Delhi District Court
State vs . : Harish Etc. on 16 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST)07, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 214/12
U/s : 394/411/34 IPC
PS : K.M. Pur
State Vs. : Harish etc.
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 173/1/14
b The date of commission : 22.09.2012
c The date of Institution of the case : 15.12.2012
d The name of complainant : Lalita Iyer
e The name of accused : 1 Harish S/o Khem Singh
R/o H. No. 121, Road No. 3,
Andrewz Ganj, New Delhi.
2 Vikas S/o Prem Singh
R/o H.No. 5, Masjid Moth, South
Ex.II, Delhi.
f The offence complained of : 394/411/34 IPC
g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on :12.1.2015
i The final order : Convicted
j The date of judgment : 16.01.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 The aforesaid accused persons have been been sent for trial on the
allegations that on 22.09.2012 at around 3.30 pm near Gate No. 1, Out gate Vikas Sadan, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, both in furtherance of their common intention, snatched one artificial chain worn by the complainant FIR No. 214/12 1 of 20 Ms. Lalita and in that process they also strangulated the complainant and also threatened to kill her and thereby committed offence punishable U/S 394/34 IPC. Investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed in the court on 13.05.2013. 2 Charge u/s 394/34 IPC was framed upon the accused persons on 07.05.2013 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses.
PW1 is Ct. Jagdish who being the material witnesses of the case has deposed that on 22.09.2012 while patrolling alongwith Ct. Narender when they reached near Gate B2, INA colony, Kotla Mubarak Pur, saw that accused Harish, whom he correctly identified, caught hold the neck of one lady and snatched her chain from her neck. After snatching the chain accused Harish ran away by crossing the road towards Safdarjung Terminal and ran away from the spot after taking a ride on the motorcycle bearing No. DL3SAG6222 of the other accused who was present at the other side of the road. Thereafter accused persons were chased by them and managed to stop the motorcycle in the meanwhile the pillion rider i.e. accused Harish managed to escape from the spot. The name of the rider of the motorcycle was revealed as Vikas. Thereafter they returned at the spot where SI Sunil and Ct. Ashok met them. They handed over the accused Vikas alongwith motorcycle to the IO. IO SI Sunil recorded his statement, prepared rukka and got the case registered through Ct. Ashok. The complainant identified the accused Vikas at the spot and the motorcycle alongwith helmet which he was wearing at the time of incident. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Vikas vide Ex. PW1/A, arrested and also conducted his personal search vide memo FIR No. 214/12 2 of 20 Ex. PW1/B and PW1/C, seized the motorcycle vide Ex. PW1/D, seized the helmet vide memo Ex. PW1/E, went to the house of the owner of the aforesaid motorcycle, inquired about the MLC of complainant from AIIMS Trauma Centre. Thereafter accused Harish was apprehended at the instance of accused Vikas who was found standing near the Dustbin of Kanpur Depot, Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused Harish vide Ex. PW1/F, arrested and conducted personal search of accused Harish vide Ex. PW1/G and PW1/H. Thereafter they returned at the PS. The motorcycle was deposited in the Malkhana and both accused were sent to lock up. IO seized slips of Muthu Finance recovered from the possession of accused persons vide memo Ex. PW1/I and PW1/J and inquired for the same from Muthu Finance Office at B.P. Marg and Yusuf Sarai, from where three chains were got recovered , which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/K, Ex. PW1/L and Ex. PW1/M. PW2 is Ct. Narender, who being accompanied with PW1 during the patrolling duty has reiterated the version as stated by the PW1 in his testimony.
PW3 is Ct. Ashok, who being deputed with the IO in the investigation of present case has also deposed about the incident in the present case and apprehension of accused Vikas vide memo Ex. PW1/B. PW4 is Anil Kumar, who is the owner of the aforesaid motorcycle which was used in committing the incident in the present case and deposed abotu taking the same on supardari.
PW5 is ASI Attar Singh who being the Incharge of PCR van has deposed about receiving information regarding present incident through the FIR No. 214/12 3 of 20 complainant Lalit Iyer and her husband and giving the said information to the Control Room.
PW6 is SI Sunil Kumar, who being the IO of the case has deposed about the investigation done by him in the present case and has exhibited the documents prepared during the course of investigation. Apart from the aforesaid documents, the IO has also exhibited the documents like DD No. 31A vide Ex. PW6/A, rukka Ex. PW6/B, site plan Ex. PW6/C and seizure of the case property gold colour chain vide Ex. PW6/G. He also identified gold colour chain ( 2 pieces) as Ex. P3 which was produced in sealed condition in court before which seal was broken and case property was taken out.
It is pertinent to note that both accused in their statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C has not disputed the genuineness of FIR recorded in the present case and which was exhibited as Ex. PA/1. Apart from that accused Harish has also admitted the TIP proceeding as Ex. PA/2 in his statement recorded under aforesaid provision.
Further, it is also brought to the attention that during the trial the complainant Lalita and her husband Ram Chander Iyer who were eyewitnesses/material witnesses could not be examined during the trial as summons sent to them even through the concerned DCP were returned with the report of untraced. Also the TIP of the case property gold colour chain was also not done during investigation as the complainant refused to join TIP.
4 Statements of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC., wherein they FIR No. 214/12 4 of 20
took the plea of false implication and pleaded innocence and also refused to lead any evidence in their defence.
5 I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel as well as gone through case file very carefully.
6 The argument of Ld. APP is that there is enough material on evidence to prove the case against the accused persons.
7 Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that there is no evidence on the file to connect the accused persons with the offence in question and as such the accused persons are entitled to acquittal in the present case. 8 I have perused the case file very carefully and have duly considered the respective arguments.
9 Relevant Law:
Section 390 IPC provides as under:
(i) Theft is 'robbery', if:
(a) in order to the committing of the theft,
or
(b) in committing the theft
or
(c) in carrying away
or
(d) in attempting to carry away property obtained by theft;
(ii) the offender, for that and voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person;
(iii) (i) Death.
Or
(ii) Hurt
or
FIR No. 214/12 5 of 20
(iii) wrongful restraint
or
(iv) fear of instant death
or
hurt
or
wrongful restraint, is guilty of offence u/s 390 IPC.
Ingredients: Firstly the use of violences must be for one of the four
ends. Viz (i) It must be in order to commit the theft
or
(ii) in committing the theft
or
(iii) in carrying away stolen property
or
(iv) in attempting to carry away stolen property. If force is used for any other purpose it will not convert that act into robbery. When extortion becomes robbery Extortion is robbery: If the offender, at the time of committing the extortion: (1) is in the presence of the person put in fear, and (2) commits the extortion by putting that person in fear or instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person and (3) by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted is guilty of offence under section 390 IPC ( Punishment imprisonment for 10 years and fine.) Aggravated forms of robbery: If hurt is caused the punishment is imprisonment for life or 10 years and fine Section 394 IPC.
Section 221(2) Cr.P.C provides that:
Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed:
(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and FIR No. 214/12 6 of 20 it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of subsection (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.
Section 464(1) Cr.PC provides that:
Effect of commission to frame or absence of, or error in charge: (1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
Section 156 of The Evidence Acts provides as under: Questions tending to corroborate evidence of relevant fact, admissible: When a witness whom it is intended to corroborate gives evidence of any relevant fact, he may be questioned as to any other circumstances which he observed at or near to the time or place at which such relevant fact occurred, if the Court is of opinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate the testimony of the witness as to the relevant fact which he testifies. It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. Also it FIR No. 214/12 7 of 20 is a settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds; Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311.
10 Failure to hold TIP of case property when does not effect the prosecution case.
In case titled as "Robert Peter Kadam v. State of Maharashtra"1998 CRI. L. J. 3879, by BOMBAY HIGH COURT ( Division Bench ) It was held that " it is true that during investigation, no identification of recovered watch was conducted and normally the same should have been done but it cannot be laid down as an inflexible rule of law that failure to hold identification of recovered property renders the evidence of recovery unworthy of acceptance."
In the said case the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 446 : (1983 Cri LJ 846) (Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka) wherein it has been observed thus (para 12) :"There is no merit in the contention that testimony of these witnesses as regards the identity of the seized articles to be FIR No. 214/12 8 of 20 stolen property cannot be relied upon for want of prior test identification. There is no such legal requirement" was relied.
12. Illustration (a) to Section 114 read with section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act shows that if a man is found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft and cannot account for his possession, then either of the two presumptions can be drawn :
(a) that he is a thief; or
(b) that he has received the goods knowing them to be stolen. In the instant case, in our view considering the circumstance that recovery was effected within 24 hours of the incident, the inference that the said appellant had committed dacoity can legitimately be raised. We are fortified in our Judgment by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 1598 (Gulabchand v. State of M. P.) wherein three days after the murder and robbery, articles were recovered from Gulabchand and the Supreme Court held that on the basis of the said recovery, his convictions for offences of murder and robbery were sustainable. In our view, the conviction of appellant Robert Peter Kadam for the offence under Section 395, IPC suffers from no infirmity.
11 In the present case, the property to be identified was not sealed at the time of the recovery. Little value can, therefore, be attached to the test identification proceeding. But, as was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1958 SC 350, even a total failure to hold a test identification proceeding would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court.
FIR No. 214/12 9 of 20 12 Facts proved by the prosecution:
After perusal of the evidence and consideration of the arguments I am of the view that following facts have been proved by the prosecution regarding which the defence has not been able to give any rebuttal evidence. Same are as follows:
(i) On 22.09.2012 PW1 Ct. Jagdish eyewitness alongwith PW2 Ct. Narender were on patrolling duty on personal motorcycle.
(ii) At that time PW1 and PW2 reached near B2, INA Colony, K.M. Pur and they saw accused Harish identified by them in court caught hold of the neck of one lady and snatched her chain from her neck. Due to the said incident the complainant Lalita sustained injury on the neck and MLC has been filed by the IO on the record. After snatching the chain accused Harish ran away by crossing the road towards Safdarjung Terminal. Said chain has been identified by the IO/PW6 SI Sunil as Ex. P3 (2 pieces of gold colour chain) and seized vide Ex. PW6/G.
(iii) One person i.e. the other accused was wearing the helmet and riding a motorcycle was waiting on the other side of the road. Accused Harish sat on the motorcycle DL3SAG6222 and thereafter, both the accused ran away from the spot.
(iv) Both the accused were chased by PW1 and PW2. On signal, rider of motorcycle 6222 stopped it and the pillion rider accused Harish ran away.
However, the rider of the motorcycle identified as Vikas was apprehended.
(v) Thereafter, PW1, PW2 and accused Vikas returned to the spot
FIR No. 214/12 10 of 20
and the complainant who was already there identified accused Vikas at the spot. Accused Harish has admitted the TIP proceedings as Ex. PA/2 wherein he has refused to participate in the proceedings on the ground that he has been shown to the witness in the police station. The helmet worn by accused Vikas was seized vide Ex. PW1/E, motorcycle was also seized, accused Vikas was arrested and searched vide different memos duly exhibited. Thereafter, they went to the house of the owner of the motorcycle used in the crime and Uncle of accused Vikas registered owner of motorcycle told that the motorcycle belonged to him and Vikas is a relative.
(vi) IO SI Sunil and Ct. Ashok alongwith PW1 and PW2 went to Khanpur Depot on information of accused Vikas and as told by PW2 in his cross examination dated 22.6.13 that maternal uncle of accused Harish resides there where accused Harish was found standing near the dustbin. Accused Harish was also arrested and searched vide memos duly exhibited and proved.
(vii) On 29.09.2012 accused Harish was on PC remand and IO SI Sunil went at house of accused Harish at Andrews Ganj where he got recovered the case property seized vide Ex. PW6/G. Said articles have been identified by the IO in his testimony as already stated.
(viii) All the abovesaid facts have been reiterated by PW2. PW3 Ct. Ashok and PW6 IO SI Sunil who were together have duly deposed about the investigation done by them and no flaw in the investigation has been pointed out by the defence counsel in their cross examination.
(ix) Then there are some other points which show the genuineness
FIR No. 214/12 11 of 20
of the prosecution case. PW1 and PW2 have duly told DD entry No. 36B vide which they were sent on patrolling duty on the day of incident. It is stated that they saw the incident from a distance of 10 to 15 meters and other accused namely Vikas was waiting 20 to 25 meters on the other side of the road. PW1 has stated that he knows the accused persons prior to the present case as he was also arrested in another case of PS Defence Colony. PW5 ASI Attar Singh has duly deposed that he was on PCR duty and stopped their vehicle on the request of the complainant and gave the information of snatching through the PCR. On receipt of DD No. 31A IO alongwith Ct. Ashok reached to the scene of incident where the complainant identified accused Vikas before them. After finishing the investigation on that day, IO SI Sunil duly made arrival entry. PW1 and PW2 sound to be truthful witness and PW1 has refused to identify the alleged incriminating articles i.e. two pieces of gold colour chain. It shows that the said witnesses are not trying to make up the story and telling what they know and what they do not know. In my view many times such lacunae give strength to the prosecution case and enhances the credibility of evidence.
(x) It would be pertinent to note that all the abovesaid points have not been rebutted by the defence either by way of cross examination or by bringing the defence evidence. Infact the accused have refused to lead defence evidence and have nothing to state except bald denial and plea of false implication on their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Infact bald denial in conjunction with the points proved by the prosecution adds to the missing link and gives strength to the prosecution case.
FIR No. 214/12 12 of 20 13 After considering the same, I give the following reasons for my
judgment. In my view all the ingredients of the offence under section 394 IPC r/w 34 IPC stands proved.
Section 390 IPC provides as under:
(i) Theft is 'robbery', if: (a) in order to the committing of the theft, or (b) in committing the theft or (c) in carrying away or(d) in attempting to carry away property obtained by theft.
It has been proved from the aforesaid fact that both the accused duly identified by the prosecution witnesses including PW1 and PW2 ( eyewitnesses) did the offence with common intention. Accused Harish snatched the chain and ran towards the motorcycle to be driven by accused Vikas to flee away from the scene i.e. in carrying away the stolen property. Thus theft was committed and property was sought to be carried away. It is on record that PW1 and PW2 have stated that after snatching the chain both the accused fled on a motorcycle and had to be chased by police officials on patrolling duty who are PW1 and PW2. Said property has been duly identified by IO/SI Sunil PW6. Accused Vikas was identified by the complainant on the spot and accused Harish has refused to participate in the TIP which proceedings have been admitted by him as Ex. PA/2. All the prosecution witnesses who have deposed have identified both the accused including eyewitnesses PW1 and PW2 as the persons who were involved in the crime with their distinct roles played by them in the commission of offence. The arguments of the defence Counsel is that PW complainant and her husband who were material witnesses have not come to the court to depose and in their absence FIR No. 214/12 13 of 20 testimony of police officials who are interested witnesses cannot be believed. In my view this argument does not hold any water as it is settled law that even the testimony of police witness if sound credible can be relied upon to base conviction thereon unless there are suspicious circumstances showing that their testimony is tinged with malice or bad motive. One of such citations is the Karamjit case is quoted before. Even otherwise as regards accused Harish is concerned he has also admitted the TIP proceedings. In the absence of any circumstance as to the time he was shown to the witness and in absence of any suggestion thrown by the defence counsel regarding the opportunity when the said accused was shown to the witness, adverse inference of the refusal of TIP can be taken against accused Harish. It can be presumed that he refused to participate in the TIP because he feared his identification in the proceedings by the complainant. Even otherwise the testimony of the witnesses who have deposed in the court is unflinching, credible and sound and the same has not been rebutted and no contradiction could be brought in their testimonies during cross examination. Also the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that as neither the TIP of case property of gold colour chain was done during course of the investigation nor the complainant has come to the court to identify the same and as the chain was the starting point of the offence, whole prosecution case is dislodged. Again this argument does not carry any weight as no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not examining the complainant and her husband as they could not be produced before the court despite best efforts and in view of the abovesaid law in the cases titled as "Robert Peter Kadam v. State of Maharashtra"1998 CRI. L. J.
FIR No. 214/12 14 of 20 3879, by BOMBAY HIGH COURT ( Division Bench ) Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka) AIR 1983 SC 446 : (1983 Cri LJ 846) AIR 1995 SC 1598 (Gulabchand v. State of M. P.), it was held that it is not an inflexible rule that failure to hold TIP of case property will render the prosecution evidence unworthy of credence. Where the case property was recovered soon after the crime as in the present case, there is no reason to doubt that accused might be falsely implicated and no suggestion was thrown during cross examination that case property produced before the court is false then, absence of TIP of case property or its identification in court will not be of much significance in view of other credible evidence on the record. In the abovesaid cases there was failure to hold TIP of the case property but case property was recovered soon after the crime. Infact in the case of Gulabchand v. State of M.P. AIR 1995 SC 1598 the case property was recovered in three days of the crime and still it was held that failure to hold TIP is not of much significance. In the present case the case property was recovered by IO after gap of few hours and seized and there is no suggestion by the defence that there was any tampering with the case property during the time it was with the IO or in the Malkhana.
(ii) The offender, for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person.
The words "for that end " used in Section 390 IPC mean that the offender for that end the essence of the offence is that the offender for the purpose of committing theft or carrying away property obtained by theft voluntarily causes FIR No. 214/12 15 of 20 death, hurt, wrongful restraint or fear of such death etc. Both the accused persons did the act voluntarily in snatching the chain and in carrying away the property and violence was used to snatch away the gold coloured chain.
(iii) (i) Death Or (ii) Hurt or (iii) wrongful restraint or (iv) fear of instant death or hurt or wrongful restraint.
It is proved that during the carrying out of the alleged offence, the complainant also suffered injury which is proved by MLC filed on record. Even otherwise, it is clear from evidence of PW1 and PW2 that while snatching the chain hurt was caused to complainant as IO enquired about MLC of complainant from AIIMS Trauma Centre.
There is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence in view of Section 156 of Evidence Act also which provides that a witness may be questioned as to other circumstances surrounding the incident to corroborate the testimony of that witness. In point 9 and 10 the said small circumstances have already been discussed and no contradiction could be pointed out from the testimony of the witnesses regarding those facts. The said witnesses have duly proved the DD entry vide which they were on duty on the date of incident and have duly replied the distance from which they saw the incident and the investigation carried out by the police witnesses.
14 Here, it is to be emphasized that the charge framed against the accused was that of robbery by way of extortion. It has been stated in the charge that in order to committing of crime i.e. taking away gold coloured FIR No. 214/12 16 of 20 chain, the complainant was threatened with death and there was an attempt to throttle the throat. However, from the testimonies of the Pws though hurt has been caused in the commission of robbery but in this instance robbery has been done by way of theft and not by way of extortion. From the abovesaid facts robbery by way of extortion and causing of hurt while committing has been proved. As per section 464 Cr.P.C where there is an error or omission in framing of the charge and it does not cause any prejudice, such order of the court or sentencing shall not be deemed to be invalid. As per section 221(2) Cr.P.C conviction can be done even if accused is charged with one offence and it appears that the accused has committed a different offence, although the accused was not charged with it. A fortiori when accused can be convicted for a different offence when he is not charged with it, accused can also be convicted for the same offence for which he has been charged though in finding the means of commission of offence come out to be different. In present case though means of commission of offence alleged was robbery by way of extortion but in evidence what has come is that a robbery has been committed by way of theft. It is settled law that where accused has been given full opportunity to cross examine and he has cross examined at length on those facts and he has also been asked about the same in his examination under 313 Cr.P.C for which there is a bald denial and still thereafter no defence evidence is led, it can be safely presumed that the accused has not suffered any prejudice if the finding and conviction are on different facts than alleged. On the basis of facts proved FIR No. 214/12 17 of 20 accused persons are convicted for offence u/s 394 IPC r/w 34 IPC since both the accused persons have committed the act with common intention and both of them have participated in commission of the said offence. Let the accused persons be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open (Ashok Kumar)
Court on 16.01.2015 MM(South East)07,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 214/12 18 of 20
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST)07, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 214/12
U/s : 394/411/34 IPC
PS : K.M. Pur
State Vs. : Harish etc.
ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE
Presence : Ld. APP for the State,
Both convicts in person with LAC Sh. Fahim Alam.
Vide separate judgment dated 16.01.2015 both the accused persons have been convicted for offence u/s 394/34 IPC.
Heard on point of sentence.
Ld. APP for the State says that no leniency should be shown in sentencing the convicts and maximum sentence should be imposed upon them as provided under law.
Ld. Counsel for both convicts says that accused Harish and Vikas have also suffered JC for about 256 days and 165 days respectively, in the present case and accused Vikas have family to support consisting of wife and children and accused Harish is young boy of aged about 26 years. Both convicts are doing private jobs. The convicts are not a previous convict. Hence both the accused be given benefit of probation as per the Probation of Offenders Act.
I have heard both accused as well as Ld. APP for the State. The purpose of sentencing after conviction is a balancing act. On one hand, punishment should be sufficient to deter the accused not to repeat the offence in future and FIR No. 214/12 19 of 20 become a good member in the society. On the other hand, the punishment should not be too harsh which results in accused becoming a hardcore criminal.
In my view convicts do not deserve too much leniency and sentencing the convicts merely up to the period undergone by them and giving them benefit of probation would be overlooking the gravity of the offence. I am not in favour of releasing the accused on probation as such offences are increasing day by day in alarming numbers and deterrent affect must be shown to the prospective evil elements. The conduct of the accused in snatching the case property golden colour chain in broad day light and causing hurt to the complainant in the process shows that they have no fear of law. However, there is no document filed by the prosecution to establish any previous involvement and previous conviction against the accused. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to discourage such conduct it is necessary that sentencing should be in proportion to the illegal and wrongful conduct and accordingly, I sentence both the convicts to a period of 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 9000/ each, in default of payment of fine both the convicts shall undergo RI for 9 months. Fine not paid. Benefit of the period already undergone in judicial custody by the convicts be given. A separate copy of judgment and order on sentence by provided to Counsel of convict free of cost. . File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (ASHOK KUMAR)
Court on 16.01.2015 MM07, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET, NEW DELHI,
FIR No. 214/12 20 of 20