Delhi District Court
The State vs 1. Sumit Rathi @ Lala S/O Sh Dharam on 11 August, 2014
D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012
P.S Bawana
u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL:
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE -5 (NORTH),
ROHINI , DELHI
SESSION CASE NO. : 115/2014
UID NO . : 02404R0306112012
FIR No : 262/12
P. S : Bawana
u/s 186/353/307/34 IPC &
25/27/54/59 Arms Act
The State versus 1. Sumit Rathi @ Lala S/O Sh Dharam
Bir R/O Village Bhaprola, Teh
Bahadurgar, P.S Sadar Bahadurgarh,
Distt Jhajjar, Haryana.
2. Amit @ Mitu @ Chhota Dhanak
S/O Sh Azad Singh R/O Hari Singh Ka
Makaan Indraj Colony, Bawana , Delhi
Date of committal to session court : 20.12.2012
Date of argument : 11.08.2014
Date of order : 11.08.2014
SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 1 of 22 )
D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012
P.S Bawana
u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
JUDGMENT
1. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case, as per the story of the prosecution are that on 08.08.2012 , S.I Narender alongwith HC Joginder , HC Pradeep , Constable Ravinder and Constable Mukesh were present at village Bawana on Kanjhawala road pertaining to the investigation of cases vide FIR NO.188/12 and 218/12 registered at P.S Bawana. S.I Narender received a secret information that one BC of P.S Bawana namely accused Amit @ Deepu @ Chhota would come alongwith one of his associate in a White colour Honda City car, having temporary number of Haryana and they both would do some criminal act. This information was passed on to SHO P.S Bawana who directed S.I Narender (PW6) to conduct raid . On this information and upon direction, a raiding party consisting of S.I Narender (PW6), HC Jogender (PW2), HC Pradeep, Ct Ravinder and Ct Mukesh (PW4) was constituted and they reached on the turn/basement of Firni road, poth khurd and put barricades for checking the vehicle passing through that road . At SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 2 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act about 11:10 pm , on the pointing out of secret informer a white colour Honda City car bearing no. HR-99LS-O445 which was seen coming from Barwala, was directed to be stopped as the driver of the vehicle tried to go away. S.I Narender warned the driver of the car to surrender himself by using/showing his service pistol when they retreated on seeing the police party and on seeing the same the driver of the car tried to run away. The person who was sitting beside the driver was accused Amit @ Mitu who took out a pistol from left dub of his wearing pant and fired while directing towards S.I Narender in retaliation and accused Sumit Rathi was the driver of the said car. Accused Sumit also tried to fire upon the police officials with his pistol but he could not succeed . Both the accused persons were apprehended and their search was carried out.
2. It is the further case of prosecution that a Desi Katta was recovered from the possession of accused Sumit and three live cartridges were recovered from the right side wearing pant pocket.
SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 3 of 22 )
D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012
P.S Bawana
u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act From accused Amit one pistol and two live cartridges from the right side pocket of his wearing pant was recovered . It is alleged that near the right side wheel of the car, one empty cartridge was recovered from the road and on further checking of the the desi katta recovered from the possession of accused Sumit , it was found containing one live cartridge in the chamber of the katta.
3. Accused persons were arrested and arms and ammunition were sealed and seized and subsequently were sent to FSL for examination. As per the FSL result the desi katta's recovered from the possession of accused persons were found to be in working conditions. Complaint u/s 195 CrPC was obtained from the ACP concerned. Requisite sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was also obtained and on completion of investigation, accused persons were chargesheeted for offences u/s 186/353/307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
4. Vide order dated 07.11.2012, Ld MM took SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 4 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act the cognizance of the offences and subsequently, since the offence u/s 307/34 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, therefore, vide order dated 20.12.2012, case was committed to the court of sessions .
5. Vide order dated 23.07.2013, ld predecessor of this court decided the charge and accordingly, charges for the offences u/s 186/353/307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act were framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses.
7. PW1 Ct. Kuldeep is the witness who deposited the case property of the present case to FSL vide RC No.255/21/12.
8. PW2 HC Joginder, PW4 Constable Mukesh and PW6 S.I Narender were the members of the SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 5 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act raiding party. Here it would be suffice to mention the testimony of S.I Narender (PW6) who is the Ist IO and one of the member of the raiding pary, as all other witnesses have deposed exactly on the lines of PW6.
9. PW6 S.I Narender deposed that ON 08.8.2012, He alongwith HC Joginder (PW2), HC Pradeep, Ct Ravinder and Ct Mukesh (PW4) were investigating two robbery cases of P.S Bawana in case FIR no. 188/12 & 218/1 and were present at village Bawana on Kanjhawala road vide DD no.5 A ExPW6/A when he received a secret information that one BC of P.S Bawana i.e accused Amit @ Mitu @ Chhota would come alongwith one of his associate i.e accused Sumit Rathi, in a White colour Honda City car, having temporary number of Haryana , from the side of Indl factory area from firni road and they both would do some criminal act. He passed this information to SHO P.S Bawana who directed him (PW6) to conduct raid. He constituted a raiding party consisting of himself, HC Jogender (PW2), HC SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 6 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act Pradeep, Ct Ravinder and Ct Mukesh (PW4) and reached on the turn/basement of Firni road, poth khurd and put barricades for checking the vehicle passing through that road. Ct. Mukesh (PW4) alongwith HC Jogender(PW2) were deputed to check the vehicles there and HC Pradeep and Ct Ravinder were deputed at a distance of about 50-60 metres away from barricades to check the vehicles .
10. S.I Narender (PW6) further deposed that at about 11:10 pm, on the pointing out of secret informer a white colour Honda City car bearing no. HR-99LS-O445 which was seen coming from Barwala was directed to be stopped as the driver of the vehicle tried to go away. He warned the driver of the car to surrender himself by using/showing his service pistol when they retreated on seeing the police party and on seeing the same the driver of the car tried to run away. Accused Amit took out a pistol from left dub of his wearing pant and fired while directing towards him (PW6) in retaliation. Accused Sumit challanged the police officials and shouted upon the SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 7 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act police officials by saying that "Maaro saalo Ko" and also tried to fire upon the police officials with his pistol but it could not be fired and accused Amit succeeded in firing. Both the accused persons were apprehended .
11. S.I Narender (PW6) further deposed that a Desi Katta was recovered from the possession of accused Sumit and on further search three live cartridges were recovered from his right side wearing pant pocket. From the possession of accused Amit one pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from his right side wearing pant pocket. Near the right side wheel of the car, one empty cartridge was recovered from the road . The desi katta which was recovered from the possession of accused Sumit was further checked and it was found containing one live cartridge in the chamber of the katta.
12. S.I Narender(PW6) deposed that he prepared the sketches of the katta and pistol of cartridges SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 8 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act recovered from both the accused persons vide ExPW2/A and ExPW2/B respectively . Desi katta alongwith live cartridges recovered from the chamber of the desi katta found from the possession of accused Sumit was kept in a plastic container and was converted into parcel and was sealed with the seal of JS and was taken into possession vide seizure memo ExPW2/C . Similarly, three live cartridges recovered from the possession of accused Sumit were kept in a plastic container, was converted into a parcel and sealed with the seal of JS and was taken into possession vide ExPW2/F . The pistol found from the possession of accused Amit alongwith one empty cartridge recovered from the road was kept into a plastic container and converted into parcel and was sealed with the seal of JS and was taken into possession vide seizure memo ExPW2/D. Two live cartridges recovered from the pocket of accused Amit were kept in a plastic container and was converted into parcel and was sealed with the seal of JS and was taken into possession vide seizure memo ExPW2/E . The Honda City car bearing no.
SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 9 of 22 )
D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012
P.S Bawana
u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act HR99 LS( temporary) 0445 was seized vide seizure memo ExPW2/G by S.I Narender (PW6) and it was found to be stolen car from the area of P.S Najafgarh S.I Narender (PW6) prepared the rukka ExPW6/B and sent Ct Mukesh (PW4) for registration of FIR. After some time Ct Mukesh returned back at the spot alongwith S.I Parveen (PW5) . He handed over the case property , relevant papers alongwith accused persons to S.I Praveen (Pw5) . S.I Praveen(PW5) prepared the site plan (ExPW5/A) at his instance .
13. As stated herein above PW2 and PW4 have deposed exactly on the lines of PW6. PW2 , PW4 and PW6 were cross examined by the ld counsel for the accused persons.
14. PW3 HC Dharam Singh is the duty officer who proved the registration of FIR ExPW3/A and his endorsement as ExPW3/B. He also proved the certificate regarding correctness of contents of FIR as ExPW3/C. SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 10 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
15. PW5 S.I Praveen Kumar is the IInd IO, who deposed that on 09.8.2012, investigation of the present case was entrusted to him. He alongwith ct. Mukesh reached at the spot where he met S.I Narender (PW6) who handed over the case property , relevant papers to him. S.I Narender (PW6) also handed over both the accused persons to him. He prepared the site plan (ExPW5/A) at the instance of S.I Narender (PW6). He further deposed that accused Amit @ Deepu was arrested vide arrest memo ExPW2/H, his personal search was conducted vide memo ExPW2/K. Accused Sumit was arrested vide memo ExPW2/J, his personal search was conducted vide memo ExPW2/L and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo ExPW4/A.
16. PW5 further deposed that on 3.10.2012, exhibits of the case were sent to FSL Rohini, through ct. Kuldeep( PW1) . Complaint u/s 195 CrPC from ACP K.P.S. Malhotra was obtained which is ExPW5/B. Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was also obtained.
SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 11 of 22 )
D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012
P.S Bawana
u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
17. Here it is pertinent to mention that during the trial, complaint u/s 195 CrPC given by then ACP K.P.S Malhotra, FSL Results and sanction u/s 39 Arms Act given by Addl. DCP M.A Rizvi were admitted by the ld counsel for the accused persons vide statement dated 25.7.2014 and same were given exhibit marks as Ex PW5/B, ExPX and ExPY respectively.
18. Thereafter, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded. Accused persons denied all the allegations made against them. They did not opt to lead any evidence in their defence.
19. I have heard the ld Chief Prosecutor for the state and the ld counsel for the accused persons. I have also perused the record very carefully.
20. Accused persons have been charged for the offences u/s 186/353/307 /34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. The story of the prosecution is based on the allegations that on receipt of secret information on SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 12 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act 08.8.2012, a raiding party which consisted of five police officials was constituted and they proceeded for the spot where the accused persons were apprehended with the arms and ammunition , as discussed herein above. If the testimonies of prosecution witnesses particularly of those who were the members of the raiding party is put to close scrutiny, it becomes crystal clear that their testimonies do not inspire confidence of this court as there are material contradiction therein and same did not find support of corroboration from any other independent witness. PW2 HC Joginder , PW4 Ct. Mukesh and S.I Narender (PW6) are the witnesses who were examined by the prosecution being the members of the raiding party.
21. After scanning the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses, following contradiction and inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution were noticed:
a) The criminal machinery came into motion on the allegations that four-five police officials namely S.I Narender (PW6), HC Joginder (PW2), HC Pradeep, Ct. Ravinder and Ct Mukesh(PW4) were investigating some robbery case registered SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 13 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act at P.S Bawana and when they were present at village Bawana on Kanjhawala road , they received secret information about the presence of two persons in the area who would do some criminal act. In this regard , here it is worth while to mention that two of the witnesses who were members of the raiding party i.e PW2 HC Joginder and PW4 Ct Mukesh could not tell the particulars of the cases for which they were present in the area of Bawana for the purpose of investigation. During cross examination both these witnesses replied that they do not remember the FIR number of the said robbery cases though S.I Narender (PW6) during his examination-in-chief deposed that they were present in the village Bawana vide DD no.5 A and at that time they were investigating two robbery cases of P.S Bawana i.e FIR no. 188/12 and 218/12.
It is very surprising that though HC Joginder (PW2), Constable Mukesh (PW4) and S.I Narender (PW6) are referring their presence in the area qua the investigation of two robbery cases but they could not tell any further detail. Only S.I Narender (PW6) could tell the FIR numbers during examination in chief.
b) The application /request moved by S.I Praveen Kumar (PW5) for sanction u/s 39 Arms Act is lying on record. In the said application an impression has been given that S.I Narender , HC Pradeep, HC Jogender , ct Mukesh and Ct SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 14 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act Ravinder were on petrolling duty on 09.8.2012 and not on 08.8.2012. The present incident is dated 08.8.2012 but in that application it has been mentioned that incident is of 9.8.2012.
It may be argued that it was a typographical mistake but the same is further falsified by the fact that in the said application there is reference of investigation of two robbery cases which has been mentioned in the said request but in the sanction ExPX given by the then Addl DCP , there is reference that on 08.8.2012, the aforesaid police party was present at Kanjhawalan chowk, Village Bawana in connection with investigation of FIR no 218/12 P.S Bawana u/s392/34 IPC. In the request application there is reference of two FIR's and the date of investigation has been shown as 09.8.2012 whereas in the sanction order u/s 39 Arms Act the date of the investigation has been shown as 08.8.2012 and the reference regarding investigation of the robbery case registered at P.S Bawana has been shown only one case. This has created doubt on the story of prosecution regarding the presence of police party at the spot.
c) There is DD no.5 A regarding the departure of the police team for investigation which is ExPW6/A. In the said DD there is a reference of some police official i.e S.I Narender (PW6) , S.I Praveen (PW5) , HC Mukesh , HC Jogender, HC Krishan, ct. Mukesh , Ct Kuldeep, HC Virender . The DD no. 5 A ExPW6/A appears to have been lodged at 2:50 am early SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 15 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act morning on 09.8.2012 but PW2 HC Joginder , PW4 Constable Mukesh and PW6 S.I Narender have deposed that they left the police station for investigation of some robbery case at around 10:10 pm vide aforesaid DD and accused persons were seen coming at around 11:10 pm on 08.8.2012 . If, they had left the police station vide aforesaid DD no.5 A at around 10 pm , there was no occasion to mention the time as 2:50 am dt. 08.8.2012 on DD no. 5 A ExPW6/A. The contents of the aforesaid DD are contrary to the deposition as made by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. A witness may tell a lie but not the document. Further , the said DD has been given exhibit mark during the examination of S.I Narender (PW6). DD register has not been produced . Further , there is no mention about the constable Ravinder and HC Pradeep in the said DD. It is also found missing that they left the police station for investigation of two robbery cases as deposed by S.I Narender (PW6) which has created a further doubt in the initial story of the prosecution and the presence of the police team at the spot.
d) It is also the case of the prosecution that both persons namely Sumit Rathi and Amit were coming in a Honda City car bearing number HR-99-LS-0445 , which was stolen from the jurisdiction of P.S Najagarh but again all these witnesses could not tell as to who was the owner of the said vehicle . When the aforesaid witnesses were asked about the status of the FIR no.
SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 16 of 22 )
D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012
P.S Bawana
u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act 231/12 P.S Najafgarh they could not tell anything about that case. Seizure memo of the keys of the Honda Car was not prepared. Evidence is not sufficient to connect the aforesaid car with the accused persons .
e) According to the story of the prosecution site plan ExPW5/A was prepared by S.I Praveen (PW5) at the instance of S.I Narender (PW6) . PW2 HC Joginder deposed that S.I Praveen prepared the site plan at the instance of S.I Narender (PW6) . Similar deposition has been given by S.I Praveen (PW5) and S.I Narender (PW6). Site plan ExPW5/A is on the record. Though it has been signed by constable Mukesh(PW4) and S.I Praveen (PW5) but it does not bears signatures of S.I Narender (PW6) . It is not the case of the prosecution that it was prepared at the instance of constable Mukesh, though it has been signed by him but it is not signed by S.I Narender (PW6) which has also created a further doubt in the story of the prosecution.
f) It has come on record that no finger prints either from the vehicle or arms and ammunition were lifted. From the personal search of the accused persons it is shown that mobile phones were recovered but CDR's of those mobile phones to locate the position of the accused persons, were also not obtained. There is allegation of firing on police party but despite that no crime team was called at the spot.
SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 17 of 22 )
D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012
P.S Bawana
u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
g) PW2 HC Joginder replied that accused who was sitting with the driver i.e accused Amit in the said Honda car challenged the police party and exhorted " Meetu mar sale ko"
whereas other prosecution witnesses deposed that it was accused Sumit who had challenged the police officials by stating " Maro Salo ko".
h) PW4 during his cross examination replied that they had left for place of occurrence from Kanjhawala road in govt vehicle i.e four wheeler whereas PW6 S.I Narender during his cross examination replied that all the raiding party were in his private car. This all has also created a doubt in the story of prosecution.
22. Moreover during the examination of the prosecution witnesses, it has come on record that public witnesses were available at the spot . PW6 S.I Narender deposed that he requested some passers by to join the raiding party but none agreed to join and they all left without telling their names and address wile expressing their difficulty to join them . PW5 S.I Praveen during his cross examination replied that one or two persons were passing by as morning walkers but none of them joined the SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 18 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act investigation though they were asked . In my opinion merely saying so that public witnesses refused to join the investigation is not sufficient. Entire case of the prosecution has become doubtful.
23. In the present case prosecution tried to bring home guilt of the accused persons by relying upon the versions of 3-4 police officials who were member of the raiding party. A bare perusal of their version clearly reflects the same to be of stereo type thus it will be highly unsafe to rely upon their version to pass the order of conviction against the accused. It has been held in 1975 CAR 309 (SC) that :
" Prosecution case resting solely on the testimony of Head Constable and three other police constables. No independent witness examined. Prosecution story appearing improbable and unnatural held that the prosecution case cannot be said to be free from reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted".
24. Further, the excuse of PW6 S.I Narender and PW5 S.I Praveen that they had asked public persons to join investigation but none agreed is no ground for non joining of independent witness to SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 19 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act the recovery as held in 1990 CCC ROOP CHAND vs STATE OF HARYANA by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
" That when some witness from public were available then the explanation furnished by the prosecution that they refused to join the investigation is wholly unsatisfactory, particularly when IO did not note down their names and addresses and did not take any action against them".
25. In a case reported as Anoop Joshi vs State , 1992(2) CCC 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
" It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly , when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant . In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escape the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 20 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
26. In the present case, prosecution tried to bring home the guilt of the accused persons by relying upon the testimonies of the police officials who were members of the raiding party. Their testimonies is of stereo type as discussed herein above, in the background of the material contradiction which should have been supported by some independent witness, which is failing in the present case. The manner in which stereo type deposition has been given without any corroboration or support from any other independent witness is sufficient to disbelieve their version. One may argue that aforesaid contradictions are minor and not material but in the given facts and circumstances when there is no corroboration from any independent source, even such contradiction become relevant to judge the veracity of the case of the prosecution.
27. In the present case, prosecution has SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 21 of 22 ) D.O.D 11.8.2014 FIR no. 262/2012 P.S Bawana u/s 186/353/307/34 & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act miserably failed to prove the offence against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. Thus, I am left with no option but to acquit the accused persons. Accused Amit @ Mitu@ Chhota Dhanak and Sumit Rathi @ Lala ,therefore, stands acquitted from the charges u/s 186/353/307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
28. Their sureties stands discharged.
Documents , if any be released after cancellation of endorsement.
29. In terms of section 437(A) CrPC, accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs 10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount.
30. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Rajesh Kumar Goel) Court today i.e 11.8.2014 ASJ-5, North Rohini Court SC No.115/14 State vs Sumit Rathi @Lala & others (Page 22 of 22 )