Delhi District Court
State vs Mukesh Lal on 17 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN; ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE01 (OUTER), ROHINI, DELHI
Sessions Case No: 101/2011
FIR No : 266/09
Police Station : Aman Vihar
U/s : 363/366/376 IPC
State
Versus
Mukesh Lal
S/o Shri Radhey Lal,
R/o Vill. Parsh Rampura,
PO Joga Mahu, PS Fatehpur,
Delhi. ... Accused
Date of Institution : 1.12.2009
Date of Decision: 17.11.2011
JUDGMENT
Surya Narain is residing at house bearing no.A15/6, Prem NagarIII along with his family including daughter 'P' since 1993. 'P' was born on 23.8.1994. Mukesh Lal was residing as a tenant in a gali in which State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 1 of 21 Surya Narain was residing. Mukesh Lal also resided as tenant in the house of Surya Narain in the year 2009. 'P' was studying in 10th class in the year 2009. 'P' on 4.8.2009 at about 6.30 am had gone to her school and reached there at about 7 am. Mukesh Lal was standing near the school and told 'P' that his wife was calling her. Thereafter Mukesh Lal had taken the 'P' to Bypass and from there to Ludhiana by bus.
2. 'P' did not return back to her home on 4.8.2009 till 2.30 pm. Surya Narain and others searched for 'P' but she could not be traced. Surya Narain on 5.8.2009 lodged a missing report at PS Aman Vihar. FIR bearing no.266/09 u/s 363 IPC was also got registered on 12.8.2009. The investigation was handed over to ASI Surender Singh.
3. Mukesh Lal kept 'P' at Ludhiana in a rented accommodation for 2025 days and during the said period Mukesh Lal committed sexual intercourse with 'P' without her consent every day. Mukesh Lal also assured 'P' to marry her but did not marry with 'P'. Mukesh Lal brought 'P' to ISBT, Delhi. 'P' managed to came back to her parental home when Mukesh Lal had gone to purchase the ticket. 'P' narrated entire incident to Surya Narain and other family members. Surya Narain had taken the 'P' to Police Post Prem Nagar. ASI Surender Singh prepared recovery memo State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 2 of 21 and recorded the statement of 'P' (hereinafter referred to as "prosecutrix") u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mukesh Lal (hereinafter referred to as "accused") was arrested on 4.9.2009. ASI Surender Singh (hereinafter referred to as "Investigating Officer") completed the investigation. The accused after completion of investigation was charge sheeted for offence punishable u/s 363/366/376 IPC. The charge sheet was submitted before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The accused was put to trial.
4. The accused was supplied with the copies of charge sheet along with annexed documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide committal order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and thereafter assigned to the Sessions court for trial in accordance with law.
5. The charge for offence punishable u/s 363/366/376 IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 06.01.2010to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution examined prosecutrix as PW1; Surya Narain as PW2; HC Balwan Singh as PW3; Ct. Mahesh Kumar as PW4; Ct. Raj Rishi as PW5; Dr. Sanjay Kaushik as PW6; W/HC Raj Bala as PW7; Pushpender Kaur, Principal Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya Nithari as PW8; State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 3 of 21 HC Surender Pal as PW9; R.K. Gupta, Sub Registrar, Birth & Death, Civil Line Zone, Delhi as PW10; HC Jogender as PW11; Shri S. S. Malhotra, then MM as PW11; ASI Surender Singh as PW12; and SI Surya Prakash as PW13.
7. PW1 'P' is the prosecutrix. PW2 Surya Narain is the complainant and father of prosecutrix. PW3 HC Balwan Singh got registered the FIR on the basis of statement of PW2 Surya Narain. PW4 Ct. Mahesh Kumar joined the investigation with Investigating Officer ASI Surender Singh on 12.08.2009. PW5 Ct. Raj Rishi participated in the investigation at the time of arrest of accused. PW6 Dr. Sanjay medically examined the accused. PW7 W/Ct. Raj Bala accompanied the prosecutrix to SGM Hospital for medical examination on 4.9.2009 and also produced before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for recording the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. PW8 Pushpender Kaur, Principal Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya produced the relevant school records showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix. PW9 HC Sunder Pal on 5.8.2009 recorded the missing report in respect of prosecutrix. PW10 R.K. Gupta, Sub Registrar, Civil Line Zone, Birth and Death produced the birth certificate of the prosecutrix. PW11 HC Jogender being MHC (M) was entrusted with case property. PW11 Shri S.S. Malhotra, then Metropolitan Magistrate State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 4 of 21 recorded the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 4.9.2009. PW12 ASI Surender Singh being the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation. PW13 SI Surya Parkash also participated in the investigation at the time of arrest of accused.
8. The prosecution proved the missing report lodged by PW2 Surya Narain on 5.8.2009 as ExPW2/A vide DD no.25A; copy of FIR bearing no.266/09 as ExPW2/B; arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of the accused as ExPW2/C, ExPW2/D and ExPW5/A; seizure memo of exhibits collected after medical examination of the accused as ExPW5/B; MLC of the accused as ExPW6/A; recovery memo of the prosecutrix as ExPW7/A; relevant school record showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix as ExPW8/A to ExPW8/C; photocopy of the entry regarding the birth of the prosecutrix maintained at St. Stephen's Hospital as ExPW10/A; relevant entries in Register no.19 regarding the deposition of exhibits as ExPW11/A; statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as ExPW11/A and other proceedings as ExPW11/a to ExPW11/C. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 15.11.2011.
9. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein the accused pleaded innocence and denied the incriminating evidence. The accused stated that he was residing as a tenant in the house State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 5 of 21 of PW2 Surya Narain. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.
10. Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State and Shri Abhishekh Kaushik, Advocate/Amicus Curie for accused heard. Record perused.
11. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.8.09 at about 6.30 pm at A15/6, Prem NagarIII, Sukhi Nagar, Gandhi Chowk, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Aman Vihar, the accused kidnapped the prosecutrix aged about 15 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents and without their consent with the intention that the prosecutrix may be compelled to marry with the accused or the prosecutrix may be seduced to illicit intercourse and the accused also committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her wishes.
12. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as 14 witnesses including the prosecutrix as PW1, complainant Surya Narain as PW2 and Investigating Officer ASI Surender Singh as PW12. PW1 prosecutrix supported the case of the prosecution. As per the testimony of PW1 prosecutrix on 4.8.09 when she reached at her school at about 7 am then the accused has taken her to Bypass and from there to Ludhiana by bus where she was kept for about 2025 days in a rented accommodation and accused committed rape with her without her consent. The accused has also promised her to marry with her but accused did not marry with State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 6 of 21 the prosecutrix.
13. Section 361 IPC deals with keeping from lawful guardianship.
The gist of offence of kidnapping is taking or enticing away of a minor within the specified age limits or of a person of unsound mind out of the keeping of a lawful guardian. The essential ingredients of the offence under S.361 IPC are as follows :
i) The accused took or enticed away a minor or a person of unsound mind;
ii) Such minor, if male, must be under 16 years of age and, if female, under 18 years of age;
iii)The act must be one of taking or enticing out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind;
iv)The act of taking or enticing away must be done without consent of the lawful guardian.
14. Section 366 IPC deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc. To bring home the guilt of the accused under S.366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the prosecutrix or compelled her by force to go from any place; that such inducement was by deceitful means; that such kidnapping or abduction took place with the intent that the prosecutrix may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 7 of 21 likely that the prosecutrix may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction or kidnapping. The essential ingredients of the offence under S.366 IPC are as follows:
i) The accused kidnapped or abducted a woman;
ii) The accused intended or knew it likely that--
(a)the woman abducted or kidnapped would be compelled to marry any person against her own will, or
(b)she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.
15. Section 375 IPC provides that a man is said to commit rape who has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances as described in section itself. Section 376 IPC prescribed punishment for rape.
OFFENCE U/S 363 IPC
16. The prosecution has to prove that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was under the age of 18 years and the accused has taken or enticed away the prosecutrix, a minor out of the lawful guardianship of her parents. It should be further proved that the taking or enticing away was done without the consent of the lawful guardian. The prosecution to prove its case u/s 363 IPC examined the complainant PW2 Surya Narain and the prosecutrix as PW1. PW1 prosecutrix and PW2 Surya Narain State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 8 of 21 supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has also examined the relevant witness to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix as the prosecutrix was stated to be under the age of 18 years at the time of incident. PW1 prosecutrix deposed that her date of birth is 23.8.1994. The prosecution has also examined R.K. Gupta, Sub Registrar, Birth and Death, Civil Line Zone as PW10 who deposed that as per the birth register pertaining for the year 1994 of St. Stephen's Hospital a female child was born on 23.8.1994 to PW2 Surya Narain and Ramawati. The relevant entry is ExPW10/A. As per the entry ExPW10/A, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 23.8.1994. The prosecution has also examined Pushpender Kaur, Principal Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Nithari as PW8 who proved the relevant school record as ExPW8/A to ExPW8/C wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 23.8.1994. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is also not disputed by the accused. The prosecution has proved the date of birth as 23.8.1994. The incident was happened on 4.8.2009. It means that the prosecutrix at the time of incident was under the age of 18 years and was a minor for the purpose of Section 363 IPC.
17. The prosecution to prove that the prosectrix was taken away from the lawful guardianship of PW2 Surya Narain and his wife examined State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 9 of 21 PW2 Surya Narain and PW1 prosecutrix. PW1 prosecutrix deposed that on 4.8.2009 at about 6.30 am she had gone to her school from her house and reached at school at about 7 am. PW1 prosecutrix further deposed that the accused was present near the school and told her that the wife of accused was calling her. PW1 prosecutrix further deposed that she was taken to Bypass by the accused and thereafter to Ludhiana where she was kept for 2025 days in a rent accommodation. PW2 Surya Narain deposed that the prosecutrix is his daughter and on 4.8.2009 at about 6.30 am the prosecutrix had gone to her school but did not return till 2.30 pm. PW2 Surya Narain also lodged the missing report vide DD no.25A ExPW2/A and on 12.8.2009 FIR bearing no.266/09 u/s 363 ExPW2/B was also got registered. The combined testimony of PW1 prosecutrix and PW2 Surya Narain proved that the accused has taken the prosecutrix on 4.8.2009 from her school to Bypass and thereafter to Ludhiana where the prosecutrix was kept for 2025 days. It reflects that the accused has taken the prosecutrix who is under the age of 16 years out of the keeping of lawful guardianship i.e PW2 Surya Narain and his wife and the taking was done without the consent of PW2 Surya Narain and his wife. PW2 Surya Narain did not depose that he has ever consented the accused to take away her daughter i.e the prosecutrix out of his lawful guardianship. State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 10 of 21 PW1 prosecutrix and PW2 Surya Narain were cross examined at length but there is nothing in their respective testimonies to the effect that on 4.8.09 the accused did not take away the prosecutrix out of the lawful guardianship of PW2 Surya Narain. PW1 prosecutrix and PW2 Surya Narain is inspiring confidence and can be safely relied upon.
Offence u/s 366/376 IPC
18. To constitute offence u/s 366 IPC it is to be proved by the prosecution that the kidnapping or abduction of a woman was with the intention to compel the prosecutrix to marry any person against her own will or that the prosecutrix would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. As per the testimony of PW1 prosecutrix, the accused on 4.8.09 had taken her to Bypass and from there to Ludhiana where she was kept for 2025 days in a rented accommodation and during this period the accused has committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. PW1 prosecutrix also deposed that the accused has promised to marry her but did not marry with her. The prosecutrix came back to her house on 4.9.09 and recovered vide recovery memo ExPW7/A. As per testimony of PW1 prosecutrix during the said period she was subjected to sexual intercourse every day at Ludhiana.
State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 11 of 21
19. APP argued that the testimony of PW1 prosecutrix is sufficient to prove that the accused has committed sexual intercourse with the PW1 prosecutrix against her wishes during the period w.e.f. 4.8.09 to 4.9.09 at Ludhiana. The defence counsel argued that the testimony of PW1 prosecutrix is not corroborated by any other evidence and rather the prosecutrix has refused for internal/gynecological examination. The defence counsel argued that the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of oral testimony of prosecutrix.
20. It was held in the case Madho Ram and another V The State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 469 as under : [T] the prosecutrix cannot be considered to be an accomplice. As a rule of prudence, however, it has been emphasised that Courts should normally look for some corroboration of her testimony in order to satisfy itself that the prosecutrix is telling the truth and that a person, accused of abduction or rape, has not been falsely implicated. The view that, as a matter of law, no conviction without corroboration was possible has not been accepted. The only rule of law is the rule of prudence namely the advisability of corroboration should be present in the mind of the Judge or the Jury, as the case may be. There is no rule of practice that there must in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand.
State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 12 of 21
21. It was held in case Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai V State of Gujrat, AIR 1983 SC 753(1) as under : Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration not withstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eyewitness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming.
Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self - preservation, or when the 'probabilities factor' is found State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 13 of 21 to be out of tune.
22. PW1 prosecutrix deposed about the committal of sexual intercourse with her by the accused during the period w.e.f. 4.8.09 to 4.9.09 at Ludhiana. The prosecutrix in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. ExPW1/A also deposed that she had allowed the accused to establish physical relation with her as the accused would marry with her but the accused did not marry with her at all. The consent of prosecutrix is immaterial as the prosecutrix was stated to be under the age of 16 years during the period when she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused. The question which needs consideration is whether the accused can be convicted solely on the basis of testimony of PW1 prosecutrix as there is no other evidence which supported or corroborated the testimony of PW1 prosecutrix. It is correct that the prosecutrix in rape case cannot be considered to be an accomplish but as a rule of prudence it has been emphasized that court should only look for corroboration of the testimony of prosecutrix. It is the duty of the court to find out whether the prosecutrix was telling the truth and the accused has not been falsely implicated.
23. In the instant case, the cross examination of the prosecutrix is very important. The cross examination of the prosecutrix reflects that the State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 14 of 21 accused was known to her as the accused was residing as a tenant in the same locality where the prosecutrix is residing. The proseuctrix had ample opportunity when she was taken to Ludhiana to raise alarm against her forcibly taking away to Ludhiana by the accused but she preferred not to do so. The prosecutrix also deposed that she had resisted the commission of galat kaam (sexual intercourse) by the accused and there was some scuffle. Although the prosecutrix denied the suggestion that accused has not committed sexual intercourse with her. The perusal of MLC ExPX is very important. As per MLC ExPX pertaining to the prosecutrix no sign of external injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix. The proseuctrix has refused for internal/gynecological examination. In case of sexual assault, the medical examination of the prosecutrix is always a vital piece of evidence to corroborate the oral testimony of the prosecutrix. It is not explained by the prosecutrix that why she had refused for her internal/gynecological examination. Even the doctor has also mentioned that the patient i.e PW1 prosecutrix had no history of sexual assault. The prosecutrix at the time of incident was aged about 15 years and she must be having understanding and knowledge about the consequences of her refusal to undergo medical or gynecological examination. If the prosecutrix was subjected to forceful sexual State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 15 of 21 intercourse for 2025 days and there was a scuffle between PW1 prosecutrix and the accused then there must be some sign of external injury on the person of PW1 prosecutrix. In the absence of the medical examination and the expert opinion of the gynecologist regarding the committal of sexual assault on the prosecutrix, the accused cannot be convicted solely on the testimony of PW1 prosecutrix.
24. In case Sudhanshu Sekhar Sahoo V State of Orissa, 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 447, the accused was convicted for the offence u/s 342/376 IPC by the Sessions Court and the sentence was confirmed by the High Court. The accused filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court. It was observed that on medical examination no injuries were found on person of the prosecutrix; there was delay in lodging the FIR etc. After considering the probability, it was observed that there are serious doubt about the genuineness of the case of the prosecutrix that she had been forcibly ravished by the appellant.
25. In case of Bibhishan V State of Maharashtra, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 469, the concerned doctor opined that there was no injury on the body of prosecutrix and no semen was found on the private part of the body, clothes were not found to be torn and hairs were not present on the State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 16 of 21 private part of the prosecutrix. The conviction of the accused was set aside by the Supreme Court after giving benefit of doubt.
26. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in case Mohinder Singh V State of Haryana, 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 1005, acquitted the accused on the grounds that no injury on any part of body, no bruising or abrasion or laceration was found on the external genital; there was no sign of struggle; and the offence was allegedly committed in the day time in sugarcane field and 20/25 persons were present in the nearby fields but no noise was raised by the prosecutrix. It was held that the case appeared to be of consent. The Orrisa High Court in case of Sukru Gouda V State of Orrisa, 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 168 observed that it is not possible for a single man to commit sexual intercourse with a healthy adult female. If no scratches or bruises found on body of victim or of accused, it shows that there was no resistance. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused had committed sexual intercourse with the Prosecutrix against her will.
27. The prosecutrix has also deposed that the accused has promised to marry her but he did not marry her. As per PW1 prosecutrix herself at the time of incident, the accused was already married and was having a State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 17 of 21 wife. It is not understandable when PW1 prosecutix was having the knowledge that the accused has already married at that time, then why she had gone with the accused to Ludhiana with the promise that the accused would marry her. This allegation of the PW1 prosecutrix also does not inspire any confidence.
28. In view of above discussion, the prosecution only proved that the accused on 4.8.09 had taken the prosecutrix out of the keeping of lawful guardianship of PW2 Surya Narain and against the consent and wishes PW2 Surya Narain. The proseuction could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had kidnapped or abducted the PW1 prosecutrix with the intention to marry the prosecutrix against her wishes and also to seduce illicit sexual intercourse against the wishes of prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The accused is accordingly convicted for offence u/s 363 IPC and acquitted for offences u/s 366/376 IPC.
Announced in open court (Dr.Sudhir Kumar Jain) on 17.11.2011 ASJ01 (Outer) Rohini, Delhi. State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 18 of 21
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN; ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 (OUTER), ROHINI, DELHI Sessions Case No: 101/2011 FIR No : 266/09 Police Station : Aman Vihar U/s : 363/366/376 IPC State Versus Mukesh Lal S/o Shri Radhey Lal, R/o Vill. Parsh Rampura, PO Joga Mahu, PS Fatehpur, Delhi. ... Convict ORDER ON SENTENCE Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State and Shri Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate/Amicus Curie for convict heard on quantam of sentence.
2. The convict stated that he is aged about 21 years; the convict is having old aged parents and two sisters; the convict is the sole bread earner in his family; no any other criminal case is pending against him and the antecedents of the convict are clear. The APP stated that considering State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 19 of 21 the facts and circumstances of the case, the convict be awarded maximum punishment.
3. PW1 prosecutrix at the time of commission of offence was a minor and was taken away by the convict out of the lawful guardianship of her father PW1 Surya Narain. The prosecutrix was taken to Lundhiana. The convict is aged about 21 years and has to maintain his family comprising his parents and two sisters. The convict belonged to the lower strata of society. The convict is in JC since 4.9.2009. The antecedents of the convict are clear.
4. After considering, particularly the facts pertaining to the socio economic condition of the convict, the convict is sentenced to undergo RI of 2 ½ years and along with fine of Rs.1000/ in default one month SI for offence u/s 363 IPC. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the convict. Case property is confiscated to the State. The Committal warrant be issued against the convict. A copy of the judgment along with order on sentence be supplied to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court (Dr.Sudhir Kumar Jain) on 17.11.2011 ASJ01 (Outer) Rohini, Delhi. State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 20 of 21 FIR No.266/09 PS Aman Vihar 17.11.2011 Present : Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State. Accused Mukesh Lal in JC.
Shri Abhishekh Kaushik, advocate/Amicus Curie for accused.
Vide separate judgment, accused is convicted for offence u/s 363 IPC but acquitted for offence u/s 366/376 IPC.
Heard on sentence.
Vide separte order on sentence, the convict is sentenced to undergo RI of 2 ½ years and along with fine of Rs.1000/ in default one month SI for offence u/s 363 IPC. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the convict. Case property is confiscated to the State. The Committal warrant be issued against the convict. A copy of the judgment along with order on sentence be supplied to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.
The fee of Amicus Curie is fixed at Rs.5000/.
Fine not paid.
(Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain) ASJ01, Outer, Rohini, Delhi.
State V Mukesh Lal FIR no. 266/09 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 21 of 21