. Said information was recorded vide DD No. 30A (Ex.PW10/A) and same was assigned to ASI Preet Pal Singh (PW9). SHO Inspector Ravinder Kumar (PW15) along with his driver Abhay Singh also left for the hospital where ASI Preet Pal Singh and Const. Paras met him. Inspector Ravinder Kumar took over the charge of investigation. Doctor handed over the clothes of deceased in a sealed parcel along with sample seal. On inspection of the dead body, it was revealed that there were two stab wounds; one was in the abdomen and another was in the chest. Dead body was got sent to mortuary of MAMC and request was made to send crime team at the spot.
2. It was alleged that crime team visited the place of occurrence and inspected the spot. Place of occurrence was photographed. Since, no eyewitness met either at the spot or in the hospital, endorsement was made on DD Ex.PW10/A and an FIR under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was got registered. Copy of FIR was got sent to senior police officers and learned illaqua Magistrate through special messenger.
3. It was alleged that while PW15 was conducting local inquiry at the spot, four persons, namely, Dharmender Kumar, Sanjeet Kumar, Santosh, and Shiv Shankar came there and made inquiry about the deceased, consequently, PW15 took them to mortuary of MAMC where they identified the dead body and disclosed that his name was Ranjit Shah.
4. It was alleged that on July 9, 2012, a secret information was SC No. 73/12 Page 2 of 18 State Vs. Salim received about the accused Danish, accordingly, he was apprehended and one mobile phone which belonged to the deceased was got recovered by him. Receipt of the said mobile mobile phone was also recovered from his possession.
5. It was alleged that on July 10, 2012, a secret information was received about three persons, namely Owais, Salim, and Sadab, accordingly, they were apprehended from park near Delhi Jal Board office at Guru Nanak Chowk, Darya Ganj. It was alleged that a sum of ` 350/- was recovered from accused Owais along with one red colour purse containing Election ID card and cash receipt of Sahara India. It was alleged that the said purse was belonged to deceased. It was further alleged that a sum of ` 750/- was recovered from accused Salim and he also got recovered blood stained knife. Blood stains were also found on his pant. It was further alleged that a sum of ` 550/- was recovered from accused Sadab.
6. During investigation, it was revealed that another accused named Mohd. Saquib was juvenile, consequently, he was produced before learned Juvenile Justice Board - 01, Delhi and got sent him to Observation Home.
7. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Sadab, Owais and Danish were also juvenile, accordingly, they were produced before learned Juvenile Justice Board.
8. It was alleged that during Test Identification Parade, PW Shiv Shanker had correctly identified the accused Salim.
SC No. 73/12 Page 3 of 189. After completing investigation, challan was filed against the accused Salim for the offence punishable under Section 302/396/397/412 Indian Penal Code. Separate report was filed against Juveniles before learned Juvenile Justice Board.
10. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, case qua accused Salim was committed to the Court of Sessions on October 17, 2012. Thereafter, case was assigned to this Court on October 20, 2012, accordingly, case was registered as Sessions Case No. 73/12.
11. Vide order dated November 16, 2012, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 396/302/397/412 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty claimed trail.
12. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined following 20 witnesses:-
PW1 Shiv Shanker, eyewitness
PW2 Sanjeet Kumar, connecting witness, brother of
deceased.
PW3 SI Pankaj Kumar, in-charge of crime team.
PW4 Const. Vijay Kumar, photographer.
PW5 Const. Ajay, duty constable at JPN hospital.
PW6 Const. Shekhar, formal witness.
PW7 Mohd. Shiraj, formal witness, made a call to the
police control room.
PW8 Const. Upender Kumar, formal witness, delivered the
SC No. 73/12 Page 4 of 18
State Vs. Salim
copy of FIR.
PW9 ASI Preet Pal Singh, formal witness.
PW10 HC Bodh Raj, duty officer.
PW11 HC Jai Pal Singh, in-charge of PCR van.
PW12 ASI Omvir, formal witness.
PW13 Insp. Mahesh Kumar, draughtsman, formal witness.
PW14 Const. Jai Prakash, members of the investigating
team.
PW15 Insp. Ravinder Kumar, investigating officer.
PW16 Dr. Kapil, formal witness.
PW17 HC Netrapal, MHC(M).
PW18 Dr. Sunita Gupta, proved the FSL report.
PW19 SI Dharmender Kumar, member of the investigating
team.
PW20 Dr. Jyoti Barwa, proved the autopsy report.
13. On culmination of prosecution case, accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he denied all incriminating evidence led by prosecution and submitted that he had been falsely implicated in this case after lifting him from his house and further stated that he was not involved in the present case. However, he refused to lead evidence in his defence
14. Learned counsel appearing for the accused sagaciously contended that though prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses, yet prosecution case is based on the sole testimony of PW1 Shiv Shanker. It was submitted that Shiv Shanker is a planted witness being the known to deceased and this fact is clear from the documents placed by prosecution on record. It was further submitted that PW1 in his SC No. 73/12 Page 5 of 18 State Vs. Salim deposition categorically admitted that police had shown the accused to him prior to Test Identification Parade, thus, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. It was further contended that even PW1 was not in a position to see faces of assailants and in his deposition he clarified that he had not seen the accused Salim assaulting the deceased. It was further submitted that conduct of PW1 was not of an ordinary prudent person as he did not inform the police despite the fact that he had an opportunity. It was further contended that as per prosecution version, recovered knife was having one side sharp edge whereas as per autopsy report injuries were inflicted by a weapon having double sharp edge, thus, it was contended that prosecution has failed to connect the recovered knife with the offence in question. It was further contended that prosecution has also failed to establish that the recovered amount of ` 750/- belonged to the deceased. Only remaining incriminating evidence is blood stains found on the pant of the accused. But prosecution even failed to establish that blood found on the pant was of the deceased. Even prosecution failed to establish the blood group of deceased. It was further contended that there was inordinate delay in sending the copy of FIR to the learned illaqua Magistrate and there is also a contradiction between the testimony of PW18 and PW19.
15. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the said contentions by arguing that PW1 is a trustworthy and reliable witness, thus, there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. It was further contended that mere fact that his name is not mentioned in some of the documents or that he failed to inform the police are no sufficient grounds to discard his testimony. It was further contended that the contradictions pointed out by the learned defence counsel are trivial in nature, thus, the same are not fatal to prosecution case. It was further contended that since SC No. 73/12 Page 6 of 18 State Vs. Salim PW1 supported the prosecution case, contradictions about the recovery of knife and the autopsy report is not fatal to the prosecution case.
16. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
Contentions relating to the presence of PW1 at the spot:-
17. Learned counsel appearing for the accused sagaciously contended that PW1 Shiv Shankar is a planted witness and this is evident from the prosecution case itself. It was contended that prosecution version is that PW1 reached the spot after sending rukka and thereafter PW1 was taken to the mortuary of MAMC for the purpose of identification of the deceased, thereafter, investigating officer recorded the statement of PW1. But surprisingly the factum of that PW1 was an eyewitness is neither mentioned in the arrival entry Ex. PW15/DA nor in the brief facts Ex. PW15/F or in the application for post-mortem Ex. PW15/G. It was urged that this proves that PW1 did not claim himself as an eyewitness till the time application Ex. PW15/G was moved and subsequently he was introduced as an eyewitness being known to the deceased to create a false circumstance against the accused. It was further contended that even the conduct of PW1 is not of an ordinary prudent person as he did not inform the police without any just and reasonable cause despite the fact that he had an ample opportunity and time.
18. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said contentions by arguing that PW1 had no enmity with the accused, thus, he had no motive to falsely implicate the accused in this case. It was SC No. 73/12 Page 7 of 18 State Vs. Salim contended that mere fact investigating officer failed to mention his role in the arrival entry, brief facts and in the application for post-mortem is not sufficient to hold that PW1 had not witnessed the incident. It was further contended that since PW1 was not carrying any mobile phone, thus if he failed to inform the police, but it does not mean that he had not witnessed the incident.
19. Prosecution has set up a case that after sending rukka, PW1 Shiv Shankar along with Sanjeet, Santosh and Dharmender came to the spot and they enquired about Ranjit Shah, consequently, PW15 inspector Ravinder Kumar took them to the mortuary of MAMC where they identified the dead body and disclosed the name of deceased as Ranjit Shah. Thereafter, PW15 recorded the statement of PW1 as he claimed that he had witnessed the incident.
20. PW15 in his cross-examination admitted that he had recorded the statement of PW1 between 4:00 AM to 4:30 AM. It is admitted case of prosecution that rukka was sent from the spot at about 2:30 AM. Thus, it becomes clear that as per prosecution case, PW15 recorded the statement of PW1 at the spot between 4:00 AM to 4:30 PM. It is also admitted case of prosecution that after completing the proceedings, PW15 reached the police station and made his arrival entry vide DD No. 6A (Ex. PW15/DA).
21. PW15 in his cross-examination candidly admitted that it is the duty of every investigating officer to record the gist of proceedings conducted by him in the arrival entry. He also deposed that he had recited in Ex. PW15/DA that Sanjeet, brother of deceased and his two relatives namely Shiv Shankar and Dharmender reached the spot and they identified the dead body in the hospital. He further admitted that he did not recite in SC No. 73/12 Page 8 of 18 State Vs. Salim Ex. PW15/DA that Shiv Shankar claimed himself as an eyewitness or that he had witnessed the incident or that he had recorded his statement as an eyewitness. Thus, it becomes clear that PW15 did not record in Ex. PW15/DA that Shiv Shankar claimed himself as an eyewitness or that PW15 recorded his statement being an eyewitness. But surprisingly, PW15 did not give any explanation whatsoever for his default. On the contrary he deposed that he can not tell any reason why he had not mentioned this important fact in the daily diary Ex. PW15/DA. Said default on the part of investigating officer is one of the main causes to raise suspicion over the prosecution claim that PW1 had witnessed the incident.
22. It is also admitted case of prosecution that at the time of conducting inquest, PW15 had prepared the brief facts Ex. PW15/F and also mentioned the facts in brief in the application Ex. PW15/G for post- mortem. PW15 in his cross-examination honestly admitted that investigating officer is supposed to mention all important facts in brief facts and as well as in the application moved for post-mortem. He also admitted that he had not recited the important facts i.e. Shiv Shankar claimed himself as an eyewitness and he had recorded his statement as an eyewitness at the spot either in the brief facts Ex. PW15/F or in the application Ex.PW15/G. Again he failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever for the said major default on his part.
23. Relevancy of facts narrated in brief facts and in the application for post-mortem was discussed by the Apex Court in Balwant Singh v. State, 1976 CLR (Delhi) 41 and Balaka Singh & others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962.
24. In Balwant Singh v. State (supra) it was held:
SC No. 73/12 Page 9 of 18State Vs. Salim "There is yet another vital document to verify the truthfulness of the prosecution version. The inquest report has to be prepared promptly because it has to be sent to the doctor along with the dead body when the both is sent for autopsy. It has a column for writing out in brief the facts of the case. If facts about the occurrence are stated in the inquest report. It would show that at least by that time the version of the occurrence has been given. If it does not mention the facts about the occurrence, the arguments that the investigating officer was not sure of the facts when the inquest was drawn out would carry weight."
(i) In Balaka Singh (supra), it was held by the Apex Court:-
"We have perused Ex. P.H. inquest report ourselves and find that in the brief facts of the case which were made to the investigating officer by Banta Singh only the name of Balaka Singh, Joginder Singh, Pritam Singh, Darbara Singh and Jarnail Singh are mentioned. There is no reference at all to Makhan Singh, Sucha Singh, Teja Singh and Inder Singh in the report nor it is mentioned that Teja Singh and Inder Singh incited or exhorted the other accused persons to open the assault on the deceased which appears to be the starting point of the occurrence. The prosecution has not been able to give any reasonable explanation for this important omission in the inquest report. -------------In these circumstances, therefore, the High Court was fully justified in holding that the omission of the names of the four accused acquitted by the High Court in the inquest report was a very important circumstance which went in favour of the four accused. This omission has a two fold reaction. In the first place it throws doubt on the complicity of the four accused acquitted by the High Court and secondly it casts serious doubt on the veracity and authenticity of the FIR itself. It is not understandable as to why the four accused who are alleged to have taken an active part in the assault on the deceased were not at all mentioned in the inquest report."
(emphasis supplied)
25. Indisputably, in the brief facts Ex. PW15/F and application SC No. 73/12 Page 10 of 18 State Vs. Salim Ex. PW15/G it was mentioned that the identity of deceased was established as Ranjit Shah but it was not mentioned that the alleged incident was witnessed by Shiv Shankar or that Shiv Shankar had got recorded his statement to the investigating officer being an eyewitness. Similarly, this fact is also not mentioned in the arrival entry Ex. PW15/DA. On the contrary it was mentioned therein that Shiv Shankar also met at the spot along with Sanjeet and Dharmender and they identified the deceased. It proves that by that time role attributed to Shiv Shankar was that he along with others had identified the deceased. Had he witnessed the incident or he had got recorded his statement to the investigating officer being an eye-witness, investigating officer would have certainly mentioned this important fact in Ex. PW15/DA. But it is not so, which establishes that by that time Shiv Shankar was not an eye-witness. It has already discussed that prosecution has failed to furnish any reason whatsoever about the said major default on the part of investigating officer. Applying the above settled proposition of law in the facts of present case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that PW1 Shiv Shankar had not claimed himself as an eye-witness till the time investigating officer had moved the application Ex. PW15/G for the post- mortem of dead body and due to said reason this important fact is not mentioned either in Ex. PW15/DA, Ex. PW15/F or in EX. PW15/G. PW1 might have been introduced as an eye-witness subsequently just to create a false circumstance against the accused. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW1.
Conduct of PW1:-
26. It is admitted case of prosecution that PW1 was having a shop at Rajghat whereas the alleged incident had taken place at Delhi Gate. It is also admitted case of prosecution that after the incident, PW1 SC No. 73/12 Page 11 of 18 State Vs. Salim became scared, consequently, he rushed back to his shop but Sanjeet did not meet him there. Accordingly, he again went to the place of incident but this time victim Ranjit Shah was not found. Consequently, he went to Shivaji Bridge where Santosh met him, then he along with Santosh reached Rajghat via Delhi Gate. This time, Sanjeet and Dharmender met him, consequently, all went to JPN Hospital as Dharmender had received a call on his mobile phone about Ranjit Shah.
27. It is also admitted case of prosecution that PW7 Mohd. Shiraj informed the police control room between 10:00 PM to 10:15 PM., consequently, PCR van reached the spot. PW11 in-charge of PCR Van deposed that he received the intimation from control room at about 10:45 PM and he reached the spot within 2 minutes as his location was at Rajghat itself. He further deposed that he was relieved by the SHO by 11:10 PM, thereafter, he reached at his location i.e. Rajghat. It is also admitted case of prosecution that police remained at the spot at least by 2:30 PM when the rukka was sent. In these circumstances, it is seldom to believe the testimony of PW1 that he did not find any police official including PCR official while going to Rajghat; then to spot; thereafter to Shivaji Bridge; then returned to Rajghat via Delhi Gate.
28. PW1 admitted in his deposition that he was having mobile phone but he was not carrying the same as it was on charging. But he also deposed that when he returned from the spot to Rajghat, he checked his mobile phone and saw that there was a missed call from Dharmender between 10:00 PM to 10:15 PM, and from the said missed call, he presumed that Dharmender and Sanjeet must have reached the shop between 10:00 PM to 10:15 PM. Thus, he could have informed the police at that time, but he did not inform the police and he also failed to give any SC No. 73/12 Page 12 of 18 State Vs. Salim explanation whatsoever.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the testimony of PW1 that he did not find any police official prior to reaching JPN Hospital is improbable and his conduct that he did not inform the police even after reaching the shop further casts a doubt over his conduct.
Whether PW1 was in a position to see the assailants:-
30. PW1 in his deposition categorically deposed that he was behind the deceased as he stopped to attend the call of nature and in the meantime, deceased had crossed the red-light. As per scaled site plan Ex. PW13/A the width of the red-light crossing road is 2632 centimetres. The incident had taken place at point A, which is about 1000 centimetres away from the edge of across the road. It means that the distance between the deceased and PW1 was more than 3632 centimetres i.e. more than 36 metres. Admittedly, the alleged incident had taken place in night, thus, it was not feasible for PW1 to see faces of assailants from such a huge distance. Though PW15 in his deposition deposed that PW1 had seen the incident from point C as depicted in the site plan Ex. PW13/A, but no reliance can be placed on his testimony to that extent. Because he admitted in his cross-examination that PW1 was not called when PW13 prepared the rough notes. Though PW15 deposed that since PW1 had told him that he had witnessed the alleged incident from point C, he had told the same to PW13, but admittedly PW15 did not record the fact anywhere that PW1 had told him that he had witnessed the incident from point C. PW1 in his testimony categorically deposed that he stopped to attend the call of nature, if we believe the version of PW15, it means that he was attending the call of nature in the middle of road, which is otherwise not believable.
SC No. 73/12 Page 13 of 18State Vs. Salim In these circumstances, it is quite implausible for the PW1 to see the faces of assailants.
Test identification parade:-
31. PW1 in his cross-examination candidly admitted that before calling him for the test identification parade in Tihar Jail, police had called him in the police station and had shown all the accused persons including Salim, accordingly, he identified the accused persons including Salim in the TIP on July 13, 2012. Since, the accused was shown to the witness in the police station, identification parade and his subsequent identification in the court lost its significance. (Relied on Shaikh Umar Ahmed Shaik & another v. State of Maharashtra decided by Apex Court on April 28, 1998).
Weapon of offence:-
32. Prosecution case is that accused Salim had got recovered one knife Ex. P-1. Since, human blood was detected from the knife, prosecution set up a case that accused Salim had inflicted the injuries by the said knife. But prosecution case is demolished by the autopsy surgeon who opined that the inflicted injuries were caused by a weapon having double sharp edged. Admittedly, the knife Ex. P-1 has only one side sharp edge. It means that the injuries found on the dead body could not be inflicted by the recovered knife Ex. P-1. Further, PW15 in his cross- examination candidly admitted that he did not send the recovered knife to the autopsy surgeon to seek opinion as to whether the injuries found on the dead body could be caused by the recovered weapon or not. He gave funny explanation for his default by saying that he did not send the knife as SC No. 73/12 Page 14 of 18 State Vs. Salim the same was received quite late from FSL. But in his next breath he admitted that he knew that knife could be sent for opinion at belated stage. This shows that he had not sent the knife deliberately to the autopsy surgeon as he knew very well that the opinion would not be in favour of prosecution as doctor had already opined that the injuries were caused by double sharp edged weapon. Further, PW18 Ms. Sunita Gupta, SSO deposed that only at one point on the knife, blood was detected and it was slightest blood stain. When her attention was drawn towards the injuries mentioned in the autopsy report, she deposed that if the said injuries were caused by the said knife, then there would have been lot of blood on the knife. But it was not so, this further rules out that the injuries were caused by the said knife. Thus, it is established that prosecution has failed to connect the recovered knife with the offence, hence even if we assume that the alleged knife was recovered at the pointing of accused, it is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner.
Recovery of cash amounting ` 750/- and blood stains on the pant:-
33. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the amount of ` 750/- was recovered from the accused. But it is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner. There is no scintilla of evidence to show that the recovered amount is part of booty. Needless to say that the amount of ` 750/- is too meagre, hence it does not require any explanation from the accused.
34. Assuming for the sake of arguments that human blood was detected on the pant of the accused when he was apprehended. FSL reports are Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW18/B. As per reports, human blood was detected on his pant, but grouping of the blood could not be ascertained.
SC No. 73/12 Page 15 of 18State Vs. Salim Thus, it can not be said that the blood stains found on his pant were of the deceased. Even prosecution has failed to ascertain the blood group of deceased. It is really surprisingly that investigating agency failed to ascertain the blood group of the deceased. This further indicates how efficient our investigating agency is.
Contradiction between the testimony of PW15 & PW19:-
35. PW18 in his cross-examination deposed that since their attention was on the accused persons, he did not notice how many persons were sleeping in the park. He further deposed that he did not call any public person at the time of arrest of the accused persons. He further deposed that police team remained in the park till 5:45 AM to 6:00 AM but till then no one had got up. On the contrary, PW19 deposed that when police party reached the park, other persons who were sleeping in the park fled away. He further deposed that no effort was made to call guard from the nearby office of Delhi Jal Board to join the proceedings. Thus, it is not clear whether public persons who were sleeping in the park fled away after raid as deposed by PW19 or they remained slept till 6:00 AM as deposed by PW15. Admittedly, no sincere effort was made to join any independent witness. Even PW15 deposed that the secret information was not given by his regular informer and deposed that the person who gave the information, met him first time by chance. This further casts a doubt over the alleged secret information. Admittedly, neither PW15 knew that the secret informer would meet them nor the alleged secret informer knew that PW15 would come in the late night to conduct a raid.
Delay in sending the copy of FIR to Illaqua Magistrate:-
SC No. 73/12 Page 16 of 18State Vs. Salim
36. Admittedly, rukka was sent at 2:30 AM, thereafter FIR was lodged at 2:40 AM. PW8 constable Upender in his cross-examination deposed that he left from the police station to deliver the copy of FIR at 3:50 AM and returned to the police station by 6:00 AM. Thus, prosecution has set up a case that since the copy of FIR was sent to the Illaqua Magistrate between 3:50 AM to 6:00 AM, there was no delay in sending the copy of FIR. But prosecution case is demolished by the endorsement made by learned Illaqua Magistrate on the copy of FIR, which is placed at serial number CH- 475. As per the endorsement, copy of FIR was delivered at the residence of learned Illaqua Magistrate at 8:20 AM. If the copy of FIR was delivered before 6:00 AM, endorsement would be prior to 6:00 AM and not of 8:20 AM. This proves that PW8 had not only made a false statement in the Court but also fabricated the daily diary by mentioning that he returned to the police station at 6:00 AM. Such manipulation can not render any help to the prosecution. It is bitter but true that police officials are in the habit of manipulating entries in daily diary. Such practice can not help the prosecution in any manner; rather it helps the defence to create a doubt over prosecution case, thus such practice should be stopped immediately and appropriate action should be taken against erring officials. It is also pertinent to point out that such fabrication/manipulation attracts penal provisions. Thus, it becomes clear that there was inordinate delay in sending the copy of FIR to the Illaqua Magistrate and delay remained unexplained during trial, thus prosecution case requires to be examined minutely to ensure that no innocent person has been implicated. (Relied on Bijoy Singh v/s State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1949).
Conclusion:-
37. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, I am of the SC No. 73/12 Page 17 of 18 State Vs. Salim considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused Salim for the offences punishable under Section 396/302/397/412 IPC, thus, I hereby acquit the accused Salim thereunder.
Announced in the open Court on this 01st day of April,2014 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge-01 Central district, Tis Hazari, Delhi SC No. 73/12 Page 18 of 18