Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanju @ Gagan Pavva Khemchand on 14 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, NORTHEAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by Nitish Kumar Sharma
F.I.R. No. : 58/2021
Police Station: Gokalpuri
State Vs. Sanju @ Gagan Pavva Khemchand
U/s 392/34 IPC
(a) Case ID number/CR No. : 1458/2021
(b) Date of commission of the offence : 17.02.2021
(c) The name of the complainant : Sh. Nadeem S/o Hazi
Mehboob, R/o B125, Colony
Uttranchal, Bhehta Hazipur,
Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
(d) The name of the accused, : Sanju Gagan Pavvya
parentage and residence Khemchand S/o Ratan Lal,
R/o H.No. 537, Gali No.1,
Manglapuri, Palam, South West
Delhi.
(e) Charge framed : Under Section 392/34 IPC
(f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Acquittal.
(h) The date of such order : 14.09.2022
(i) State represented by : Ld. APP for State.
(j) Accused represented by : Ms. Jyoti Prakash, Ld. LAC for
accused.
Challan was filed on: 10.05.2021
Final arguments were heard on: .14.09.2022
Judgment is announced on: 14.09.2022
FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 1 of 18
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The accused namely Sanju @ Gagan Pavva Khemchand here in this case was prosecuted pursuant to chargesheet filed by PS Gokulpuri for the offence punishable under section 392/34 IPC.
2. The case of prosecution initiated on the statement of the complainant Sh. Nadeem wherein he stated that on 17.02.2021 at about 10:30 PM while he was coming back to his house after meeting his friend and stopped near empty plot near old PS Gokulpuri, Delhi to relieve himself, the accused alongwith his associates (since not arrested) in furtherance of his common intention committed robbery by removing his purse containing Rs.9000/ cash from his pocket and ran away from the spot. Therefore, the FIR No.58/2021 was registered in PS Gokulpuri u/s 392/34 IPC. The accused herein was arrested in FIR No. 72/2021 and it is the case of prosecution that the accused had disclosed about his involvement in the present matter and complainant had identified him in TIP proceedings.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
3. Pursuant to filing of the chargesheet, cognizance was taken and the accused was called upon to enter trial and after his appearance, the copy of the relevant documents were furnished to the accused. Upon FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 2 of 18 hearing both sides and on perusal of the case record, the charge was framed u/s 392/34 IPC on 30.03.2022 and was read over and explained to the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE "Witnesses are eyes and ears of Justice" Bentham
4. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined Nadeem i.e. complainant as PW1 who deposed that he did not remember exact date and time due to long lapse of time and did not depose anything in the case. He deposed that police did not record his statement. He further deposed that he cannot identify the accused.
Ld. APP for State sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was not disclosing the complete facts. During the cross examination, the witness affirmed as correct that on 17.02.2021, he went to meet his friend Nikku at Gokulpuri on his bullet motorcycle bearing No. DL 1SAB 4669 black colour and at about 10.30 p.m., he came back to his house and when he reached near old PS Gokulpuri, he alighted from his bike and going for urination in an empty plot. He further affirmed as correct that in the meanwhile, three persons came on Apache bike black colour from the side of Old PS Gokulpuri and they came near him. He stated that accused persons apprehended him and one accused had taken out his purse from back pocket of his wearing pant. He stated that his purse was black colour and containing cash of Rs.9000/. He stated that accused persons told him that "or kya samaan FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 3 of 18 hai, jaldi se nikaal de", he replied them that he had no article. He stated that accused persons took his purse and fled away from the spot on their bike towards Loni, Gol Chakkar. He stated that his purse also containing driving license, PAN Card and Aadhar Card. He stated that police recorded his supplementary statement which is Mark X. He stated that police prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW1/B. He stated that the police registered the present FIR on the basis of his complaint. Ld. APP for the State pointed his finger towards the accused who was present in the Court and after seeing the accused, witness denied to identify him and stated that he was not the person who forcibly taken his purse or robbed him. He denied the suggestions that he had been won over by the accused or settled the matter outside the Court with the accused.
This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
5. PW2 Ct. Rohit is the police witness who deposed that on 10.03.2021, he was posted at PS Gokulpuri as constable. On that day, the accused Sanju @ Gagan s/o Ratan Lal was apprehended and the FIR No. 072/2021 PS Gokulpuri u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act. Accused disclosed the incident of the present FIR i.e. 58/2021 in his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW2/A. Accused disclosed in his presence that he alongwith his coassociate snatched a purse near Old Police Station near Gokulpuri Flyover. IO recorded his statement in the present FIR. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court.
During crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness stated that no recovery was effected by the accused in the FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 4 of 18 present case. There was no public persons were present when the accused was apprehended. There was no public persons were present at that time when accused disclosed the crime in the present case. He denied the suggestions that all the documentation work was done while sitting in the PS or that he had not joined the investigation or that accused had been lifted from his house and not arrested from the spot.
6. PW3 Insp. Dinesh Kumar is the police witness who depsed that on 17.02.2021, he was posted at PS Gokul Puri as SI and his duty hours were 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. He was on emergency duty, DD No. 113A regarding snatching of money which is Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter he went to spot i.e. vacant plot near old ps gokul puri where he met complainant, at that time the complainant condition was feel uncomfort to give statement and he went to his house. On 18.02.2021, complainant namely Nadeem came to PS Gokul puri and met him and narrated all the incident to him. Thereafter, he recorded statement of the complainant. Thereafter he prepared rukka which is Ex.PW3/B and the same was handed over to DO for registering FIR. After some time, DO handed over him a copy of registered FIR and original rukka. Thereafter he alongwith complainant went to the spot and he prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant. Thereafter he recorded supplementary statement of complainant. On 10.03.2021, he received a call from HC Rajesh PS Gokulpuri and told him that accused Sanju @ Gagan was arrested by him in the FIR No. 72/2021 PS Gokulpuri and he disclosed the incident of the present case. On 11.03.2021, he received the documents of the FIR No. 72/2021 from the HC Rajesh which are mark Y (colly running 6 pages). Thereafter he interrogated accused in FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 5 of 18 the presence of Ct. Nitin and he disclosed that he alongwith coaccused Jeete and Philip had snatched a purse which contained Rs.9000/ and documents. Thereafter he recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW3/C. Thereafter he arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D. On the same day, he produced accused in a muffled face before the judge at Mandoli Jail and he sent him to JC. On 18.03.2021, he made a application of TIP of accused persons which is Ex.PW3/E. The TIP proceedings is Ex.PW3/F in which accused refused to join the TIP proceedings. On 22.03.2021, one day PC of the accused for recovery of the case property and apprehension of coaccused persons. Thereafter he alongwith HC Maharaj Singh, Ct. Rahul and accused went to Nand Nagri and the accused pointed out towards the house of Jitender @ Jitte but Jitte was not present at the house. Thereafter they went to spot where the crime was occurred. Thereafter he prepared pointing out memo which is Ex.PW3/G. He recorded supplementary disclosure statement which is Ex.PW3/H. Accused was sent to JC. No recovery was effective from the possession of the accused. After completion of the investigation of statement and recording of the statement of all witnesses, he prepared chargesheet and submitted in the court. Accused was correctly identified by the witness.
During crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness stated that he formally arrested the accused at about 10:00 AM at the PS. He made a DD Entry regarding the arrest of accused but he did not remember the said DD No. He denied the suggestions that accused did not disclose anything regarding this case due to which no recovery was effective from the possession of accused or that no incident was occurred on that day as the complainant did not give his statement FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 6 of 18 on the day of incident.
7. PW4 HC Rahul Kumar is the police witness who deposed that on 22.03.2021, he was posted at PS Gokulpuri as constable. On that day, he joined the investigation with IO SI Dinesh. On that day, he alongwith IO, HC Maharaj and accused Sanju @ Gagan went to Karkardooma Courts where IO took one day PC of the accused Sanju. Thereafter, they got conducted medical examination of the accused. Thereafter they went to Nand Nagri and the accused pointed out towards the house of Jitender @Jitte but Jitte was not present at the house. Thereafter they went to Gagan Cinema, Nand Nagri to search other accused persons but we did not find anyone. The accused could not arrest his coaccused persons namely Philip and Jitte @ Jitender. Thereafter they went to the spot i.e. near old PS Gokulpuri where the crime was occurred. Thereafter IO prepared pointing out memo. IO recorded supplementary disclosure statement. He deposed that accused was sent to JC. No recovery was effected from the possession of the accused. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. IO recorded his statement.
During crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness stated that he did not remember the time when they came to the Court to take the police custody of the accused. He did not know whether the DD entry was made by the IO or not. He did not remember when they reached the police station after taking police custody of the accused. While going to the police station after taking police custody, they first went to hospital and then we went to Gagan Cinema, Nathu Colony to apprehend other two accused after receiving the information FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 7 of 18 from the accused. He stated that accused did not disclose anything regarding this case due to which no recovery was effective from the possession of accused. He denied the suggestions that no incident was occurred on that day as the complainant did not give his statement on the day of incident.
8. PW5 Ct. Nitin is the police witness who deposed that on 10.03.2021, he was posted at PS Gokulpuri as constable. On that day, the accused Sanju @ Gagan s/o Ratan Lal was apprehended and the FIR No. 072/2021 PS Gokulpuri u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act. Accused disclosed the incident of the present FIR i.e. 58/2021 in his disclosure statement. The arrest memo of the accused in the FIR No. 72/2021 is Ex.PW5/A. Accused disclosed in his presence that he alongwith his co associate snatched a purse near Old Police Station near Gokulpuri Flyover. IO recorded his statement in the present FIR. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court.
During crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness stated that no recovery was effected by the accused in the present case. There was no public persons were present when the accused was apprehended. There was no public persons were present at that time when accused disclosed the crime in the present case. He denied the suggestions that all the documentation work was done while sitting in the PS or that he had not joined the investigation or that accused had been lifted from his house and not arrested from the spot.
9. PW6 ASI Rajesh Kumar is the police wintess who deposed that on 10.03.2021, he was posted at PS Gokulpuri as head constable.
FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 8 of 18 On that day, the accused Sanju @ Gagan s/o Ratan Lal was apprehended and the FIR No. 072/2021 PS Gokulpuri u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act. Accused disclosed the incident of the present FIR i.e. 58/2021 in his disclosure statement. The arrest memo of the accused in the FIR No. 72/2021. Accused disclosed in his presence that he alongwith his co associate snatched a purse near Old Police Station near Gokulpuri Flyover. He informed regarding the disclosure statement to SI Dinesh Kumar who was the IO of FIR No. 58/2021 through DO on telephone. handed over photocopy of the relevant documents of FIR No. 72/2021 to SI Dinesh Kumar. IO recorded his statement in the present FIR. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court.
During crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness stated that no recovery was effected by the accused in the present case. There was no public persons were present when the accused was apprehended. There was no public persons were present at that time when accused disclosed the crime in the present case. He denied the suggestions that all the documentation work was done while sitting in the PS or that he had not joined the investigation or that accused had been lifted from his house and not arrested from the spot.
10. PW7 ASI Maharaj Singh is the police witness who deposed that on 22.03.2021, he was posted at PS Gokulpuri as head constable. On that day, he joined the investigation with IO SI Dinesh. On that day, he alongwith IO, Ct. Rahul and accused Sanju @ Gagan went to Karkardooma Courts where IO took one day PC of the accused Sanju. Thereafter, they got conducted medical examination of the accused. Thereafter they went to Nand Nagri and the accused pointed out FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 9 of 18 towards the house of Jitender @ Jitte but Jitte was not present at the house. Thereafter they went to Gagan Cinema, Nand Nagri to search other accused persons but they did not find anyone. The accused could not arrest his coaccused persons namely Philip and Jitte @ Jitender. Thereafter they went to the spot i.e. near old PS Gokulpuri where the crime was occurred. Thereafter IO prepared pointing out memo. IO recorded supplementary disclosure statement. Accused was sent to JC. No recovery was effected from the possession of the accused. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court. IO recorded his statement.
During crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness stated that no recovery was effected by the accused in the present case. There was no public persons were present when the accused was apprehended. There was no public persons were present at that time when accused disclosed the crime in the present case. He denied the suggestions that all the documentation work was done while sitting in the PS or that had not joined the investigation or that accused had been lifted from his house and not arrested from the spot.
11. No other witnesses were examined. Accordingly, PE was closed. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded to which he opted not to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
12. Ld. APP for State has argued that the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution, and their testimony has remained FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 10 of 18 unattributed, and that on a combined reading of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, offences U/s 392/34 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused Sanju.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defence has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused, and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and in view of the same, the accused Sanju deserves to be acquitted.
13. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused have been heard. Evidence and documents on record have been perused carefully.
14. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused is indicted for the offences U/s 392/34 IPC.
India Penal Code 1860
383. Extortion.Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
390. Robbery.In all robbery, there is either theft or extortion.
FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 11 of 18 When theft is robbery.Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause, to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery.Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear, then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation.The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
392. Punishment for robbery.Whoever commits robbery, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Thus, this provision stresses upon the existence of common intention as well as participation of each accused by committing a 'criminal act', not necessarily in itself amounting to an offence. Common intention may be proved by conduct, as it can be formed in the course of occurrence itself, and there is no need to specifically prove a pre meditation or prior conspiracy [Abdulla FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 12 of 18 Kumhi Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1991 SC 452, Hari Om Vs. State of U.P. (1993) 1 Crimes 294 (SC)].
15. Points for determination in the present case are as follows:
(i) Whether the complainant was present at the spot of occurrence at the relevant point of time?
(ii) Whether the complainant was put in the fear of injury, and was thereby, dishonestly induced to deliver any property or valuable security, at the spot of occurrence, at the relevant point of time?
(iii) Whether the complainant was put in fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint, while commission or attempt at commission of robbery?
(iv) Whether the accused, was present at the spot of occurrence, and no person other than the accused could possibly have committed the offence?
16. Point No. (i) Whether the complainant was present at the spot of occurrence at the relevant point of time?
Complainant has stated in his examination in chief that on on 17.02.2021, he went to meet his friend Nikku at Gokulpuri on his bullet motorcycle bearing No. DL 1SAB 4669 black colour and at about 10.30 p.m., he came back to his house and when he reached near old PS Gokulpuri, he alighted from his bike and going for urination in an empty plot. He further stated that in the meanwhile, three persons came on Apache bike black colour from the side of Old PS Gokulpuri and they FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 13 of 18 came near him. He stated that accused persons apprehended him and one accused had taken out his purse from back pocket of his wearing pant. He stated that his purse was black colour and containing cash of Rs.9000/. He stated that accused persons told him that "or kya samaan hai, jaldi se nikaal de", he replied them that he had no article. He stated that accused persons took his purse and fled away from the spot on their bike towards Loni, Gol Chakkar. The complainant, however, denied to have given statement Ex. PW1/A to the police, and to have signed it at Point A. Nonetheless, no question has been asked by the defence in crossexamination about the presence of the complainant at the spot of occurrence, at the time of the alleged incident, and no clinching evidence has been brought by the defence to dispute the presence of the complainant at the spot of occurrence, when the offence was committed, and therefore, the presence of the complainant at the spot of occurrence, at the time of commission of offence, stands established.
17. Points no. (ii) Whether the complainant was put in the fear of injury, and was thereby, dishonestly induced to deliver any property or valuable security, at the spot of occurrence, at the relevant point of time?, (iii) Whether the complainant was put in fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint, while commission or attempt at commission of robbery?, (iv) Whether the accused, was present at the spot of occurrence, and no person other than the accused could possibly have committed the offence? are being discussed together.
As per the prosecution story, the accused Sanju was arrested in another case i.e. in FIR No. 72/2021 PS Gokulpuri and had FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 14 of 18 disclosed about his involvement in the present matter. No recovery is stated to have been affected from the accused and it is the case of prosecution that the complainant had identified the accused in TIP proceedings as perpetrator of the crime. However, it is noteworthy that the complainant i.e. PW1 categorically denied in his examination and crossexamination by Ld. APP for State that it was the accused who had robbed him.
18. As regards TIP, it is beneficial to mention the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India in Dana Yadav @ Dahu & others Vs. State of Bihar (2002), "Section 9 of the Evidence Act deals with relevancy of acts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. It says, inter alia, that facts which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, in so far as they are necessary for the purpose, are .relevant. So the evidence of identification is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act where the evidence consists of identification of the accused at his trial. The identification of an accused by a witness in court is substantive evidence, whereas evidence of identification in a test identification parade is, though primary evidence, but not substantive one, and the same can be used only to corroborate the identification of the accused by a witness in court, it being governed essentially by the provision of Section 162 Cr.P.C.
19. In Vaikuntam Chandmppa and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [AIR 1960 SC 1340] the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 15 of 18 that the substantive evidence of a witness is his statement in court, but the purpose of test identification is to test that evidence, and the safe rule is that the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are stranger to the witnesses, generally speaking, requires corroboration which should be in the form of an earlier identification proceeding, or any other evidence.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its case titled as Raja Vs. State By the Inspector of Police in Crl. Appeal No. 740 of 2018 has stated that, "It has been accepted by this Court that what is substantive piece of evidence of identification of an accused, is the evidence given during the trial. However, by the time the witnesses normally step into the box to depose, there would be substantial time gap between the date of the incident and the actual examination of the witnesses. If the accused or the suspects were known to the witnesses from before and their identity was never in doubt, the lapse of time may not qualitatively affect the evidence about identification of such accused, but the difficulty may arise if the accused were unknown. In such cases, the question may arise about the correctness of the identification by the witnesses. The lapse of time between the stage when the witnesses had seen the accused during occurrence and the actual examination of the witnesses may be such that the identification by the witnesses for the first time in the box may be difficult for the court to place complete reliance on. In order to lend assurance that the witnesses had, in fact, identified the accused or suspects at the first available opportunity, the TIP which is part of the investigation affords a platform to lend corroboration to the ultimate statements made by the witnesses before the Court. However, what weightage FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 16 of 18 must be given to such TIP is a matter to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case".
21. Thus, the substantive evidence qua identification of accused as perpetrator of offence is the testimony of the complainant in the court and not previous identification (which could be used to corroborate the witness being a previous statement). In the present case, accused was not arrested from the spot, the accused was not known to complainant, the physical characteristic features of the accused mentioned by the complainant in his original complainant/Tehrir are not distinct or unique in nature. No recovery was effected from the accused and the only incriminating evidence against the accused was that the complainant had identified him in TIP proceedings. Thus, the case of the prosecution primarily rested upon the testimony of the complainant as the story of prosecution is that accused alongwith his associate (since not arrested) had committed robbery by removing purse containing Rs.9000/ cash from the pocket of the complainant. The complainant in his examination stated that he cannot identify the accused who had committed robbery. Upon leading question being put by Ld. APP for State, the complainant categorically stated that accused is not the person who had robbed him. This has dented, albeit punctured, the story of the prosecution.
22. The onus to prove the case against the accused was upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 17 of 18 that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused, he is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused.
23. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and material available on record, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Sanju @ Gagan Pavva Khemchand is acquitted of the charge framed for the offences punishable U/s 392/34 IPC.
Now, file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by NITISHAnnounced in the open court NITISH Date:
2022.09.14
16:31:46
on 14.09.2022 +0530
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
Metropolitan Magistrate03,
NorthEast, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No.58/2021 State Vs. Sanju Gagan Pavva Khemchand PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 18 of 18