Delhi District Court
State vs Sumit Kumar & Anr. on 8 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, MM-03,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. : DLSW02-011207-2017
FIR No. : 1727/2015
U/s : 33/38/58D Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : Bindapur
State versus Sumit Kumar & Anr.
a) ID. No. of the Case : 3635/17
b) Name & address of the : SI Hajara Singh
Complainant No. 6319/D
PIS No. 28800165
PS Bindapur, New Delhi.
c) Name & address of : (1) Sumit Kumar,
persons S/o Late Sh. Parmod
Kumar
R/o H.No.D-105,
Pocket-4, J.J. Colony,
Bindapur, New Delhi.
(2) Jyoti Rana,
W/o Sh. Rahul Rana,
R/o H.No.RZ-A-48,
Bindapur Extn., Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi.
State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 19
FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur
d) Date of Commission of : 30.12.2015
offence
e) Offence complained of : 33/38/58D Delhi Excise
Act
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Manish Kaushik
h) Final Order : Acquitted
i) Date of Institution : 09.05.2017
j) Judgment Pronounced on : 08.07.2023
JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. The prosecution version in brief is that in the intervening night of 29-30.12.2015, SI Hazara Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') was on duty in from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM alongwith Ct. Annu Yadav and at about 3:40 AM, when they reached near Neem Tree, Pratap Garden, they saw that one person was riding a red colored scooty bearing no. DL 9SAN 7303. When they checked the scooty, they saw that three cartons filled with illicit liquor were kept on the floor of the scooty. Thereafter, the complainant informed about the said incident to the duty officer at the police station and police official from PS Bindapur reached at the spot. Thereafter, an FIR bearing no. 1727/2015 u/s 33/38/58D Delhi Excise Act was registered at PS Bindapur. Investigation of the case was State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur handed over to Investigating Officer HC Chet Ram, thereafter to ASI Jagbir Singh and finally to ASI Rajesh Kadian.
Proceedings before the Court
2. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet u/s 33/38/58D Delhi Excise Act was filed against the present accused persons, i.e., Sumit Kumar and Jyoti Rana. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused persons were summoned to face trial.
3. On their appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents were supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'). On finding prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge under section 33/38/58D Delhi Excise Act was framed against them, to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW-1 Ct. Nand Kumar has deposed that on 30.12.2015, he was posted at PS Bindapur as a constable. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 8A, he along with HC Chet Ram went to the spot, i.e., Neem Tree, Pratap Garden, Bindapur, where he met SI Hazara Singh along with Ct. Anu, who had apprehended accused Sumit Kumar with illicit liquor and one scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SAN 7303. No public witness could be found as it State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur was night time. IO checked the three carton boxed and they were found to be containing 48 quarter bottles each of Impact Grain Whiskey for sale in Haryana only. Out of the said bottles, one quarter bottle each was taken as sample and the remaining quarter bottles were placed in one plastic katta and it was sealed with the seal of 'CR'. The seal was handed over to him (PW-1) after its use. Form M-29 was also sealed. HC Chet Ram recorded the statement if SI Hazara Singh and prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through him (PW-1).
After getting the FIR registered, he came back at the spot and handed over a copy of the FIR and original rukka to the IO. The seizure memo of the illicit liquor and scooty was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. The arrest memo of the accused, his personal search memo and his disclosure statement were exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B, Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D respectively. The case property was deposited in the malkhana of the police station. The witness identified the accused in court. The destruction order of the case property along with its photographs was exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly.) and the photographs of the scooty were exhibited as Ex. P-2 (colly.). This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(ii) PW-2 Ct. Anu Yadav has deposed that in the intervening night of 29/30.12.2015, he was posted at State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur PS Bindapur as a constable. On that day, he along with SI Hazara Singh was on night patrolling duty in ERV Gypsy and at about 4:30 AM, when they reached near Neem Tree, Pratap Garden, they noticed that the accused persons were coming from the side of DDA Flats, Bindapur on a scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SAN 7303. They stopped the scooty and found out the name of the rider to be Sumit. They saw three carton boxes on the foot of the scooty and upon checking the same, they came to know that it contained illicit liquor. The said information was shared at the police station. HC Chet Ram and Ct. Nand Kumar came at the spot and they handed over the custody of the accused as well as illicit liquor and the scooty to them. No public witness was found as it was night time. IO checked the three carton boxed and it was found to be containing 48 quarter bottles each of Impact Grain Whiskey for sale in Haryana only. Out of the said bottles, one quarter bottle each was taken as sample and the remaining quarter bottles were placed in one plastic katta and it was sealed with the seal of 'CR'. The seal after its use was handed over to Ct. Nand Kumar. Form M-29 was also sealed. HC Chet Ram recorded the statement of SI Hazara Singh and prepared the rukka and got an FIR registered through Ct. Nand Kumar, who came back at the spot and handed over a copy of FIR and original rukka to State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur the IO. The seizure memo of the illicit liquor and scooty was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. The arrest memo of the accused, his personal search memo and his disclosure statement were exhibited as Ex. PW- 1/B, Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D respectively. The case property was deposited in the malkhana of the police station. The witness identified the accused in court. The destruction order of the case property along with its photographs was exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly.) and the photographs of the scooty were exhibited as Ex. P-2 (colly.). This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(iii) PW-3 SI Hazara Singh has deposed that on the intervening night of 29/30.12.2015, he was posted at PS Bindapur as a sub-inspector. On that day, he was on night emergency duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM on ERV Gypsy along with Ct. Anu Yadav and at about 3:40 AM, when they reached near Neem Tree, Pratap Garden, they noticed the accused coming from the side of DDA Flats, Bindapur on a scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SAN 7303. They stopped the scooty and found out the name of the rider to be Sumit. They saw three carton boxes on the foot of the scooty and upon checking the same, they came to know that it contained illicit liquor. The said information was shared at the police station. HC Chet Ram and Ct. Nand Kumar came at the spot and they handed over the custody of the State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur accused as well as illicit liquor and the scooty to them. No public witness was found as it was night time. IO checked the three carton boxed and it was found to be containing 48 quarter bottles each of Impact Grain Whiskey for sale in Haryana only. Out of the said bottles, one quarter bottle each was taken as sample and the remaining quarter bottles were placed in one plastic katta and it was sealed with the seal of 'CR'. The seal after its use was handed over to Ct. Nand Kumar. Form M-29 was also sealed. HC Chet Ram recorded his statement (Ex. PW-3/A) and prepared the rukka and got an FIR registered through Ct. Nand Kumar, who came back at the spot and handed over a copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. The seizure memo of the illicit liquor and scooty was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. The arrest memo of the accused and his personal search memo was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B. The case property was deposited in the malkhana of the police station. The witness identified the accused in court. The destruction order of the case property exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly.) and the photographs were exhibited as Ex. P-2 (colly.). This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(iv) PW-4 ASI Rajesh Kadian has deposed that he had recorded the statement of the witness and on completion of the investigation, he had prepared the charge-sheet and filed it in the court. This witness State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having been given an opportunity to do so.
(v) PW-5 HC Tara Chand has deposed that on 01.03.2016, he was posted at PS Bindapur as a head constable. On that day, he was handed over the sample liquor and Form M-29 by the MHC(M) vide RC no. 44/21/16 for depositing the same in the Excise Office, ITO. Accordingly, he got the same deposited in the Excise Office and received a copy of the RC. He handed over the same to MHC(M) on the same day. This witness stated that the sample liquor and Form M-29 were not tampered by anyone till the time they were in his possession. IO had recorded his statement. The RC was exhibited as Ex. PW-5/A. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having been given an opportunity to do so.
(vi) PW-6 SI Ramesh Chand has deposed that on 30.12.2015, he was posted as duty officer in PS Bindapur from 12 midnight to 8:00 AM. At about 6:15 AM, Ct. Nand Kumar brought the rukka sent by HC Chet Ram. He (PW-6) registered an FIR (Ex. PW-6/A) on the basis of the same and made an endorsement (Ex. PW-6/B) on the rukka. After the registration of FIR, he handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Nand Kumar. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur counsel despite having been given an opportunity to do so.
(vii) PW-7 ASI Amarchand has deposed that on 30.12.2015, he was posted at PS Bindapur as MHC(M)(CP). On the directions of the IO HC Chet Ram, he had collected the case property and the samples (both sealed with the seal of 'RS') along with copy of seizure memo and relevant documents. The same were deposited in the malkhana of the police station by him vide mud no. 2354/15 and the relevant record was exhibited as Ex. P-1 (OSR) (colly.). On 01.03.2016, he had handed over the sealed exhibits vide RC No. 44/21/16 to HC Tara Chand and he went to the Excise Office, ITO along with the sealed exhibits and deposited the same for result analysis. He handed over the receipt regarding the same to him and the relevant record was exhibited as Ex. PW-5/A. The witness stated that the exhibits were not tampered with during the time they were in his possession. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having been given an opportunity to do so.
(viii) PW-8 HC Chet Ram has deposed that he was posted at PS Bindapur as a head constable. On 30.12.2015, on receipt of DD No. 9A (Ex. PW-8/1), he along with Ct. Nand Kumar reached at the spot, i.e., near Neem Tree, Pratap Garden, Bindapur and met SI Hazara Singh and Ct. Anu, who handed over the State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur custody of the apprehended person Sumit Kumar along woth illicit liquor and red colored scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SAN 7303 to him. He had asked four-five public persons to join the investigation, but he did not meet any public persons as it was night time and without wasting time, he checked the three carton boxes recovered from the possession of accused. On counting, he found the each carton box to be containing 48 glass quarter bottles (180 ml each) of Impact Grain Whiskey for sale in Haryana only. In total, 144 glass quarter bottles (180 ml each) of Impact Grain Whiskey for sale in Haryana only were recovered. He took three quarter bottles as sample. He put back the remaining quarter bottles in the same carton box and he put all the carton boxes in one plastic katta. He tied the opening of the katta and sample with a white cloth and sealed it with the seal of 'CR'. He filled Form M-29 (Ex. PW-8/A) at the spot. He seized the illicit liquor and samples and scooty vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A. He handed over the seal after its use to Ct, Nand Kumar. He prepared the tehrir (Ex. PW- 8/B) and handed it over to Ct. Nand Kumar to get the FIR registered. After the registration of FIR, Ct. Nand Kumar came back at the spot and handed over a computerized copy of FIR and original tehrir to him. After interrogation, he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused (Ex. PW-1/D). He arrested State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C respectively. The case property along with Form M-29 was deposited in the malkhana of the police station. He sent the samples to Excise Office for result analysis through Ct. Tara Chand. The destruction order of the case property was exhibited as Ex. P-1. The witness identified the photographs of scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SAN 7303 and photographs of illicit liquor which were exhibited as Ex. P-2 (colly.). The witness also identified the glass quarter bottle (180 ml) of Impact Grain Whiskey for sale in Haryana only and it was exhibited as Ex. P-3. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(ix) PW-9 ASI Jagbir Singh has deposed that he was posted at PS Bindapur as assistant sub-inspector and further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He had collected to result analysis report from MHC(M)(CP), PS Bindapur. He got the owner of the scooty in question verified and the same was found to be one Jyoti. He recorded her disclosure statement as Ex. PW-9/A. He served a notice u/s 160 CrPC (Ex. PW-9/1) and notice u/s 41A CrPC (Ex. PW-1/B) to accused Jyoti. He was thereafter transferred from PS Bindapur. He handed over the case file to MHC(R) for further investigation. He State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur identified accused Jyoti in court. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
5. Vide separate statement of the accused persons u/s 294 CrPC, they had admitted the genuineness of Excise Laboratory Result. The said document was exhibited as Ex. A-1. Accordingly, the concerned witnesses were dropped by the prosecution.
6. The prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter the statement of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC r/w section 281 CrPC was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons was put to them, which they had denied to be correct and submitted that they were innocent and falsely implicated. The accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in their defence.
7. It is argued by Sh. Manish Kaushik, Ld. APP for the State that it is clear from the statement of the complainant and other witnesses as well as the documents appearing on record that accused Sumit Kumar was in possession of 48 quarter bottles each of illicit liquor in three carton boxes and he was carrying the same on a scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SAN 7303 owned by accused Jyoti Rana. He has thus, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and they be, therefore, held guilty and convicted for the above-said offences.
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur reasonable doubt and since nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused persons, they be, therefore, acquitted for the offence charged.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter.
Findings of the Court
10. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The first argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons is that since no independent witness has been joined at the time of investigation, it is, therefore, difficult to believe the prosecution version as it creates a doubt on the veracity of the statement of police witnesses.
12.This court has given its thoughts to the above contention of Ld. Defence Counsel. Perusal of the examination of the prosecution witnesses reveals that the witnesses have stated that IO could not get any public person to join the investigation as it was night time and no one was present. However, perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1 Ct. Nand Kumar, PW-3 SI Hazar Singh and PW-8 ASI Chet Ram reveals that the said witnesses have stated that public persons were present near the place of incident. Thus, it is State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur not the case of the prosecution that no public person was present at or near the spot of recovery. However, it is equally true that no steps are shown to have been taken to note down the names and addresses of those persons. It is a well settled proposition of law that non-joining of public witness throws doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the CrPC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. However, no public person has been joined by the IO in the present case. In a case titled as Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi, 1990 SCC OnLine Del 469, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola.'' (Emphasis supplied)
13. In the present case also, non-joining of any public person as a witness creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Although, this Court is conscious of the fact that it is a well settled law that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as they keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, however, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur on the prosecution version but there are other circumstances too, as discussed in the later part of the judgment, which raise suspicion over the prosecution case.
14. Perusal of the record further reveals that there is a delay of about two months in sending the samples to the Excise Control Laboratory for examination. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled Rishi Dev @ Onkar Singh v State (Crl. A. No. 757/2000) decided on 01.05.2008 has observed that to prevent the possibility of tampering with the samples, it is desirable that the samples are sent to the CFSL at the earliest. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment runs as under:
"The sample that is kept in a police malkhana, under the seals of the police officers themselves, is still definitely under the control of those police officers. There is every possibility that the samples could be tampered and again re-sealed by the very same officers by again affixing their seals. It is to prevent this from happening that earlier the sample is sent for testing to the CFSL the better."
15. In the instant case, alleged recovery was made on 30.12.2015 yet the samples were sent to the Excise Control Laboratory for examination on 01.03.2016, i.e., after about two months. No explanation has been given by the IO for the said delay. The possibility of tampering with the samples cannot be ruled out especially keeping in mind the fact that the seal after use was not handed over to an independent witness and remained in the possession of police only. Thus, it creates a doubt on the prosecution version.
State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 19FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur
16.Perusal of the cross-examination of PW-2 Ct. Anu Yadav (the complainant), PW-3 SI Hazara Singh (the complainant) and PW-8 ASI Chet Ram (the IO) reveals that IO ASI Chet Ram had first prepared the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A of the case property as well as Form M-29 (Ex. PW-8/A) and after that rukka was prepared and sent to the police station for registration of FIR through PW-1 Ct. Nand Kumar and thereafter, present FIR was registered. It is, therefore, clear that the seizure memo of the illicit liquor as well as Form M-29 were prepared before the rukka was handed over to the police official for registration of the FIR. The FIR was thus, registered after the preparation of the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A of the illicit liquor as well as Form M-29 (Ex. PW-8/A), however, surprisingly, seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A and Form M-29 Ex. PW-8/A bear the FIR number and it is thus, amazing since the number of the FIR could have come to his knowledge (PW-8) only after a copy of the FIR was brought to the spot. Thus, the number of FIR in no circumstances could have been mentioned by the IO on seizure memo and Form M-29, which came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, as discussed above, the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A of the illicit liquor and Form M-29 (Ex. PW-8/A) bear the FIR number and case details. In this context, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in one of the case titled Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 290, has observed as under in paragraph 6:
State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 19FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur "... Learned counsel for the State concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex. PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa EX. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
17.In another case titled Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 859, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with an appeal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has also observed about the discrepancy, i.e., appearance of FIR number on seizure memo and other documents before registration of FIR and it runs as under:
"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under State v. Om Prakash Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In the present case also, it remains unexplained as to how the FIR No. and its details figure on the top of the documents, i.e., seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A as well as Form M-29 Ex. PW-8/A. This creates serious doubt on the prosecution version and alleged recovery of illicit liquor and it leads to only one conclusion that either the said documents were prepared later on or that the FIR was registered earlier in point of time. In both the aforesaid eventualities, a reasonable doubt has been raised on the version of the prosecution.
19. Thus, in light of the above discussion which throws doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 19 FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Sumit Kumar was in possession of 48 quarter bottles each of illicit liquor in three carton boxes and he was carrying the same on a scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SAN 7303 owned by accused Jyoti Rana without any license or permit. The accused Persons Sumit Kumar and Jyoti Rana is, therefore, acquitted of the offence u/s 33/38/58D Delhi Excise Act.
20. This judgment contains 19 pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
21. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY, i.e., ON 08.07.2023 Digitally signed
Deeksha by Deeksha Sethi
Sethi Date: 2023.07.08
14:54:53 +0530
Deeksha Sethi
Metropolitan Magistrate-03
South-West District/New Delhi
08.07.2023
State v/s Sumit Kumar & Anr. Page 19 of 19
FIR No.1727/2015 PS Bindapur