Delhi District Court
State vs . Munna Lal/Fir No.1168/06. on 10 December, 2009
:1:
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 1,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No.156/08.
FIR No.1168/06.
PS : SULTANPURI.
U/s -363/366/376 IPC.
STATE
VERSUS
MUNNA LAL
S/O. SUBEDAR SINGH
R/O. P-2/112, SULTANPURI, DELHI.
Date of Institution : 23.12.2006
Date on which received in this court : 02.12.2008
Arguments heard On : 04.12.2009
Order Announced On : 10.12.2009
NONE FOR THE STATE.
MS. SADHNA BHATIA, AMICUS CURIAE FOR ACCUSED.
STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI
:2:
JUDGMENT
1. The name of the Prosecutrix/victim in this judgment is not mentioned as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Karnatka Versus Puttraja (2004 (1) SCC 475) and Om Prakash Versus State of Uttar Pradesh 2006 CLJ 2913.
2. The factual matrix of the case as projected in the charge sheet is that Complainant Mohd. Sallauddin had lodged a complaint with the police that he alongwith his family members have been residing at P-2/114, Sultanpuri, Delhi and doing the job of Tailor. His daughter/prosecutrix "N" aged about 15 years has disappeared from 25.7.06 and he had searched for her but in vain. He has suspicion that his neighbour Munna Lal used to eve teasing her daughter and he also disappeared from the locality and he had kidnapped my daughter. Thereafter investigation was handed over to ASI Devender Joshi and during investigation IO had flashed a WT Message and searched for the prosecutrix.
STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :3:
3. On 3.8.2006 accused Munna Lal was arrested by the IO ASI Devender Joshi from his residence i.e. P-1/112, Sultanpuri, Delhi alongwith prosecutrix "N". Thereafter accused Munna Lal and prosecutrix "N" were taken to the SGM Hospital and examined. IO had obtained sealed pullandas alongwith sample seal from the doctor with the seal of SGMH. Thereafter accused as well as prosecutrix "N" were produced before the court. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the learned MM and IO had obtained the copy of the same. Thereafter prosecutrix was handed over to her father Md. Sallauddin. Exhibits were sent to the FSL for expert opinion. The challan was prepared and same was filed in the court of ld. Magistrate.
4. Learned M.M. after compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of sessions.
5. My learned Predecessor vide order dated 23.02.07 charge for trial of offence under section 366/376 IPC was framed against accused Munna Lal. Accused Munna Lal pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :4:
6. Prosecution in support of its case examined twelve witnesses. PW-1/Prosecutrix "N". She has deposed that accused Munna Lal used to reside near her house. On 25.7.06 at about 1 pm she was standing in front of her house and at that time somebody had told her that one person was calling her and the caller was standing near the park. She reached near the park and a person was standing there. Thereafter she deposed that she was forcibly made to sit in TSR at the point of knife by the accused and threatened to keep quiet. Then accused took me to Nangloi and from there to Gurgaon in bus, where another person had also joined him and took me to the house of another person, who had joined us. She further deposed that after three-four days accused took her to his relative's house and did sexual intercourse with her for three days against her consent. She further deposed that after four five days mother of the accused came there and took her to Delhi alongwith accused and there police had arrested the accused. She also deposed that police had prepared the recovery memo Ex.PW1/A, which bears her signatures at point A and from there police took STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :5: her to SGM Hospital for medico-legal examination. She further deposed that her undergarments were also taken into possession by the doctor of SGM Hospital. She further deposed that after four-five days she was produced before the learned MM and her statement was got recorded by the learned MM. She also identified her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has also identified her undergarment in the court which was taken into possession by the doctor and same is Ex.P1.
7. In the cross examination she deposed that she had no acquaintance with the accused prior to the incident except that the accused was residing in her neighbourhood. She further deposed that mother of accused had told me that some persons were calling her near the park. The park is situated at a distance of about five minutes from her house. She denied the suggestion that accused cannot walk properly being suffering from Polio since childhood. She further deposed that she become unconscious in the TSR and regained consciousness after four hours at Gurgaon. At Gurgaon there were three more boys. She did not raise alarm STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :6: or noise or shouted. She deposed that accused Munna Lal brought the vermilion and thereafter they went to railway station from there they boarded the train and went to Itawa. She did not raise any alarm or nose, when she was taken by TSR to Railway Station. She did not tell any passenger in the compartment of train. She deposed that she was alone in the house at village of Itawa. She did not take food for about eight days. The mother of the accused came there after seven days. Thereafter they came back to Delhi. The mother of the accused taken them straightway to Police Station. Prosecutrix PW1 "n" confronted with her statement regarding the facts calling by a boy in the park. Putting vermilion on the forehead at Gurgaon. The arrival of mother of accused at Itawa on these confronted. She denied that she deliberately concealed her true age.
8. PW2 Mohd. Sallauddin deposed that on 25.7.2006, he was on duty at Rajouri Garden, when his wife Hasina Begum had made a call regarding the missing of their daughter. He came and search but could not found and then lodged complaint with the police Ex.PW2/A lodging that her STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :7: daughter was kidnapped by Munna Lal. He further deposed that on 3.8.2006 he had received a call from the PS Sultanpuri, that his daughter has been recovered alongwith accused Munna Lal. His daughter and accused were taken to the hospital for medical examination. On 4.08.2006 her daughter produced before the learned MM for recording of statement. In the cross examination he deposed that at about 4 pm he lodged report of his missing daughter. The elder son Sabauddin is aged about 21 years of age and married six months back. He was born in the year 1988. Prosecutrix is younger to him for about five years and born at village. Date of birth certificate was not registered. He denied the suggestion that his daughter is more than 18 years of age. He denied the suggestion that his elder son is aged about 23 years and having difference of two years with the age of the prosecutrix. He denied the suggestion that prosecutrix left the home with the accused as she was in love with the accused Munna Lal. He denied the suggestion that he belonged to the different religion, therefore, a false case was registered.
STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :8:
9. PW3 WCt. Sandhya deposed that on 03.08.2006 on the instructions of the IO she took the prosecutrix "N" to the SGM Hospital alongwith her mother, where medical examination was conducted. She further deposed that doctor had handed over to her two pullandas with the seal of SGMH Govt. of NCD Delhi and one sample seal. These were handed over to the IO, who took into the possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A.
10. PW4 Dr. Brijesh Singh deposed that on 3.8.06 he had conducted medical examination of accused/patient Munna Lal and gave observations that there was nothing to suggest that this person cannot perform the sexual intercourse. He further deposed that the undergarments and blood sample of accused were sealed and handed over to the IO. He further proved the MLC Ex.PW4/A.
11. PW5 Ms. Husna Begum deposed that on 25.7.2006 at about 1 p.m. accused Munna Lal had taken her daughter/prosecutrix "N" aged about 15 years by enticing her. She made a call to her husband who came at home and tried to trace thereafter lodged report with the police. She STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :9: deposed that on 3.8.06 someone made a call at the house of accused and informed that his daughter has been recovered at Ganda Nala, Sultanpuri from the possession of accused Munna Lal. On this information they reached there. Thereafter police took herself and her daughter/prosecutrix to SGM Hospital for medical examination. Undergarments of her daughter were taken by the doctor at hospital. In the cross examination she deposed that when her daughter left she was taking bath at the third floor of the house. She had not seen her daughter leaving with the accused. She deposed that her eldest son is aged about 22 years and there is a gap of three years in each children. The elder son Md. Sabauddin was born of the first year of the marriage. The daughter remained in the PS for one night. She denied the suggestion that he daughter in love with the accused Munna Lal and left her home on her own freewill and consent. She denied the suggestion that her daughter was more than 18 years of age. She denied that she was opposed intercaste marriage and, therefore accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :10:
12. PW6 HC Mahinder Singh proved the FIR Ex.PW2/A. PW7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, proved the MLC of the prosecutrix Ex.PW7/A, which was prepared by Dr. Arpana, who left the services of hospital. He further deposed that the prosecutrix was brought before him for Bone Age determination and after going through the X-ray and dental opinion he found prosecutrix was of the age of 15-17 years and proved the Report Ex.PW7/B.
13. PW8 Ct. Rajender Singh, deposed that on 27.9.2006 on the instructions of the IO he took four pullandas sealed with the seal of SGM and two sample seals of the same description vide RC No.491/21/C and deposited the same to the FSL Rohini. He also proved that he had taken acknowledgment from the FSL. The samples were never tampered with.
14. PW9 HC Satpal Singh MHC(M), proved the entries of register no.19 Ex.PW9/A dated 3.8.2006 with four pullandas and two sample seals were deposited by the IO in malkhana. He further proved RC dated 27.9.2006 when Ct. Rajender Singh took the four pullandas and two sample seals STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :11: to the FSL. He also proved the entries dated 24.01.2007 when Ct. Shri Kishan brought four pullandas and envelop sealed with the seal of FSL. He also proved that FSL Result was received and entries were made at point Z on Ex.PW9/A. He also proved acknowledgment copy of the RC Ex.PW9/B.
15. PW10 Ct. Pawan Kumar deposed that on 03.08.2006 he joined the investigation with the IO on receiving of secret information that accused Munna Lal alongwith prosecutrix and his other friends came near P1 Block, Ganda Nala, Sultanpuri. Thereafter he alongwith IO caught of accused Munna Lal and Prosecutrix "N" and IO made inquiries. A telephone was made to parents of the prosecutrix, who reached there. IO also called WCt. Sandhya, who took the prosecutrix to the SGM Hospital. He proved the arrest and interrogation of accused Munna Lal. Arrest Memo proved by him Ex.PW1/A. Personal search memo Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that he took accused Munna Lal to the SGM Hospital for medical examination. After medical examination doctor handed over to him two sealed pullandas STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :12: and sample seals, which were seized by the IO vide Ex.PW10/B. In the cross examination he deposed that accused was arrested from a thickly populated area. No public person agreed to join the proceedings. He denied the suggestion that on 2.08.06 accused and prosecutrix themselves came to the PS and not apprehended from the P- 1 Block, Ganda Nala, Sultanpuri.
16. PW11 ASI Devender Joshi (IO) deposed that on 25.7.2006 copy of FIR Ex.PW2/A given to him for investigation. He got flashed wireless message and made effort in search for prosecutrix "N". He deposed that on 3.8.2006 on receiving the information he alongwith Ct. Puran went to P-1-Blcok, Ganda Nala, Sultanpuri, wherein on the pointing out of informer apprehended accused and prosecutrix. He proved the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by him. He proved recovery memo of the prosecutrix Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that he called W Ct. Sandhya and parents of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was sent to the SGM Hospital with WCt. Sandhya. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/A and personal conducted vide STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :13: memo Ex.PW10/A. Accused was taken by Ct. Kamal to SGM Hospital for medical examination. She further proved the seizure of pullandas containing undergarments, blood sample of the accused vide memo Ex.PW10/B. He further proved the undergarments and HVS of the prosecutrix handed over by WCt. Sandhya vide memo Ex.PW3/A. He further proved that he moved an application fir recording of statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW11/A by Shri Deepak Garg, learned MM Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter he moved an application for obtaining the copy of the said statement and same is Ex.PW11/B and received the certified copy of the statement Ex.PW11/C. He further deposed that he got send sealed pullanda to the FSL and result was received from the FSL Ex.PW11/D1 and Ex.PW11/D2. He further got conducted X-ray for age determination of the prosecutrix "N" at SGM Hospital. After completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed by him. In the cross examination he deposed that on 3.8.2006 at about 4 pm, he alongwith Ct. Puran Kumar left the PS on two wheeler. He does not remember the DD Number. He further deposed that on seeing them STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :14: accused did not try to run away from the spot. WCt. Sandhya reached at the spot at about 4.45 pm alone. He deposed that he requested to public persons to join the raiding party but cannot tell the names of those persons. He further deposed that he went to the hospital alongwith accused, prosecutrix, WCt. Sandhya and Ct. Pawan. He denied the suggestion that prosecutrix "N" told her that she has gone with the accused with her own free will and consent and she was above 18 years of age at that time. He admitted that accused and the prosecutrix belonged to different religion. He denied the suggestion that prosecutrix was tutored prior to the statement before the learned MM. He denied the suggestion that on 2.8.2006 accused and prosecutrix themselves came at the PS and not arrested from P-1 Block, Ganda Nala, Sultanpuri. He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct investigation fairly and properly. He denied the suggestion that accused has been suffering from Polio on his left leg since childhood and cannot walk properly.
STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :15:
17. PW12 Shri Deepak Garg, learned MM deposed that on 4.8.06 he had received an application for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of prosecutrix "N". He recorded the statement of the prosecutrix "N" Ex.PW1/B. He further proved the certificate issued by him Ex.PW12/A. He further proved on the application of IO that he supplied the copy of the proceedings. He further proved his endorsement Ex.PW11/A.
18. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded innocence and wish not to examine any witness in his defence.
19. I have heard Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of accused and with her assistance gone through the record.
20. Prosecution in order to prove the charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and 376 IPC has to first establish the required age of prosecutrix described in these two Sections.
STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :16: Prosecution examined following witnesses to establish the age of the prosecutrix. PW1 Prosecutrix "N", PW2 Mohd. Salauddin father of the prosecutrix, PW5 Husna Begum mother of the prosecutrix and Dr. Manoj Dhingra, who examined and given the opinion on determination of bone age medical test.
22. Prosecutrix "N", in her cross examination deposed that they are four sister and three brothers. Her number is at second. Her eldest brother Mohd. Sahabuddin is aged about 23 years and she is two year younger to him. However, she denied the suggestion that on the day of incident she was 18 years old. She further deposed that she does not remember her exact date of birth. PW2 Mohd. Sallauddin father of the prosecutrix in his cross examination deposed that his eldest son is aged about 21 years, who was born in the year 1988. The prosecutrix is younger to him about five years. Prosecutrix born at village and birth was not registered with the concerned department. He denied the suggestion that prosecutrix is more than 18 years on the day of incident and STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :17: elder son is aged about 23 years. He further denied that there is a difference of two years. PW5 Mrs. Hushna Begum, mother of the prosecutrix "N" in her cross examination deposed that her eldest son is 22 years of aged and gap between eldest son and prosecutrix is about three years. Eldest son born after a year of her marriage. She denied the suggestion that her daughter was above 18 years of age on the day of incident. PW7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra proved the opinion given after bone-age determination medical test. According to report Ex.PW7/B the age of the prosecutrix was found to be between 15-17 years.
23. The testimony of above witnesses examined and analyzed, it establish that no exact date of birth mentioned by father and mother of the prosecutrix. Even she is not aware her exact date of birth. In these circumstances it has to be concluded on the basis of medical age determination opinion. However, it is well settled that the even the bone age determination medical test is not conclusive evidence. However, in the present facts and circumstances, the age of STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :18: the prosecutrix can be determined only with the opinion given by the doctor and benefit of two years may also be granted to the accused. The medical opinion Ex.PW7/B establishes the age of the prosecutrix is on the date of incident was 15-17 years. Then after giving benefit as per law to the accused her age is determined as 17 years old.
24. The prosecution has to establish that prosecutrix "N" was kidnapped by the accused and he also raped her. The star witness of the prosecution is PW1 Prosecutrix "N". Her testimony discussed herein above in detail. Now it has to be scrutinized and analyzed. The first statement recorded on oath by learned MM Ex.PW1/A, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In that statement she deposed that on 25.7.06 she was standing at ground floor of her house then mother of the accused said her that somebody is calling her. She went near a park where found accused Munna Lal was sitting in an auto and then shown knife and forcibly made her to sit in the auto. Accused also said to her that she has to marry him and taken her to Gurgaon. At railway station he put vermilion on the STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :19: parting of her forehead, thereafter taken her to Itawa and kept her in his Bua's house. She further stated that there she remained for four days and accused forcibly had physical relations. Thereafter under the fear police taking to another village there also forcibly committed physical relations. Later on mother and father of the accused brought them to Delhi.
Now when she appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 27.7.2006 she was standing in front of her house someone told her that one person is calling her near the park. It is pertinent to mention here that this statement is totally contrary to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she alleged that mother of the accused called her. She further deposed that she went to the park where accused Munna Lal present with one another person. This part of the statement is also contrary to Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement where no other person specified by her except accused Munna Lal. She further deposed that accused Munna Lal forcefully on the point of knife made her to sit in TSR and taken her to Nangloi. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not mentioning that she was taken to Nangloi. She further STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :20: deposed that thereafter forcibly taken her to Gurgaon in a bus. She further deposed that thereafter accused took her to the house of one person, who joined them at Gurgaon where accused put vermilion on parting of her forehead. This statement is also contrary to earlier statement on oath where accused put vermilion on her forehead at railway station. Here she is stating that vermilion was put on her forehead at Gurgaon. She further deposed that she remained for 3-4 days at the relative's house of the accused. Accused did sexual intercourse with prosecutrix "N" for three days against her wishes. Thereafter 4-5 days after mother of the accused took her to Delhi. This statement is contradictory to earlier statement deposed on oath under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she stated that she was taken to Itawa, thereafter some other village, and after 4-5 days mother and father of the accused Munna Lal came and brought them to Delhi.
STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :21:
25. PW2 Mohd. Sallauddin deposed that on 3.8.2006 he come to know from a telephone call from the PS- Sultanpuri that his daughter has been recovered with accused Munna Lal. Thereafter he went to the Police Station Sultanpuri. PW5 Husna Begum, mother of the prosecutrix, deposed that on 03.08.2006 someone made a call on their house that accused and his daughter has been recovered near Ganda Nala and then they reached there and prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the accused. Now let us see he police version in this respect. PW11 ASI Devender Joshi deposed that on 3.8.2006 he received information and went to P-1 Block, Ganda Nala and on the pointing out of informer apprehended the accused and then interrogated. The prosecutrix was recovered. Ct. Pawan was alongwith the IO. PW10, Ct. Pawan deposed that on 3.8.2006 they were present at Sultanpuri Bus Terminal then secret informer came and informed that Accused Munna Lal alongwith prosecutrix and his other friends would come near P-1 Block, Ganda Nala, Sultanpuri. On the basis of secret information and pointing out of informer accused was STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :22: arrested. Prosecutrix "N" was with him. Thereafter the parents were called. On examination it is established that prosecution story regarding the arrest and recovery of accused has no legs to stand. All the four witnesses have given their different versions. According to the prosecutrix "N" when she was brought to Delhi by the parents of the accused then how they reached at P-1, Block, Ganda Nala, Sultanpuri. The story of police regarding the secret information and thereafter arrest with the aid of informer is totally contradicted.
26. The examination in chief of the prosecutrix as discussed herein above is contrary to her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Now further considering the cross examination it has come on record that she introduced new fact that when she set in the TSR she lost her consciousness and regained consciousness at Gurgaon. Now she introduced three more boys in the story, who were present at Gurgaon. She stated that she went to the railway station in TSR and from their to Itawa. The journey of her house till Itawa she STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :23: had ample opportunity to raise alarm at any of the public places. She traveled in train and remained in the village of Itawa. She did not even change her clothes, which is highly unbelievable when she stated that she did not eat even food for about 8 days. How it is possible that she came with the mother of the accused to Delhi and she took her and her son to the PS straightway. On the contrary according to the prosecution story they were arrested in Delhi.
The facts deposed by the prosecutrix that she travelled from her residence to Nangloi, thereafter, to Gurgaon and then Itawa village during her journey she remained without bath even without eating for about 8 days establish that she had ample opportunity to raise alarm or get rid from the clutches of accused, especially when he is handicapped and suffering from Polio since childhood. The other facet of these facts established that prosecutrix's consent was there if she traveled alongwith accused and remained with him. Her return to Delhi is also corroborated her consent for the sexual act with accused.
STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :24:
27. The testimony of the prosecutrix "N" suffers from major contradictions and highlighted unbelievable facts as discussed herein above. The prosecution story demolished by the prosecutrix "N" herself regarding her kidnapping and rape. Although MLC has shown that hymen was ruptured but there is no mark of any injury. It is pertinent to mention it here that the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused filed on record the documents of his physically handicapped having suffering from Polio since childhood. This fact cannot be ignored that accused, who is impaired with the ability to even walk properly how he can kidnapped and commit rape upon the prosecutrix. Especially where the testimony of the prosecutrix "N" found to be not truthful and full of contradictions.
28. On the basis of above observations and discussions the charge of kidnapping the prosecutrix is not proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of testimony of PW1 Prosecutrix "N", which is full of contradictions and suffers from infirmities. Similarly the charge for offence STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :25: punishable under Section 376 IPC is also not proved by the prosecution on the basis of testimony of PW1/Prosecutrix "N". Hence, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, accused Munna Lal acquitted for charge of offence punishable under Section 366/376 IPC. Accused be released from judicial custody forthwith, if not required in any other case. Session file be consigned to record room.
(SANJAY KUMAR) Announced in the open court Additional Sessions Judge-01. today 10.12.2009. Rohini Courts, Delhi STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC./PS SULTANPURI :26: STATE VS MUNNA LAL FIR NO. 1168/06.
PS-SULTANPURI.
U/S.- 363/366/376 IPC.
10.12.2009.
Present: Shri Ashok Kumar, Substitute APP for the State.
Accused in JC with Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Amicus Curiae.
Vide separate order accused is acquitted. He be released from JC forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sessions file be consigned to record room.
(SANJAY KUMAR) ASJ-01(NW):ROHINI:DELHI.
10.12.09.
STATE VS . MUNNA LAL/FIR NO.1168/06.