Delhi District Court
State vs . Govind on 26 November, 2015
FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 95/15 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0360662015 State Vs. Govind S/o Sh. Sita Ram R/o Khasra No. 483, Gali no. 3, D Block, Rajeev Nagar, Bhalswa Dairy,Delhi. FIR No. : 365/15 Police Station : Bhalswa Dairy Under Sections : 304B/498A/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 06.10.2015 Date on which judgment was reserved: 26.11.2015 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 26.11.2015 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The above named accused had been sent to face trial in respect of offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC on the allegations that he being husband of Sudha (since deceased) subjected her to cruelty and harassed her with a view to coerce her to meet his unlawful demands and also subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death due to which his wife namely Sudha died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage with him. State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015
2. The case of the prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is as under:
(i). That on 14.06.2015, intimation was received in PS Bhaslwa Dairy vide DD no. 44B regarding suicide being committed by one lady. Copy of said DD was entrusted to ASI Narender for appropriate action;
(ii). That on receipt of DD, ASI Narender (PW5) alongwith Ct. Sandeep rushed to the place of information i.e. Khasra no. 483, Gali no. 3, D Block, Rajeev Nagar, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, where it was revealed that one Sudha W/o Govind had committed suicide and one Vijay who was brother in law of deceased Sudha, had made her to lie on the bed after removing her from ceiling fan. Dead body of Sudha was lying on the bed. One Chunni used for committing suicide was also tied on her left leg;
(iii). It is further case of prosecution that ASI Narender got the scene of crime inspected and photographed through Crime Team officials and got the dead body preserved at BJRM Hospital Mortuary and also informed family members of deceased about the incident;
(iv). Inspector Satish Kumar (PW7) carried out further proceedings in this case. On 15.06.2015, father of deceased made statement before SDM concerned, wherein he claimed that his daughter Sudha got married with accused on 24.01.2015 and after marriage, they State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 started residing at House No. 483, Gali no. 3, Rajeev Nagar, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi. On 20.05.2015, they had received information regarding quarrel and accordingly, he took back her daughter with him on 21.05.2015. On 23.05.2015, accused came to their house and assured that he would reside peacefully with deceased and took her back. But the situation did not change and the accused kept on harassing his daughter Sudha for bringing motorcycle, gold ear rings etc. On 14.06.2015 at about 7.00 am, Sudha had informed him that she was being beaten up. On the same day at about 7.00 pm, he was informed regarding death of Sudha;
(v). On the basis of said statement, SDM concerned issued direction for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR was got registered for offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC and investigation was entrusted to Inspector Satish Kumar;
(vi). It is further case of prosecution that IO Inspector Satish Kumar prepared site plan of the place of occurrence and seized the Chunni used for committing suicide. He also seized marriage invitation card and photographs of marriage of deceased and handed over dead body of deceased to her family members after getting postmortem conducted;
(vii). It is further case of prosecution that on 28.08.2015, one Gajju (PW3) visited PS Bhalswa Dairy and produced one written request State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 stating therein that Sudha had committed suicide on 14.06.15 out of fit of anger and accused Govind had no role in it;
(viii). It is further case of prosecution that accused was arrested in this case and no evidence came to surface against suspect Vinita and Vijay (Sister in law and Brother in law of deceased) and accordingly, both of them were kept in column no. 12 of charge sheet.
(ix). After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED
3. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, this Court framed the charge for the offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC against accused Govind vide order dated 06.10.2015, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Mahipal Sahu, PW2 Sh. Kamal Singh, PW3 Sh. Gajju, PW4 Sh. Damodar, PW5 ASI Narender, PW6 Dr. Anshul Saxena, PW7 Inspector Satish Kumar and PW8 Sh. Devender Sharma SDM, Model Town during trial.
5. It may be noted here that Ld. Additional PP dropped PWs namely Ct. Sandeep, Ct. Kuldeep, Ct. Anil and HC Rajbir from the list of witnesses as some of them were formal witnesses and some of them were witnesses of repetitive facts in respect of which other witnesses had already been examined State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 during trial.
6. Considering the fact that none of the star witnesses relied by the prosecution in the present case, had supported the prosecution story on any material point, prosecution evidence has been closed as no useful purpose would have been served in examining remaining prosecution witnesses as none of them was undisputedly present at the time of incident in question. Thus, it would have been an exercise in futility in examining those prosecution witnesses besides wastage of precious time of the Court.
7. Thereafter, statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused Govind was recorded during which all the incriminating evidence were put to him. However, he denied the same and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. His defence is of general denial. However, the accused opted not to lead evidence towards his defence.
8. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Ld. Counsel Sh. R.S Yadav, Adv. on behalf of accused. I have also gone through the material available on record.
9. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES
10. PW1 Sh. Mahipal Sahu: He is father of deceased Sudha, on whose statement FIR in question was registered in this case. He supported the State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 case of prosecution only to the extent that Sudha got married with accused on 24.01.2015 and started residing with accused at matrimonial house situated at House No. 484, Gali no. 3, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi. However, he did not support the case of prosecution on any material point and completely turned hostile during trial. He deposed that deceased Sudha was having high temperament and she wanted to marry somewhere else and was not interested to marry with accused. She had threatened prior to her marriage as also on the date of marriage that in case her marriage took place with accused then she may harm herself but still, he got Sudha married with accused under the hope and belief that she would mend her way and may live happily with her husband. He further deposed that accused Govind was not even present in Delhi on the date of occurrence as he was away to Badayun (UP). He had narrated the same facts to the police officials, which he deposed before the Court but police officials obtained his signature on one blank document.
The witness was also cross examined by Ld. Additional PP as he was not supporting the case of prosecution but still he denied to have made statement Ex. PW1/A before SDM and claimed that said document was blank when it was signed by him. He denied all the relevant suggestions put to him on the lines of prosecution story during said cross examination except the suggestion that he had identified dead body of her daughter Sudha in hospital vide statement Ex. PW1/B. In his cross examination, he admitted to have sent written complaint dated 28.08.2015 Ex.PW1/DA to the concerned SHO, wherein he State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 had mentioned that accused had no role in the commission of offence.
11. PW2 Sh. Kamal Singh: This witness is brother of deceased Sudha. However, he has also not supported the case of prosecution at all. He also deposed on identical lines as deposed by father of deceased i.e. PW1 Mahipal Sahu whose testimony has been discussed herein above. Nothing material could be elicited even during cross examination of this witness on behalf of State as he also denied to have made statement Mark P2/A before the police and the relevant suggestions put to him on the lines of prosecution story.
In his cross examination, he also admitted that his father had sent complaint Ex.PW1/DA dated 28.08.2015 before concerned SDM stating therein that accused had no role in the commission of offence.
12. PW3 Sh. Gajju: This witness is the relative of deceased Sudha. He also failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile during trial by testifying on identical lines as stated by PW1 and PW2. He denied that false document in the form of letter Ex.PW1/DA was submitted by Mahipal Sahu (PW1) before the police as they had entered into out of Court compromise with the accused.
In his cross examination, he admitted that Mahipal Sahu (PW1) had sent letter dt. 28.08.15 (Ex. PW1/DA) to the concerned SHO.
13. PW 4 Sh. Damodar : He is the real uncle of deceased Sudha. He also did not support the case of prosecution on any material point and completely turned hostile during trial. He also denied to have made statement State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 U/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Mark P4) before the police and also denied all the relevant suggestions put to him on the lines of prosecution story during cross examination conducted by Ld. Additional PP on behalf of State.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused, he admitted that letter dated 28.08.2015 (Ex.PW1/DA) was in the handwriting of Mahipal Sahu (PW1) and was bearing the signature of Mahipal Sahu at pointA. POLICE WITNESSES
14. PW5 ASI Narender: As per case of prosecution, this witness alongwith Ct. Sandeep had visited the place of information on 14.06.15 on receipt of DD No. 44B (Ex.PW5/A). He deposed about the relevant proceedings carried out by him at the spot. He testified that he had prepared cloth pullanda of Chunni and sealed the same with the seal of MS and seized the pullanda vide memo Ex. PW5/B and got the dead body of Sudha preserved in Mortuary of BJRM hospital through Ct. Sandeep. He identified said Chunni as Ex. P1 during trial.
In his cross examination, he deposed that as per enquiry made by him at the spot, it was revealed that accused had gone out of station. He further deposed that no proceeding was conducted by SDM in his presence.
15. PW7 Inspector Satish Kumar: He is the IO of this case. He deposed about the entire investigation carried out by him from time to time till filing of charge sheet in this case. He deposed that on 15.06.15, family members i.e. father Mahipal Sahu, brother Kamal Singh and uncle Damodar had visited PS and he produced them before SDM Model Town, who recorded State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 statement of Mahipal Sahu and Kamal Singh and made endorsement there upon for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he made endorsement Ex.PW7/A and got the FIR Ex.PW7/B registered through Duty Officer. He further deposed that SDM concerned had carried out inquest proceedings and got postmortem on the body of deceased Sudha conducted and thereafter, he handed over dead body to relatives vide receipt Ex.PW7/D. He had also prepared site plan Ex.PW7/E of the place of occurrence at the instance of ASI Narender and recorded statements of relevant witnesses. On 16.06.2015, complainant visited PS and thereafter, they all joined investigation and arrested accused from his residence vide memo Ex.PW7/F. On 28.08.2015, complainant Mahipal Sahu had sent one letter dated 28.08.2015 (Ex.PW1/DA) and he had recorded his supplementary statement in that regard. At that time, complainant had also produced photographs of the marriage of Sudha. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW7/H. He also exhibited the said photographs as Ex. PX and Ex. PY and marriage card as Ex. PZ.
He also deposed that on 08.09.2015, he had got collected subsequent opinion in respect of Chunni seized during investigation. He also collected relevant documents including Crime Team Report, Postmortem Report, PCR Form, etc. and on completion of investigation, he had filed the charge sheet before the Court.
In his cross examination, he admitted that he did not record statement of any of neighbourers of matrimonial house of deceased during investigation. He denied the suggestion that he did not carry out fair and State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 proper investigation in this case.
OFFICIAL WITNESS
16. PW8 Sh. Devender Sharma: This witness was posted as SDM Model Town. He deposed that on receipt of call from ASI Narender of PS Bhalswa Dairy, he had visited BSA hospital, where he had recorded statements Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW8/A of Mahipal Sahu and Kamal Singh respectively. Thereafter, he had issued direction to concerned SHO for taking appropriate action. He had also carried out inquest proceedings for getting autopsy on the body of deceased to be conducted by concerned doctor.
In his cross examination, he deposed that when he was recording statements of aforesaid family members of deceased, no other person was present there. He had recorded their statements in waiting room of the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had conducted inquest proceedings in an unfair manner or that no such statements were given to him by the aforesaid family members of deceased or that he had prepared their statements at the instance of IO of the case.
MEDICAL WITNESSES:
17. PW6 Dr. Anshul Saxena: This witness had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Sudha in BJRM hospital Mortuary on 15.06.2015. He proved his report as Ex.PW6/A. He deposed that the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia consequent upon State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 antemortem hanging.
He further deposed that on 08.09.2015, he had received written request for providing subsequent opinion alongwith one sealed parcel which was found containing one chunni. After examining the relevant material, he gave his subsequent opinion Ex. PW6/B that hanging of deceased was possible by chunni examined by him. The said witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
18. While opening the arguments, Ld. Additional PP referred to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial, in order to bring home his point that the public witnesses who are family members/relatives of deceased Sudha have turned hostile precisely for the reason that they have been won over by accused party. He submitted that death of Sudha has taken place within seven years of her marriage with the accused and she has died unnatural death as per autopsy report proved by PW6 Dr. Anshul Saxena. He therefore, urged that no benefit should be given to the accused.
19. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against accused beyond shadow of doubt as none of the star witnesses relied by prosecution, supported its case during trial. Therefore, accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case.
20. As already discussed above, the accused had been sent to face trial for offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC on the allegations that he State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 had harassed deceased and subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and deceased was subjected to cruelty by accused soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry.
21. The term 'dowry' has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as " Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab" reported at 2001 (4) Crimes 45.
Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under: "2. Definition of 'dowry': In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before (or any time after the marriage) in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include) dower or mehar in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
22. A careful analysis of the abovereferred definition would show that dowry would include property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. But, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agreed to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that would also be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry.
23. If the husband or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the article being demanded by them was expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that also, to my mind, would constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized.
24. The prosecution was enjoined to prove the following ingredients for proving its case in respect of offence punishable U/s 304B IPC:
(i) That death of deceased Sudha had been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under natural circumstances;
(ii) The death of deceased Sudha occurred within seven years of her State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 marriage;
(iii) That deceased Sudha had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused in connection with demand of dowry; and
(iv) That such cruelty or harassment was caused by accused to the deceased soon before her death.
25. In "Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar"
reported at 2005 III AD (S.C.) 261, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "xxxxxx
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have been occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. Xxxxxxx"
26. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in recent decision delivered in the matter titled as "Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala & Ors." reported at 2015 IV AD (DELHI) 450.
27. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala And Ors." reported at 2015 IV AD (Delhi) 450, has held that the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. In that case, it was observed from the evidence of the prosecution witness and in State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 14 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 particular PW1 and PW4 that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased. The onus was also on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of Section 489A IPC. Relevant portions from the judgment read as under: "xxxxxxxx In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the offences under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW1 and PW4, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific appellant on the deceased........
In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW1 (the appellant) and Ext. D19 cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment of cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution.
xxxxxxx"
28. Now, adverting back to the facts of the present case. In order to State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 15 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 establish the aforesaid ingredients, the prosecution, had cited four public witnesses who have been examined as PW1 to PW4 during trial. From the testimonies of said prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, it has been duly established beyond doubt that deceased was married with accused on 24.01.2015. It has also been established on record that deceased Sudha was residing alongwith accused at her matrimonial house no. 484, Gali no. 3, Rajeev Nagar, Bhalaswa Dairy, soon after her marriage till her death. From the evidence led by prosecution on record, there is no iota of doubt that Sudha died as unnatural death and also that her death had taken place within seven years of her marriage with the accused.
29. Nevertheless, it is quite evident from the discussion of testimonies of said four public witnesses that none of them has supported the case of prosecution on material points. Rather, all those four witnesses have testified contrary to the case of prosecution by deposing that accused was out of station on the date of incident i.e. 14.06.15 and he had no role in the suicide committed by Sudha. All the said four witnesses deposed that father of deceased i.e. PW1 Mahipal Sahu himself had given in writing on 28.08.15 vide letter Ex. PW1/DA in that regard before IO of this case. The said letter was admitted to have been furnished to IO during the stage of investigation itself and has been relied upon by investigating agency itself which has filed the same alongwith the charge sheet. Not only this, PW1 had also made supplementary statement U/s 161 Cr.PC to the IO (PW7) on 28.08.15 in this regard. The said fact has also been admitted by PW7 during his chief State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 16 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 examination. Further, PW1 Mahipal Sahu and PW2 Kamal Singh who are none else but father and real brother of deceased Sudha, have testified during trial that deceased was having high temperament since her childhood and she wanted to marry somewhere else and was not interested in marrying with accused. All the family members of deceased, who as per the case of prosecution had blamed the accused for compelling deceased to commit suicide, have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. They denied to have made statements either before SDM or before IO of the case. None of those public witnesses deposed anything against the accused. None of them testified that accused ever demanded dowry from deceased or from any of her family members at any point of time during her life time.
30. There is no evidence available on record showing that accused had subjected deceased Sudha to any sort of cruelty or harassment either soon before her death or at any point of time during her life time after entering into marriage with her. The prosecution has also failed to lead any evidence showing or proving that there was any sort of cruelty or harassment directly or indirectly from the side of accused for or in connection with demand of dowry or that there was any act attributable to the accused which led deceased Sudha to commit suicide. In other words, all the aforesaid key witnesses of prosecution have given clean chit to the accused. In the absence of any cogent evidence being available on record in this regard, Court has no other option but to hold that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused in respect of offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 17 of 18 FIR No. 365/15; U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC; P.S. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 26.11.2015 beyond shadow of doubt.
31. In the light of aforesaid discussion, accused namely Govind S/o Sh. Sita Ram is hereby acquitted of the offences charged against him. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC.
Announced in open Court today
On 26.11.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s. Govind ("Acquitted") Page 18 of 18