Delhi District Court
State vs . Amar Singh on 23 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETIKA KAPOOR, MM-11, SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR Number : 156/13
P.S. : Janakpuri
U/s : 279/337 IPC
STATE VS. AMAR SINGH
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 9887/19
b) Name & address of the Complainant : W.Ct. Chander Kanta
No. 115/W, Janakpuri
c) Name & address of accused : Amar Singh S/o Baryan
Singh
R/o (A) UG-1/83, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi
Permanent address: VPO
Lakha, Tehsil Jagraon,
District Ludhiana, Punjab
d) Date of Commission of offfence : 11.05.2013
e) Offence complained of : 279/304-A IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquittal
Date of registration of FIR : 11.05.2013
Final arguments heard on : 30.06.2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 23.07.2022
FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 1 / 17
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Amar Singh is facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) in connection with the case FIR No. 156/13 registered at P.S. Janak Puri.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.05.2013, at around 2.00 PM near Bharti Mahila College, Main Road, Janakpuri, accused Amar Singh was driving a vehicle (Bus) bearing registration no. DL 1PB 0614 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and while driving so hit a bicycle causing death of rider Dev Krishan Manjhi who was shifted to DDU hospital for treatment and thereafter, present FIR u/s 279/337 IPC was registered against accused and IO ASI Rajbir Singh was appointed as the Investigating Officer of the case.
3. During investigation, IO inspected the site of the incident and having inspected it, prepared a site plan thereof. During investigation, IO formally impounded the vehicle of the accused bearing registration No. DL 1PB 0614 along with documents and got the vehicle mechanically examined by the motor mechanic and obtained necessary report in this regard. The injured was subjected to medical legal opinion (MLC) and report no. 11732/2013 was obtained. During the course of treatment, the injured succumbed to his injuries on 11.05.2013 at 3.20 PM and post mortem report Ex. PW6/A was prepared and thereafter Section 304A IPC was added. During investigation, the photographs of the spot and the afore-mentioned vehicle were taken and the statements of the witnesses were recorded and based on the material collected, accused Amar Singh was found responsible for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, case file was handed over by the IO to SHO of FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 2 / 17 Police Station Janak Puri who after following the codal formalities, prepared and filed the instant challan against the accused.
4. On finding sufficient material on record against accused Amar Singh he was summoned before this court and on his appearance, copies of the challan and other documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as Cr.P.C).
5. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused under Sections 279 and 304A of I.P.C., notice of accusation was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defense to make.
6. Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 11 witnesses. PW-1 ASI Babu Ram proved the formal FIR which is Ex. PW1/A alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW1/B. PW-2 Mandeep Singh proved the superdarinama Ex. PW2/B and SPA executed in his favour by registered owner Baljeet Kaur which is Ex. PW2/A and correctly identified the offending vehicle from the photographs which are Ex. P1 to P5. PW-3 Ct. Virender Singh proved the seizure memos of the offending bus which is Ex. PW3/A and the bicycle of the deceased which is Ex. PW3/B alongwith supporting documents which are Ex. PW3/C, Ex. PW3/D and Ex. PW3/E respectively. He also proved arrest memo Ex. PW3/G and personal search memo of accused Ex. PW3/H. PW-4 HC Chander Kanta is the complainant and the sole eye witness to the case. PW-5 Ct. Bal Kishan proved DD No. 69B which is Ex. PW5/A. PW-6 Dr. Komal Singh proved post-mortem report Ex. PW6/A. PW-7 Devender Kumar, retired ASI proved mechanical expert report Ex. PW7/A. PW-8 Ct. Yudhveer had accompanied the IO during investigation. PW-9 Dr. Babita and PW-10 Dr. Deepshikha proved MLC no. 11732 of the deceased which is Ex. PW/A. PW-11 SI Rajvir is the investigating officer of the case.
FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 3 / 17
7. On the completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein the accused denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that the accident had already taken place by the time he had reached the spot and he had informed the police officials that the accident was not done by him. He further stated that certain CRPF women were present in the bus who had also informed the police officials that no accident had taken place from the bus but despite that police apprehended him from the spot. The accused preferred not to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Ld. APP for State and Sh. Ms. Sunila Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel and have gone through the records carefully.
9. It is argued by the ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She has argued that the eye-witness to the incident has categorically deposed about the rash and negligent manner in which the accused was driving the offending vehicle. The factum of incident is proved. Further, the other evidence on record has corroborated the version of the eye-witness. She contends that the medical record etc. has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
10. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel has argued that the incident occurred near a college, yet the police did not join any independent witness. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offences.
FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 4 / 17
11. On the basis of evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 11.05.2013, at around 2.00 PM near Bharti Mahila College, Main Road, Janakpuri, accused Amar Singh was driving a vehicle (Bus) bearing registration no. DL 1PB 0614 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and while driving so hit a bicycle causing death of rider Dev Krishan Manjhi by such an act not amounting to culpable homicide as alleged?
2. Final order.
12. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the reasons for my findings, my findings on the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No. 1: No Final order: The accused Amar Singh is acquitted as per the operative part of the judgment.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS POINT NO. 1
13. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 279 and 304-A IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Section 279 IPC is reproduced herein below:
Section 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way:
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 5 / 17 or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
14. From bare reading of this provision, the three essential ingredi- ents which constitute the offence of rash driving on a public way are as follows:
1. Person must be driving or riding on a public way.
2. He must be driving in a rash and negligent manner.
3. He must be driving in a manner likely to endanger human life or personal safety of any person.
Section 304-A IPC is reproduced herein below:
"Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homi- cide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de- scription for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
15. Perusal of these provisions makes it clear that offence under section 279 and 304-A IPC will be made out when death is a direct consequence of a rash or negligent act. Rashness conveys the idea of recklessness or doing an act without due consideration whereas negligence connotes want of proper care. A rash act implies an act done by a person with recklessness or with indifference to its consequences, the doer being conscious of the mischievous or illegal consequences does the act knowing that his act may bring some undesirable or illegal results but without hoping or intending them to occur. A negligent act, on the other hand, refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences.
16. Reference may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled "Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs. FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 6 / 17 State of Andhra Pradesh (decided on 28.07.2000)" , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed in detail the constituents of a "rash or negligent act" and observed:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
17. Further, in the case of "Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 406", while discussing the legal position with respect to an offence u/s 279/304A, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, interalia observed the following:
"Obviously the foundation in accusations under Section 279 IPC is not negligence. Similarly, in Section 304A the stress is on causing death by negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in application of either Section 279 or 304A it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was involved."
FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 7 / 17
18. Therefore, indifference to the consequences of one's act or absence of reasonable care and precaution is the most important ingredient constituting rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting rash or negligent act is immaterial and what is important is that he has not taken due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences. Further, it should be noted that there should be direct nexus between the act or rashness or negligence and hurt/grievous hurt/death, as the case may be, suffered by the victim.
19. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Abdul Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562" discussed the ingredients which need to be established by the prosecution for convicting an accused u/s 279/304-A IPC and held the following:
"...the essential ingredients of section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As regards the offence punishable under section 304A IPC, it was observed that the point to be established is that the act of the accused was responsible for the death and that such act of the accused must have been rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide."
20. In order to prove the offence under section 279 IPC, the prosecution must establish at first, the identity of the accused that is, the fact that accused was driving the aforementioned vehicle at the time of accident. Secondly, the rashness or negligence on the part of accused in driving the said vehicle.
FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 8 / 17 Lastly, in order to prove an offence under Section 304-A of IPC, over and above the aforementioned facts, the death of the injured must also be proved to have been caused in the manner suggested by the prosecution.
21. In the instant case, the fact that the accused was driving the vehicle/ BUS bearing registration No. DL 1PB 0614 has not been disputed by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thus, it is not in dispute that accused Amar Singh was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
22. In order to prove rashness and negligence on the part of the accused, the prosecution has examined, PW4 HC Chander Kanta who being the sole eye witness is a material witness to the case.
23. PW-4 HC Chander Kanta stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 11.05.2013, she was posted at PS Janakpuri and was on duty from 9.00 AM to 4.00 PM at Bharti College, Main Gate at about 1.30-2.00 PM, when she saw a person coming on a cycle from the side of Hari Nagar and going towards Uttam Nagar and one private bus bearing no. DL 1PB 0614 (white in colour) behind the cycle coming at a normal speed. The witness saw the bus hitting the cycle and running over the cyclist. She further deposed that she had gotten down the driver of the bus. Witness called Ct. Virender and Ct. Yudhveer and sent the injured to the hospital in an auto with them. At around 2.30 PM, Ct. Virender and Ct. Yudhveer came back to the spot from the hospital. IO also came to the spot and recorded the statement of witness which is Ex. PW4/A and seized the offending vehicle and bicycle alongwith the supporting documents vide seizure memos Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW3/F. Site plan was prepared by IO at her instance which is Ex. PW4/B. IO had also seized a black coloured bag of the cyclist which is Mark-A. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/G and Ex. PW4/H. Witness correctly identified the FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 9 / 17 offending vehicle from the photographs which are Ex. P-1 to P-6 colly. Witness also correctly identified the accused in the court. However, the witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and was cross examined.
23.1 In her cross-examination, witness admitted that the bus driver was driving the bus in a high speed and in a zigzag manner. She further deposed that the accused had not given any indicator while changing the lane. She admitted that no departure entry was recorded by her before leaving the PS on the day of alleged incident. She further deposed that around 8-10 women officials of CRPF were present in the offending bus at the time of the incident but no statement was recorded in her presence. She further deposed that there was blood on the tyres of the offending vehicles and that she had informed the IO about the same. No public witnesses were present at the spot. She denied the suggestion that the cyclist was already dead and the bus driver had merely stopped at the red light and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further deposed that IO had lifted blood stains in her presence.
24. It is a settled proportion of law that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated effaced or washed of the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable upon a careful scrutiny. Therefore, it has to be seen, if the evidence of such hostile witness can be relied in part. The perusal of the testimony of this witness shows inconsistencies and contradiction in her version. PW4 in her testimony, although has identified the accused but has clearly stated at one point that accused was driving the bus at a normal speed and it is only during her cross-examination, admitted that bus driver was driving the bus in a high speed and in zigzag manner. The witness has merely stated that the offending vehicle came from behind and hit the bicycle. It is a settled position of law that evidence of high speed simplicitor is not ipso facto proof of FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 10 / 17 rashness or negligence. High speed cannot be criteria to prove guilt of accused, if any u/s 279/337 IPC and it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the act of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused so as to endanger the human life. Reliance can be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "State of Karnataka vs. Satish ((1998) 8 SCC 493)" wherein the Apex Court observed:
"merely because the truck was being driven at a high speed does not bespeak of either "negligence or rashness" by itself. None of the witness examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". High speed is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by high speed in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing 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. There is no statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on record, no presumption of rashness or negligence could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur".
25. Moreover, the above observation has also been made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Kishore Chand Joshi vs. State CRL.REV.P. 627/2016", the Court observed:
"A witness can depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driver but not render an opinion on rash and negligent". High speed by itself may FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 11 / 17 not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or negligent. Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness of negligence on the part of the driver."
26. Similar ratio has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Abdul Subhan (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Court held the following:
"....The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it more than clear that a mere allegation of high speed would not tantamount to rashness or negligence. In the present case also, I find that apart from the allegations that the truck was being driven at a very high speed there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner acted in a manner which could be regarded as rash or negligent."
It is thus, clear that an inference of act of rashness or negligence cannot be drawn from a simple testimony of the PW4 that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Specific evidence has to be led by the prosecution in order to prove the same.
27. In order to corroborate the testimony of PW-4, the prosecution has examined PW-3 Ct. Virender Singh who stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 11.05.2013, he was on patrolling duty in beat no. 9 with Ct. Yudhveer and at around 2.00 PM reached red light of Bharti Mahila College, and found that one person was crushed under the wheels of the bus. The offending bus was present at the spot alongwith the driver. One lady Ct. Chander Kanta was also present at the spot and custody of accused and the offending bus was handed over to her. Witnesses alongwith Ct. Yudhveer shifted the injured to DDU hospital. Witness further proved the seizure memo Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/F alongwith arrest memo Ex. PW3/G and personal search of accused Ex. PW3/H. Witness correctly identified the accused.
FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 12 / 17
27.1 In his cross-examination, witness stated that he had not seen
any passenger in the bus as he was busy in shifting the injured to DDU hospital. Witness failed to remember the exact time when he had reached the spot. Witness denied the suggestion that he had never visited the spot and all proceedings were conducted by IO in the police station.
28. Prosecution also relied upon the testimony of PW8 Ct. Yudhveer who stepped into the witness box and stated that on the date of incident he alongwith Ct. Virender reached the spot and found one private bus and bicycle in an accidental condition. PW4 Chander Kanta was holding the driver of the bus. Injured was shifted to DDU hospital in an auto. Witness correctly identified the witness in the court.
28.1 In his cross-examination, he admitted to not have seen the accident. He further stated that statement of eye witnesses were not recorded in his presence. He further deposed to not know whether any skid marks or blood samples were collected from the spot. No public persons were requested by IO to join the investigation. Site plan was not prepared at his instance.
29. The testimonies of these witnesses i.e. PW3 and PW8 also does not prove the fact that accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. As such, their testimonies as to the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused cannot be relied upon as they clearly stated to have reached the spot after the alleged accident had taken place and to have not seen the accused driving the offending vehicle at the time of alleged incident.
30. Further the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW-11 SI Rajveer Singh who stepped into the witness box and supported the case of the prosecution and deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He deposed FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 13 / 17 that on 11.05.2013, he received information regarding the alleged incident vide DD no. 23A and reached the spot where he found one black coloured cycle and bus in an accidental condition. PW4 had apprehended the accused at the spot. IO also went to the hospital with injured and obtained MLC of injured who was declared unfit for statement. He returned to the spot and prepared tehrir Ex. PW11/A. During this time, Ct. Virender also reached the spot who informed him about the death of the injured. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered and offending vehicle alongwith supportive documents were seized by IO. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. The black polythene of the injured was handed over to his son by handing over memo Ex. PW11/B. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted on the next day and post mortem report was prepared. Mechanical inspection of offending vehicle was also done and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court.
30.1 In his cross-examination, he deposed that the spot of the incident was in front of main gate of Bharti College and denied the suggestion that the entrance gate for the students was a small gate at a back and not the main gate where the accident had taken place. He denied the suggestion that CCTV cameras were installed at the spot but voluntarily stated that the same were not working. He admitted that he had not mentioned the location of the red light in the site plan but voluntarily stated to have shown the direction showing movement of the vehicle in the site plan which clearly shows the vacant space in between the directions at red light. He denied the suggestion that the spot was at a distance of 5-7 square feet from Bharti College. He also denied the suggestion that spot is at a distance of 100 feet from Bharti College or that the person sitting at the gate of Bharti College cannot have witnessed the incident. He further deposed that the duty record of PW- 4 Chander Kanta was not made a part of record. The arrival entry of PW4 in PS was also not placed on record. The duty record of Ct. Yudhveer and Ct. Virender has also been not placed on record. No photographs of the spot were clicked during investigation or when he first reached the spot. No blood samples were FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 14 / 17 collected from the injured from the spot. He admitted that when a vehicle in high speed is stopped at a sudden, certain skid marks are made on the ground but voluntarily deposed that offending bus was not in a high speed as it was near a red light and as such no skid marks were involved. The bus was stopped by the driver immediately after knowing that the cyclist had come under the wheels of the bus. He further deposed to not remember whether the blood stains of the cyclist or the injured were placed on record. No photographs of the blood stains were taken from the ground. He did not call any CRPF personnel to verify whether the accident had taken place from the offending vehicle to which he voluntarily deposed that the bus was seized from the spot after it was found in an accidental condition. He denied the suggestion that entire investigation was done at PS.
31. However, perusal of the testimony of this witness reveals that he was also not an eye witness to the accident. The witness had reached the spot after the accident had taken place and had registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The witness could not explain in detail the act of rashness and negligent on the part of the accused. He did not even state the accused to be driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, even the testimony of PW-11 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, testimony of PW-11 casts a shadow of doubt on testimony of PW4 who deposed that accused was driving the bus in high speed which has been denied by PW-11. PW4 in her testimony, had deposed that blood was present on the tyre of offending vehicle and blood samples were collected by the IO which has been outrightly denied by IO/PW11. Moreover, no photographs showing skid marks made by the bus which had stopped all of sudden due to the accident have been taken and made part of the record. Although the post mortem report, states that imprint of tyre mark abrasions are placed over the outer surface of the right thigh of the deceased but nothing has been brought on record to show that the tyre marks were of the tyres of the offending bus or of the bicycle that was being driven by the deceased at the time of alleged accident or to link the injuries FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 15 / 17 on the person of deceased with the rash and negligent act of the accused.
32. Although the mechanical inspection of the Bus was conducted which indicates that the vehicle was involved in the accident but the same is not sufficient to prove the act of rash or negligent driving of the accused. Although the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW7/A states that damage was found on the front body, left side corner but the same is not sufficient to prove the factum of rashness or negligence on the part of accused/driver as admittedly no blood stains were found on the wheels of the bus and no skid marks were found on the road. Moreover, site plan Ex. PW4/B prepared by the IO is not sufficient to prove the act of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. While it shows the location of the accident which is undisputed, it could not be inferred that the offending vehicle was either being driven in a high speed or that accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the accused.
33. There is no other witness to establish the guilt of the accused. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the act of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused in the present case and, therefore, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that accused Amar Singh was driving the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 0614 in a rash or negligent manner at the time of accident and had hit a bicycle causing the death of the rider Dev Krishan Manjhi. Testimony of eyewitnesses does not completely support the prosecution story and testimonies of the rest of the witnesses are not sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Thus, this point is answered in the negative and is decided against the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER:
34. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, since the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for commission of offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 16 / 17 accused Amar Singh is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.
35. Personal bonds/surety bonds stands cancelled. Endorsement, if any is also cancelled. Sureties stand discharged. Superdarinama, if any stands cancelled. Original documents, if any be returned to the rightful claimant against proper receipt as per rules.
36. The accused has already furnished personal and surety bonds as per the mandate of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has undertaken that he shall put in his appearance before the appellate court within the prescribed period in case an appeal is filed and admitted for hearing. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced and signed in the open court on 23rd day of July, 2022.
Digitally NEETIKA signed by KAPOOR NEETIKA KAPOOR (Neetika Kapoor) MM-11/DWARKA/DELHI 23.07.2022 It is certified that this judgment contains 17 pages, and each page bears my signature.
FIR No. 156/13 State vs. Amar Singh 17 / 17