Delhi District Court
State vs . Ashima Begum on 29 June, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDHARTH MATHUR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CENTRAL-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Ashima Begum
FIR No: 12/03
U/S: 448/380 IPC
P.S: Jama Masjid
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case : 114/JM/03
2. Date of Commission of offence : 08.01.2003
3. Date of institution of the case : 02.09.2003
4. Name of the complainant : Ms. Hajjan Farkanda Naaz
5. Name of the accused, parentage &
address : Ashima Begum W/o Late
Mohd. Ashid R/o 726, Haveli
Azam Khan, Kala Mahal, Jama
Masjid, Delhi.
6. Offence complained or proved : U/s 448/380 IPC
7. Plea of Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
8. Final Order : Acquitted.
9. Date of Final Order : 29th June 2010
Brief Facts
1. On 08.01.2003, PW3 Ms. Hajjan Farkanda Naaz (Hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant" in short) gave a police complaint Ex. PW3/A stating therein that the accused Ashima Begum on 08.01.2003 had committed House Trespass into one of her room's situated at 726, Haveli Azam Khan, Kala Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi (Hereinafter referred to as the "Premises in question") by breaking open its locks in violation of the injunction order dated 07.03.2002 Ex.PW3/3 passed in Civil Suit No. 271/99. The investigation regarding the said complaint then was assigned to PW5 ASI Rishi Pal Singh.
FIR No. 12/03 Page 1 of 17 Pages
2. On 10.01.2003, ASI Rishi Pal Singh prepared the tehrir Ex. PW5/A on the basis of the said complaint whereafter PW2 H.C. Hari Ram registered the present FIR Ex. PW2/2 for the offence under Section 448 IPC. The carbon copy of the said FIR along with the original tehrir were then handed over to ASI Rishi Pal Singh.
3. After the registration of the instant FIR, ASI Rishi Pal Singh visited the spot of occurrence and prepared its site plan Ex. PW5/B at the instance of the complainant wherein place of incident is shown as "Mark A" .
4. On 13.01.2003, the complainant gave one more subsequent police complaint Ex. PW3/2 against the accused asserting therein for the first time that the accused & her brother named Sh. Sadiq Khalid, while acting in collusion with each other, not only had committed illegal trespass into her premises but also had stolen her certain valuable articles like one blanket, tape recorder, ceiling fan, one pair of gold ear rings, one pair of slippers with golden sole, one imported camera and one gents white watch from the trespassed portion.
In this subsequent complaint, the complainant also had revealed for the first time that PW1 Ms. Afsari Begum on 08.01.2003 not only had eye witnessed the episode of breaking of locks by the accused but also had informed her about the said incident on the same day.
5. After receiving the subsequent additional complaint about the theft, ASI Rishi Pal Singh added the penal provision of Section 380 IPC against the accused in the investigation. Thereafter I.O. ASI Rishi Pal Singh tried to arrest the accused & recover the stolen articles of the complainant but could not succeed in effecting either the arrest of the accused or the recovery.
After this much of the investigation, ASI Rishi Pal Singh was transferred whereby on 30.01.2003 further investigation was assigned to PW7 S.I. Udaibir Singh nd (Hereinafter referred to as the "2 I.O.
" in short).
FIR No. 12/03 Page 2 of 17 Pages
nd
6. On 23.03.2003, 2 I.O. S.I. Udaibir Singh accompanied by PW6 Ct. Ramesh Chander & PW4 Lady Ct. Madhu Yadav went to the premise in question & arrested the accused from there at the pointing of the complainant via arrest memo Ex. PW3/4. The accused was then personally searched by Lady Ct. Madhu Yadav via personal search memo Ex. PW3/5. The pointing out memo Ex. PW3/6 showing the place of the occurrence was also prepared by the 2nd I.O. S.I. Udaibir Singh at the instance of the accused alongwith the inspection memo's Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW4/A respectively. However nothing was recovered from the house of the accused during the search conducted by the police party on 23.03.2003. The accused was then medically examined via report Ex. PA.
In these circumstances, the investigation was concluded by 2nd I.O. S.I. Udaibir Singh.
PreTrial Procedure
7. After the completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet for the offences under Section 448/380 IPC was filed against the accused on 02.09.2003 whereupon the cognizance was taken by the Court. The provisions of section 207 Cr. P.C. were complied on 15.12.2003.
After hearing the arguments, Charge under Section 448/380 IPC was framed against the accused to which she pleaded "Not Guilty" and instead claimed trial. Trial
8. During the course of the trial, the prosecution had examined the following 7 witnesses.
PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum was pitted as an eye witness by the prosecution in respect of the incident of House trespass allegedly committed by the accused at premises in FIR No. 12/03 Page 3 of 17 Pages question on 08.01.2003.
In her examination in chief, this witness had deposed that on 08.01.2003 when she visited the premises in question (i.e. residence of the complainant), she saw the accused breaking open the lock of the room in question with a hammer. This witness further had deposed that thereafter she met the complainant on her way home from the premises in question & informed her about the above act of the accused.
In her cross examination on behalf of accused, this witness had stated the following facts : A) That on the fateful day, she had visited the residence of the complainant so as to seek her assistance for procuring the admission of her grandson in a school ;
B) That the accused was trying to break open the Metallic lock of the room in question ;
B) That the accused was wearing a black burqa without covering her face & was having her back towards her ; and C) That the accused did not turn towards her during the entire period when this witness remained at the spot.
9. PW2 H.C. Hari Ram was the duty officer posted at P.S. Chandni Mahal on 10.01.2003, who proved the present FIR Ex. PW2/2. This witness was duly cross examined on behalf of the defence.
10. PW3 Ms. Hajjan Farkanda Naaz was the complainant. The complainant had deposed in her examination in chief that the accused is the divorcee wife of her deceased FIR No. 12/03 Page 4 of 17 Pages brother named Late. Sh. Mohd. Asif. The complainant also had testified that on the date of the incident after she returned home, she found that the accused had trespassed into her house after breaking open the locks of the kitchen and the rooms situated therein. Thereafter the complainant instantly informed the police which then arrived at the spot and conducted local inquiry. As per the complainant, the police then sought ration card from the accused regarding her stay at the premises in question but instead the accused sought one day time to produce the same & left the premises in question after putting her own lock at trespassed portions.
The complainant had also testified that on 08.01.2003, PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum met her on the way back to her residence & told her that she had seen the accused breaking open the locks at the premises in question.
The complainant had also testified that an injunction order Ex. PW3/3 was passed in her favour by Ms. Neerja Bhatia, the then Civil Judge, Delhi on 07.03.2002 in a civil suit pending between her and the accused.
In the cross examination on behalf of the defence, the complainant had deposed about the following facts : A) That the relations between her and the accused are very hostile ;
B) That the hammer used by the accused to break open the locks of her room in question was recovered by the police during investigation ;
C) That on 09.01.2003, she noticed that her iron trunk containing her certain valuables is missing which was stolen by the accused ;
FIR No. 12/03 Page 5 of 17 Pages D) That her tenant named Sh. Chaman had informed her on 09.01.2003 that the accused had given the said iron trunk to her another tenant named Sh. Abrar.
E) That she had not given purchase receipts of either of the stolen articles to the police during the investigation ; and F) That she neither had seen the accused committing the theft in question, nor had witnessed the alleged handing over of the said iron trunk by the accused to her tenant named Sh. Abrar.
11. PW4 Lady Ct. Madhu Yadav and PW6 Ct. Ramesh Chander were the police officers who had accompanied the 2nd I.O. S.I. Udaibir Singh on 23.03.2003 when the accused was arrested. Both these witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the defence st
12. PW5 ASI Rishi Pal Singh was the initial I.O.(Hereinafter referred to as the "1 st I.O." in short). The 1 I.O. ASI Rishi Pal Singh had deposed that on 08.01.2003, he received the complaint Ex. PW3/A from the complainant on which basis the present FIR was lodged on 10.01.2003 whereafter he visited the spot and prepared its site plan Ex. PW5/B at the instance of the complainant. The 1st I.O. ASI Rishi Pal Singh also had deposed that on 14.01.2003 after receiving a further complaint from the complainant, the penal provision of Section 380 IPC was also added against the accused.
In the cross examination on behalf of the defence, this witness had deposed the following : A) That on 10.03.2003 when he inspected the spot, he found that FIR No. 12/03 Page 6 of 17 Pages neither any lock or kunda was broken, nor any lock was found to be present/lying on the said kunda/handle.
B) That the said kunda/handle was found to be fully intact & unbroken.
13. PW7 S.I. Udaibir Singh was the 2nd I.O. who had testified that after the transfer of 1st I.O. ASI Rishi Pal Singh, he was assigned the investigation of this case whereafter he arrested the accused on 23.03.2003 from the premises in question.
In the cross examination on behalf of defence, this witness had admitted that no recovery of any sort was effected from the accused.
14. After the examination of the above witnesses, the PE was completed on 21.01.2003. The statement of the accused under Section 313 r/w 281 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 10.02.2010 wherein the accused pledged the defence of "false implication" by the complainant as their is a pending civil/family dispute amongst them. However, the accused preferred not to lead any defence evidence.
After the conclusion of the trial, the final arguments were heard on 26/05/2010. Offence U/s 448 IPC
15. The accused has not disputed the existence & findings of the injunction order Ex. PW3/3 passed by Ms. Neerja Bhatia, the then Civil Judge, Delhi on 07.03.2002 in favour of the complainant & against the accused, which fact is clearly reflected from the following excerpt of the examination in chief of the complainant : " The said stay order was passed on 07.03.2002 by Ms. Neerja Bhatia, the then Ld. FIR No. 12/03 Page 7 of 17 Pages Civil Judge, Delhi, the certified copy of which is Ex. PW3/3 including pleadings & other orders (the authenticity of the said order has not been disputed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, whereby the said document has been exhibited on the no objection of the Ld. Counsel for the accused qua the admissibility) ".
The perusal of the said undisputed injunction order goes on to show that the complainant was in possession at the premises in question on the date of the offence.
Be that as it may, still in order to prove the offence under Section 448 IPC apart from showing the admitted possession of the complainant at the premises in question, the prosecution was further required to prove it beyond reasonable doubt that on 08.01.2003, the accused had committed House Tress pass by breaking open the locks of the room shown at "Portion A" in the site plan Ex. PW5/B. In the given circumstances, the testimonies of PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum, PW st 3/Complainant Smt. Hajjan Farkanda Naaz and PW5 1 I.O. ASI Rishi Pal assumes importance.
16. PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum claimed herself to be an eye witness to the incident of breaking open of the locks at the premises in question by the accused on 08.01.2003.
In the cross examination on behalf of the defence, PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum had admitted that when she saw the accused breaking open the lock in question, the accused was standing with her back towards her and that the accused also did not turn towards her while doing so.
The material on record nowhere suggests that the accused was known to PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum prior to the date of the incident i.e. 08.01.2003 whereby it will not be wrong to observe that the accused was neither known, nor familiar to PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum prior to the said date of incident.
Thus in these given circumstances, this alleged eye witness was required to explain as to how she was able to so precisely identify the lady breaking the locks to be only FIR No. 12/03 Page 8 of 17 Pages the accused & none else when neither the accused was previously known or familiar to this alleged eye witness & nor the accused turned towards her during her stay at the spot. This aforesaid discrepancy peeping from the narration of the incident given by PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum has invited doubt regarding the authenticity of her testimony.
17. PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum in her cross examination had also deposed that the police had recorded her statement during the investigation at the Police Station itself.
st However the testimonies of both of the investigating officers i.e. 1 I.O. PW5 ASI Rishi Pal Singh and 2nd I.O. PW7 S.I. Udaibir Singh are totally silent about the recording of any such statement of PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum by either of them during the investigation.
Now when none of the I.O.'s had divulged anything about the recording of any statement of PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum during the investigation, then it will deemed that no such statement of PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum was ever recorded by the police during the investigation in the manner alleged by PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum, more so, when no such statement has otherwise surfaced on record during the entire trial. This discrepancy & contradiction between the testimony of PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum & the record regarding the recording of her statement by the police reflects adversely for PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum, who is turning out to be an exaggerating witness.
18. As per the prosecution's case, when the complainant was returning home on the fateful day, PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum met her mid way & informed her that the she had seen the accused breaking open the locks of one of her rooms at the premises in question whereafter the complainant arrived at the spot and informed the police via complaint Ex. PW 3/A. In her first & foremost police complaint Ex. PW3/A dated 08.01.2003, the complainant has spoken nothing about the facts that either PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum had eye witnessed the incident dated 08.01.2003 or that PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum had informed her on 08.01.2003 about the involvement of the accused in the incident of house trespass. The FIR No. 12/03 Page 9 of 17 Pages record suggests that only in the subsequent & belated complaint Ex. PW3/2 dated 13.01.2003 that the complainant for the first time divulged that PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum after eye witnessing the act of the accused breaking open the locks of her room informed her about that episode.
Neither the prosecution, nor the complainant have explained as to why the complainant did not name the said eyewitness PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum in her initial complaint Ex. PW3/A though as per the prosecution, the complainant had the necessary knowledge about the presence of PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum at the place of incident from the mouth of PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum since 08.01.2003 itself. The twin facts involving "the silence of the complainant in her initial complaint Ex. PW3/A about the presence of the eyewitness PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum at the spot on 08.01.2003" and "the subsequent failure of the prosecution & the complainant to explain the said omission of the complainant to name the said eyewitness in her initial complaint Ex. PW3/A" reflects adversely for the prosecution and creates doubt over the possibility of the presence of this eyewitness at the spot on the fateful day. In the given facts, the possibility of this eyewitness PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum being falsely planted & evolved by the complainant to strength her case against the accused can not be ruled out beyond reasonable doubt, more so, when the complainant in her crossexamination already had admitted that she had very hostile relations with the accused.
19. Both the complainant & PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum had deposed that the accused had broken open the locks of the room in question with the help of a hammer. Now if the said lock/kunda was broken by the accused with a hammer, then marks of some wear & tear resulted by the alleged use of hammer must have been caused on the kunda/door of the room in question, more so, when PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum had stated that the lock in question was made of metal.
st However in strict contrast to the aforesaid, the 1 I.O. ASI Rishi Pal Singh had deposed that when he inspected the premises in question, he noticed that the lock/kunda FIR No. 12/03 Page 10 of 17 Pages were not in broken condition, rather, the kunda in question was found to be fully intact.
st The aforementioned testimonial statement of 1 I.O.ASI Rishi Pal falsifies the assertions of the complainant & PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum that the accused had used a hammer to break open the locks in question. In my view, if any such hammer would have been used by the accused, then the said kunda/door would not have been intact & rather the same would have been bearing some signs/marks of hammer hits/wear & tear. The record also suggests that no such broken lock was ever got recovered, which if would have been recovered might have shed some light on the aspect of accused using a hammer to break it. Thus the aforesaid testimony of 1st I.O. ASI Rishi Pal not only seizes the ground beneath the claims of the complainant & PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum that the accused had used a hammer to break open the locks in question but also has further dipped the reliability & veracity of the complainant & PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum .
20. The complainant in her cross examination had deposed that police had recovered the hammer used by the accused to break open the locks of her room from the accused. However the testimonies of both the I.O.s (i.e. PW5 ASI Rishi Pal Singh & PW7 S.I. Udaibir Singh) shows that no such recovery was effected from the accused during the entire investigation.
Thus the testimonies of both the I.O.s shows that the statement of the complainant that the impugned hammer was recovered from the accused is nothing but an exaggerated & false fact which again dipped the veracity of the complainant a bit further.
21. The complainant had also deposed that after police completed its inquiry from the accused on 08.01.2003, the accused left the spot after putting her own lock at the room allegedly tress passed by her. However the testimony of 1st I.O. ASI Rishi Pal Singh shows that the aforementioned statement made by the complainant that the accused had placed her own lock at the room in question is doubtful, false & uncorroborated.
st 1 I.O. ASI Rishi Pal Singh in his cross examination had deposed that he did not FIR No. 12/03 Page 11 of 17 Pages find any lock present on the kunda during his spot inspection. Now if the accused had locked the room in question with her own lock in the manner asserted by the complainant, then the said I.O. must have seen/found some sort of lock present on the said kunda during his inspection, particularly, when nothing has come on record to suggest that such lock was removed by anyone after it was allegedly placed thereupon by the accused.
Thus it becomes clear that the statement made by the complainant that accused had put her own lock at the room in question before leaving the said premises is uncorroborated & doubtful.
22. The complainant in her evidence had stated that after she informed the police on 08.01.2003 about the incident in question, the SHO concerned accompanied by 10 (ten) other police officials arrived at the spot and asked the accused to produce her ration card regarding the premises in question. The complainant also had deposed that but when the accused failed to produce her ration card, the said police party gave her one day time to produce the same whereupon the accused left the spot.
st However the testimony of 1 I.O. ASI Rishi Pal has once again exposed the hollowness and falsity of the above assertions made by the complainant. In his evidence, the said I.O. had clearly stated that when he visited the spot on receipt of the complaint Ex. PW 1/A , the accused was not found at the spot. Now as per the record, the accused was arrested on 23.03.2003. Hence, the record nowhere suggests that the accused was found present at the spot on 08.01.2003 in the manner asserted by the complainant. Thus the aforementioned contradiction appearing between the assertions of the complainant & the remaining record punches a further jolt to the truthfulness of the complainant.
23. The aforementioned discussion clearly reflects the following : A) That the testimonies of the complainant & the alleged FIR No. 12/03 Page 12 of 17 Pages eyewitness PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum are not free from doubts & blemishes. Rather, the assertions made by these two witnesses suffers from material contradictions, exaggerations & improvements ;
B) That the prosecution has not been able to prove the presence of PW1 Smt. Afsari Begum at the spot beyond reasonable doubt ;
and C) That the prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused either had broken open the locks in question or had trespassed into the premises in question on the date of the offence.
24. During the course of the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant had argued that the arrest of the accused on 23.03.2003 from the impugned premises proves the presence of the accused at the premises in question in violation of the injunction order Ex. PW3/3 which in turn further proves the charge of offence U/s 448 IPC against the accused.
No doubt the accused was arrested from the premises in question on 23.03.2003 which in turn proves the presence of the accused at the premises in question on the said date. However the factum of the arrest of the accused from the said premises shows the presence of the accused at the said premises on 23.03.2003 only & it does not proves the presence & illegal trespass of the accused at the said premises on the relevant date of the incident i.e. 08.01.2003. The presence of the accused at the said premises on 08.01.2003 & not 23.03.2003 was the requisite component of the charge framed against the accused for the offence U/s 448 IPC whereby the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant fails to impress this Court so as to presume the complicity of the accused in the act of House Trespass dated 08.01.2003.
FIR No. 12/03 Page 13 of 17 Pages
25. Thus for the reasons assigned herein above, it can not be said that the prosecution has successfully proved the offence U/s 448 IPC against the accused. Offence U/s. 380 IPC
26. In order to prove the offence U/s. 380 IPC against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed theft of the complainant's valuables (as per list given in the complaint Ex. PW3/2) from the house of the complainant on 08.01.2003.
It is the story of the prosecution that the accused had committed criminal house tress pass into the premises belonging to the complainant on 08.01.2003 by breaking open its locks whereafter she also committed the theft of certain valuables of the complainant.
Now in the given facts, the successful proving of the criminal house tress pass against the accused is the pre requisite for proving the instant theft since the said theft was committed subsequently & in continuation of the said house tress pass.
However as already discussed herein above, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of House Tress pass U/s 448 IPC against the accused since the presence of the accused at the premises in question on the date of the incident was not proved beyond doubts whereby the commission of the instant theft by the accused also has been brought under serious doubt.
27. Next the complainant in her cross examination had admitted that on 09.01.2003 she noticed that her iron trunk containing her valuables was missing whereafter her tenant named Sh. Chaman told her that the accused had handed over the same to her another tenant named Sh Abrar. In the same crossexamination, the complainant had also deposed that she reported the said theft to the police on 09.01.2003 itself.
The statement made by the complainant that she had reported the said theft to the police on 09.01.2003 is falsified by the testimony of 1st I.O. ASI Rishi Pal Singh who had FIR No. 12/03 Page 14 of 17 Pages rather deposed that the said theft was reported by the complainant to the police for the first st time on 14.01.2003 via her complaint Ex. PW3/2. This statement of 1 I.O. receives sufficient corroboration from the date mentioned upon the said complaint Ex. PW3/2 (which is 14.01.2003). This contradiction inter se the testimonies of the above two witnesses regarding the date when the theft in question was first reported to the police brings doubt over the story of the theft alleged by the prosecution.
Thus the record makes it amply clear that the theft in question was first reported by the complainant to the police on 14.01.2003 though admittedly the complainant had discovered the said theft on 09.01.2003. In these circumstances, the prosecution as well as the complainant were required to explain the aforesaid delay caused by the complainant in reporting the said theft to the police. However neither the complainant, nor the prosecution had bothered to explain as to why the complainant waited till 14.01.2003 for reporting the said theft to the police though she had discovered the same on 09.01.2003 itself. This unexplained delay caused in reporting the said theft to the police brings an element of uncertainty, disbelief & falsity in the case of theft alleged against the accused.
28. The complainant in her cross examination had deposed that on 09.01.2003 her tenant named Sh. Chaman had informed her that the accused after stealing her iron trunk had handed over the same to her another tenant named Sh. Abrar. Now in view of this statement, the production & examination of Sh. Chaman as witness for the prosecution was vital so as to prove that the accused had the possession of the stolen articles on 09.01.2003. However, it is writ large on record that the the prosecution neither examined the said tenant named Sh. Chaman as a witness, nor had explained its omission to examine the said tenant as a witness, which unexplained omission of the prosecution has to be construed adversely against the prosecution.
Next the record also shows that the complainant has spoken nothing in her complaint Ex. PW3/2 dated 14.01.2003 to even prima facie suggest that her tenant named Sh Chaman had informed her anything on 09.01.2003 regarding the fact that he had seen FIR No. 12/03 Page 15 of 17 Pages the accused handing over the stolen iron trunk of the complainant to another tenant named Sh. Abrar, which fact saw the first light of the day only during the evidence of the complainant, which amounts to substantial improvement on part of the complainant to fill the lacuna's of her case.
29. The prosecution has also failed to prima facie show that the complainant ever possessed any of the stolen articles allegedly stolen by the accused on 08.01.2003.
The complainant in her cross examination had admitted that she did not give any receipt regarding her purchase of any of the stolen articles to the police during the st investigation. 1 I.O. ASI Rishi Pal Singh in his cross examination had also admitted that he did not collect any proof of ownership from the complainant regarding her ownership over any of the stolen articles.
The record thus clearly shows that neither the complainant provided any proof to the police during the investigation that she ever had possessed or owned any of the stolen articles, nor the police made any efforts to collect any evidence regarding the fact that the complainant ever possessed any such valuables, which allegedly were stolen by the accused on 08.01.2003. Hence it can not be said that the prosecution had successfully proved that the complainant ever possessed any of the stolen articles so as to be stolen by the accused on 08.01.2003.
30. Thus my aforesaid discussion shows that the case of the prosecution regarding the offence U/s 380 IPC also suffers from numerous contradictions, loop holes & defects whereby it can be safely concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the commission of the said theft against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Conclusion:
31. For the reasons assigned herein above,I hereby opine that the prosecution has FIR No. 12/03 Page 16 of 17 Pages failed to bring home the guilt of the accused on any of the counts under consideration in this case whereby the accused is acquitted of all the offences charged against her in this case.
The B/B & S/B of the accused are discharged. The original documents of the surety, if any on record, be released to the surety after cancellation of the endorsements thereupon as and when so applied. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court th on 29 June 2010 (SIDHARTH MATHUR) M.M. (CENTRAL - 02) DELHI FIR No. 12/03 Page 17 of 17 Pages