Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs Balraj on 3 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
DELHI
In Re: STATE VERSUS BALRAJ
F.I.R. No: 830/99
U/s 452/326/34 IPC
P.S. Nangloi
Date of Institution of Case : 10.01.2000
Date of Judgment Reserved for : 03.05.2010
Date of Judgment : 03.05.2010
JUDGEMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 7736/2/00 (b) The date of commission of offence : 13.08.1999 (c) The name of complainant : Sh. Braham Prakash s/o Sh.
Jabbu Ram, r/o H. No. 143, Ahir Mohalla, Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi.
(d) The name, parentage, : 1. Balraj, of accused S/o Sh. Balwan Singh, R/o VPO Kanrala, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana.
2. Surender S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan, r/o Village Sunaria, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana Present Address : As above
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 452/326/34 IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Accused no. 2 acquitted Accused no. 1 is PO.
FIR No. 830/99 1/1 7(h) The date of such order : 03.05.2010 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 13.08.1999 at about 2.00 AM at H. No. 143 Aahir Mohalla, Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi accused Balraj (since PO) along with co-accused Surender in furtherance of their common intention committed house tress pass by entering into the above said house of complainant Braham Parkash and further caused grievous/dangerous hurt to him and thereby the accused persons committed offence u/s 452/326/34 IPC.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter, vide order dated 10.02.2000, charge u/s 452/326/34 IPC was framed against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined eleven witnesses, whereafter the PE in the matter was closed and the statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on 12.05.2005 wherein they claimed themselves to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case. However, they did not offer to lead any evidence in his defence.
4. Before discussing the evidence led by the prosecution it will be pertinent to observe that accused Balraj stopped appearing in the Court and was declared PO vide orders dated 19.05.2007.
A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
5. PW1 Ct. Sajjan Singh deposed that on 05.11.1999 while he was posted at PS Nangloi he was on duty along with HC Joginder. He further deposed that HC FIR No. 830/99 2/1 7 Joginder apprehended the accused Surinder Singh s/o Suraj Bhan and Balraj s/o Balwan. He further deposed that accused persons made disclosure statement wherein they disclosed that three months back, the above said accused persons entered into a house with the intention to commit theft but one man awoke and abuse them as a result of which, Sandeep stabbed on the shoulder of that person. He further deposed that the accused also disclosed that they can get accused Sandeep arrested however, Sandeep could not be arrested. He further deposed that disclosure statement bears his signature and IO recorded his statement.
6. PW2 HC Joginder Singh deposed that on 04.11.1999 while he was posted at PS Nangloi, he was on emergency duty from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on receipt of DD no. 26 B he along with Ct. Sajjan Kumar went to Y Block, Sultanpuri Mod, Delhi where accused Surinder and Balraj were surrounded by the public persons. He further deposed that he arrested both the accused persons (correctly identified) in case FIR no. 1151/99 u/s 27/54/59 Arms Act and 506/34 IPC. He further deposed that accused persons made their disclosure statement wherein they stated that three months ago at Kamruddin Nagar in a house, they entered for the purpose of theft and one person abused them and their co-accused Sandeep gave a knife blow to that person on his shoulder. He further deposed that on 05.11.1999 disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded. Thereafter, he handed over the case file along with the accused persons to IO SI Suresh Kumar. He further deposed that he along with IO SI Suresh Kumar went to Sapla Railway Station and the village of accused Sandeep for search however they could not find him. He further deposed that they went to the house of accused Surinder at Village Kansala to verify his name as Ravinder instead of Surinder where they came to know that actual name of Surinder was Ravinder and IO recorded his statement.
FIR No. 830/99 3/1 7During his cross examination he stated that he does not remember the time when he reached at the spot. There was crowd in the market and Ct Sajjan Singh had accompanied him. He further stated that personal search of the accused persons was not conducted at the spot again said personal search of accused persons were conducted by him at the spot. He further stated that he does not remember what was recovered from the personal search of the accused persons and they took the accused persons to the PS but he does not remember the time. He further stated that he prepared seizure memo, personal search, conviction slip and statement of witnesses at the spot. He further stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses at the spot including Ct. Sajjan Singh and complainant. He further stated that he does not remember the name of complainant at present however, its address was Y Block, Nangloi, Delhi. He further deposed that he also recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons at the spot in which they stated that around three months ago they entered in the house of Kamruddin Nagar for the purpose of theft and when they entered in the house at Kamruddin Nagar for the purpose of theft and when they entered in the house the person who was sleeping there woke up and Sandeep gave a knife blow to that person. He further stated that dagger was recovered from the possession of accused Ravinder @ Surinder. He denied the suggestion that he obtained the signature of accused persons on the disclosure statement forcibly. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW3 Ct. Bijender deposed that on 13.08.1999 while he was posted at PS Nangloi he was on emergency duty from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. IO SI Suresh Kumar Lakra received DD no. 108B and accordingly, he along with IO went to H. No. 143, Kamruddin Nagar Aahir Mohalla, where they came to know that the injured removed to DDU hospital and he along with IO went to DDU hospital where injured Bharam Prakash met them and IO obtained the MLC of injured Bharam Prakash and also recorded his statement and then made endorsement FIR No. 830/99 4/1 7 on the same and handed over to him for registration of the case. He further deposed that he got registered the case at PS and returned back at the spot. He further deposed that IO already reached there and he handed over the ruqqa and copy of FIR to the IO. He further deposed that IO searched for accused but they could not be traced and IO recorded his statement.
8. PW4 Dr. Pardeep Soni deposed that on 13.08.1999 at around 7:15 am a patient was brought to DDU hospital emergency with the alleged history of assault and he was admitted and examined by him. Vide MLC No. 07205 dated 13.08.1999. He further deposed that he made detailed entry with regard to the injuries on the body of the injured. His detailed report in this regard is Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that later on in view of the condition of the injured he was operated by Dr. Rajiv Jain and while the patient was examined by him he was conscious, well oriented.
9. PW 5 Ct. Sohan Lal deposed that on 05.11.1999 while he was posted at PS Nangloi, he accompanied the IO SI Suresh Kumar for investigation of the case FIR no. 830/99. He further deposed that on that day accused Surender and accused Balraj (correctly identified) made disclosure statement with regard to the offence under FIR no. 830/99. He further deposed that when both accused were taken to house no. 143, Kamruddin Nagar after disclosure and arrest they pointed out the place of occurrence vide Ex. PW5/A. He further deposed that accused were investigated by the IO at the spot.
During his cross examination he stated that he does not remember the time of departure from PS but they were two police officials and two accused persons and IO of the present case. He further stated that he does not remember the departure DD number and they all were in Govt. Vehicle. He further stated that accused persons were handcuff and he was holding them. He further stated FIR No. 830/99 5/1 7 that IO and he along with accused persons were sitting in rear portion of the vehicle and it took 15 minutes in reaching Kamruddin Nagar. He further stated that he does not remember the driver of the vehicle and also does not remember whether IO filled in the logbook. He admitted that the way from PS Nangloi to Kamruddin Village is thickly populated and persons were coming and going on the road. He further stated that SI Suresh did not attempt to join those persons in raiding party. He further stated that vehicle was parked at the distance of 50 Yds from the place of pointing out. IO SI Suresh also did not attempt to join to any public persons from the place of parking the vehicle and place of pointing out. He further stated that accused persons pointing out the place by their hands from a distance of about 20/30 Yds. The memo was prepared. He further stated that he does not remember in whose handwriting Ex. PW5/A is written. He further stated that he does not remember whether the IO made arrival entry in the police station. He admitted that he did not join the investigation or that he was deposing falsely. He further stated that he does not remember the vehicle number.
10. PW6 SI Savita deposed that on 13.08.1999 while she was posted at PS Nangloi as Duty officer, on receipt of ruqqa sent by SI Suresh through Ct. Virendra Singh, she recorded the case FIR no. 830/99 as Ex. PW6/A.
11. PW7 Dr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar deposed that on 13.08.1999 while he was posted at DDU hospital in Radiology Deptt, a patient Bharam Prakash aged about 40 years, was brought for MLC X ray (Chest) and he conducted the same vide Ex. PW7/A. He further deposed that number of X ray film is 5892 dated 13.08.1999 and same bears his signature. He further deposed that no bone injury was found.
12. PW8 Prem Singh deposed that on 05.11.1999 the police had brought his FIR No. 830/99 6/1 7 son Ravinder accused (correctly identified) in custody at his house and at that time he was working in his field and was summoned by his children. He further deposed that when he reached his house he saw that the police was taking tea in his house and he handed over copy of the ration card to the police. He further deposed that nothing was inquired from him by the police and he does not know what was the purpose of arrival of police at his house.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP. In his cross examination he stated that his statement was not recorded by police and he was not enquired anything by the police. He further stated that he did not state before the police that Ravinder had told his name as Surender s/o Suraj Bhan r/o Village Suneria, PS and Distt Rohtak (HR) and had wrongly stated his name and address as such. He further stated that he had stated before the police that the name of his son is Ravinder s/o Prem Singh r/o Kansala PS Sapla Distt. Rohtak (HR).
This witness was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. During his cross examination he stated that his field is at a distance of about 4/5 killas and he along with his father was working in the field. He further stated that there were 4/5 policemen at his house. He further stated that the accused was in hand cuffs and he was not in good physical position as he was beaten by the police. He further stated that the moment he came police consumed tea and went away. He further stated that no conversation took place between him and the police. He further stated that police started pushing accused Ravinder and then left the house. He further stated that in his presence Surpanch was not called and police told him to depose and hence he deposed what they wanted.
13. PW9 Jitender deposed that on 13.08.1999 he was sleeping on the bad in the room in his house and he got up on hearing the alarm of his father. He further stated that his father told that three persons had come and they stabbed him at FIR No. 830/99 7/1 7 around 2:00 a.m. He further deposed that he saw nothing and he closed the door. He further deposed that his father sustained injuries on his shoulder. He further deposed that 5/6 a.m. he shouted and one tenant opened the window who was residing in front of his house. He narrated the incident to his uncle Phuley who was residing in his neighbourhood and he called the police. He further deposed that police came and took his father and his statement was recorded and site plan was prepared at his instance.
During his cross examination he stated that they are four brothers and one is elder to him. He further stated that at that time he, his younger brother and father were sleeping in the room. He further stated that whereabouts of his father are not known. He further stated that they went to their maternal uncle's house leaving his father behind and since then he is untraceable. He further stated that his father was a Govt. Servant but he does not know in which Department he was. He further stated that his mother had informed the Deptt. about his missing. He further stated that after this occurrence he and his brother left the house and went to their maternal grand father's house. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and that his father did not sustain injuries and he did not accompany with his father to hospital.
14. PW10 SI Suresh Kumar deposed that on 13.08.1999 while he was posted at PS Nangloi on receipt of DD no. 108B mark X he along with Ct. Vijender reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 143, Ahir Mohalla Kamruddin Nagar where he came to know that injured Bharam Prakash had been removed to DDU hospital. He further deposed that he left Ct. Ram Khilari at the spot. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Vijender went to DDU hospital and he collected the MLC of injured. He further deposed that doctor declared him fit for statement. He recorded the statement of injured as Ex. PW10/A and prepared ruqqa Ex. PW10/B and sent Ct. Vijender to PS for registration of FIR. He further deposed FIR No. 830/99 8/1 7 that thereafter he reached the spot and made inquiry and in the meantime, Ct Vijender came at the spot along with the copy of FIR and same was handed over to him. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Jitender and prior to that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW10/C. He further deposed that on 05.11.1999 HC Joginder recorded disclosure of accused Surender Mark A and that of accused Balraj as Mark B. He further deposed that as per disclosure statement, accused Balraj and Surender who later on was found to be Ravinder (correctly identified). He further deposed that he interrogated both the accused persons and thereafter, they led the police party at the place of incident and pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PW5/A. He further deposed that he obtained one day police custody remand of accused Ravinder. He further deposed that on 06.11.1999 he along with HC Joginder went to Railway Station Sapla in search of accused Sandeep but he could not be traced. He further deposed that thereafter HC Joginder who had gone for verification of name of accused Ravinder and handed over the statement of Sarpanch of Village Kansala. He further deposed that he moved an application for conducting TIP of accused persons on 19.11.1999 but the accused persons refused to participate in the TIP before Ld. Link MM. He further deposed that later on the MLC was obtained from DDU hospital and thereafter, section 326 IPC was added. He further deposed that statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded on 05.11.1999 and 06.11.1999.
During his cross examination he admitted that in Ex. PW10/A, none of accused is given. He admitted that from 13.08.1999 to 05.11.1999 there was no clue of accused in the investigation. He further stated that vehicle was parked from the house at a distance of 20 feet and it was noon time. He further admitted that no public person was with him as no public persons agreed to join them. He admitted that nothing was recovered from the accused persons in this case i.e incriminating weapon or so. He further admitted that accused Balraj was arrested FIR No. 830/99 9/1 7 on the disclosure of the co-accused. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not lead the police party to the place of incident or that no pointing out memo was prepared. He further denied the suggestion that after receipt of the disclosure statement, he prepared the memo in the PS. He further admitted that he does not record any disclosure statement of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He further stated that they had taken the accused person in a truck from the PS to the place of incident. He does not remember the number of that truck. He further stated that he contacted the driver of that truck and neither he asked the name and address of the truck driver nor he mentioned the same in his report. He further stated that they reached at around 1:30 p.m. at the spot and only two persons met him in the truck including policemen. He further stated that the truck was stopped in the colony and they took the accused to the place of incident from the truck. He further stated that no public persons gathered there. He further stated that pointing out memo was prepared at the spot and from the spot they directly came to the court. He further stated that he does not remember the exact time. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not lead them to the spot and that no memo was prepared. He further denied the suggestion that photographs of the accused persons were taken at the PS and the vehicle was not exactly the truck but a canter by which they went to the spot.
15. PW11 Rajbala deposed that in the year 1999 she was Surpanch of village and on 06.11.1999 a Panchayat was called wherein the police produced accused Surender and she identified accused. She further deposed that she does not remember whether the accused who belonged to her village was known by some other name or not. She further deposed that after inquiry police recorded her statement. She further deposed that accused Surender was known as Ravinder s/o Prem Singh in the village.
FIR No. 830/99 10/ 17
16. This is all as far as prosecution evidence in the matter is concerned.
17. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the learned Defence counsel as also learned APP and have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and perused the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
18. After going through the material on record and giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at bar by the Ld. APP as well as the Ld. Defence counsel, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused.
19. The star/material witness of the prosecution story was Braham Prakash i.e. the complainant/injured who was allegedly injured by the accused along with his accomplices during the intervening night of 12/13.08.1999. However, the said witness could not be examined by the prosecution as he was untraceable. Same is reflected in order sheet dated 29.04.2005 as well as during the deposition of PW 9 as was recorded on 26.09.2000. His deposition was sine qua non for bringing home the guilt against the accused and his absence has proved fatal for the prosecution.
20. Apart from him, prosecution examined one Jitender Kumar as PW 9. The witness is the son of the complainant and at the time of the alleged incident he was present along with his father. However, his deposition proved to be of little help to the prosecution as his deposition/narration of the incident at most remained hearsay. He as per the admitted case of prosecution did not witness the alleged incident of infliction of injuries upon his father and in fact, reached to his father only after the later raised an alarm. He failed to establish the identity of the accused or the manner in which his father received injuries.
FIR No. 830/99 11/ 17
21. Apart from the above said witnesses, those examined by the prosecution are formal witnesses. Their deposition in the absence of the complainant/any other material/eye witness is not sufficient to prove the charges against the accused person.
22. During the course of arguments Ld. APP vehemently argued that even in the absence of Braham Prakash the prosecution story stands proved in view of the disclosure statements of the accused persons which was recorded after their arrest in case FIR no. 1151/99 and which was proved on record by PWs namely PW 2 & 3 as well as the fact that a dagger was recovered from the possession of accused Ravinder @ Surinder. It was further argued that the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence i.e H. No. 143, Aahir Mohalla, Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi which further proves that they were the author of crime dated 13.08.1999 for which the present FIR was registered. It was also argued that the factum of refusal to take part in the TIP proceedings itself draws an adverse inference against the accused i.e. he committed the crime alleged of. Lastly, it was argued that the injuries upon Braham Prakash stands proved in view of the deposition of PW 3 & PW 4 as well as MLC Ex.PW4/A, the injuries could not be self inflicted and this goes on to show that it was the accused who injured complainant Braham Prakash.
23. However, I do not agree with the either contention of the Ld. Defence counsel. First of all, disclosure statement of the accused persons was not proved as per Indian Evidence Act 1872. Secondly, the same remained inadmissible in view of catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court including case titled as "Vijender Vs. State (1997) 6 SCC 171". No recovery was effected in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused, no new fact emerged which was not within the knowledge of the police officials. Similarly, the pointing FIR No. 830/99 12/ 17 out memo by itself is not sufficient to connect the accused with the present case FIR.
24. Regarding the recovery of dagger during the time of arrest of accused Surinder @ Ravinder in case FIR no. 1151/99 first of all, it will be worthwhile to observe that there is nothing on record to prove that the said dagger was in fact the weapon of offence in case FIR no. 830/99. Secondly as already discussed above the injured could not be examined hence, identity of the accused as the assailant in the present case FIR could not be proved and thirdly, it cannot be ruled out that the said dagger was planted upon the accused. No public witness was joined by the police officials at the time of their arrest in case FIR no. 1151/99, despite the fact that the police officials claimed in their deposition that at the time of arrest of the accused numerous public persons/crowd of the market had surrounded the accused persons. Even the IO did not bother to examine/cite the complainant of the said case FIR (1151/99) as a witness to lend some credence/weightage to the prosecution story. In these facts and circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the dagger was planted upon the accused. Reliance can be placed upon case titled as "State of Haryana vs. Sadhu (P&H) (DB) 1992 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 425, State of Punjab vs. Gurdeep Singh (P&H) (DB) 1993 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 121 as well as Nanak Chand vs. State of Delhi (Delhi) 1992 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 412".
25. Before proceeding further, I would like to point out the relevant portion of deposition of PW 10 SI Suresh Kumar who is the IO of the present case as well as Ct. Sohan Lal who was examined as PW 5 which are contradictory in themselves and casts doubt on the prosecution story. During the cross examination, IO admitted and stated "It is correct that no public person was with us as none of the public person agreed to join us. It is correct that nothing was recovered from the accused persons in this case incriminating FIR No. 830/99 13/ 17 weapon or so". IO failed to prove either the departure entry, how they went to the spot and the fact remains that no action was taken against those persons who failed to join the investigation. His statement which contradicts the stand of PW 5 is read as "we had taken the accused persons in a truck from the PS to the place of incident. I do not remember the number of the truck ....................neither I asked the name and address of the truck driver nor I have mentioned the same in my report.
Relevant portion of PW 5 cross examination is read as "I do not remember the departure DD number............we all were in govt. vehicle................I do not remember the driver of the vehicle. I do not remember whether IO filled the logbook. It is correct that from Nangloi PS to Kamruddin village it is thickly populated area. Persons were coming and going on road. SI Suresh did not attempt to join those persons in raiding party".
26. Hence, the fact remains that no public witness was joined and no action was taken against those who allegedly refused. This casts serious doubt upon the IOs attempt to join any public witness. Moreso, in view of the above discussed deposition of PW 5. Reliance can be placed upon case titled as "ROOP CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA 1990 (1) CLR 69 wherein it was observed that such explanations are unreliable. In the case of PREM SINGH VS. STATE 1996 CRI. L. J. 3604 (DELHI) and in the case of PAWAN KUMAR VS. DELHI ADMN. 1989 CRI. L.J. 127 it was observed that in case of failure to join independent witness benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
27. Mere presence of injuries upon injured Braham Prakash does not by themselves prove or raise any presumption that it was the accused who inflicted the injuries upon him. It ought to have been proved through the categorical FIR No. 830/99 14/ 17 testimony of Braham Prakash or any eye witness of the incident who might have witnessed the alleged act of infliction of injuries by accused upon Braham Prakash. In the absence of Braham Prakash or any other eye witness there cannot be any such presumption.
28. Lastly, regarding the refusal of the accused to take part in the TIP proceedings it is no longer res-integra that prosecution case has to stand on its own leg, it cannot derive any benefit/advantage from the lacuna appearing in the defence case. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mere refusal of TIP proceedings is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence charged of.
29. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB) ,1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 662). In criminal cases, prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt, benefit must go the accused. (Kishore Shambhu Dutta Mishra vs. State of Maharashtra (SC) 1989 (Supl) SCC 399).
30. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was observed in Partap v. State of U.P., (SC) 1976 A.I.R. (SC) 966 that while prosecution required to prove its case beyond a FIR No. 830/99 15/ 17 reasonable doubt, accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (SC) 1990(3) S.C.C. 190 it was again held that in criminal cases burden is always is on prosecution and never shifts. In Nasir Sikander Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (SC) 2005 Cri.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (SC) 1996(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 465 it was held that it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and burden lies on prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by the Statute. (AIR 1962 SC 605 relied). Accused is not expected to prove his innocence to the hilt. If prosecution story is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
31. Prosecution has failed to discharge its onus. Accused Surinder @ Ravinder is accordingly entitled to acquittal.
32. I order accordingly.
Announced today in the open Court (Gaurav Rao) on 03.05.2010 MM(W)/Delhi FIR No. 830/99 16/ 17 03.05.2010 FIR No. 830/99 PS Nangloi Pr: Ld. APP for state. Accused Surinder is present on bail. Accused Balraj is already PO. Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate judgment announced today in the open court accused Surinder @ Ravinder has been acquitted of the charges in the present case.
Bail bond cancelled, surety discharged, endorsement if any be cancelled, original documents be returned as per rules and procedure.
File be consigned to Record Room to be revived as and when accused Balraj appears/is arrested/apprehended.
(Gaurav Rao) MM (w)/Delhi.
03.05.2010
FIR No. 830/99 17/
17