Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Iqbal on 22 April, 2013
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC - 2 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. :01/12
UID No. : 02401R0619652010
State versus 1) Iqbal
S/o Ahmad Hussain
R/o Village Jafar Hussain Pur
PS Shivalan Kalan Distt. Bijnaur
Uttar Pradesh
2) Ahmad Hussain @ Kalwa
@ Chand
S/o Latif
R/o Village Jafar Hussain Pur
PS Shivalan Kalan Distt. Bijnaur
Uttar Pradesh
3) Pappu
S/o Latif
R/o Village Jafar Hussain Pur
PS Shivalan Kalan Distt. Bijnaur
Uttar Pradesh
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 60/2010
Police Station : Prasad Nagar
Under Section : 328/376/384/506/34 IPC
Judgment reserved on : 05.04.2013
Judgment pronounced on : 22.04.2013
JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. The Complainant/Prosecutrix 'S' [name withheld to protect the identity of the Prosecutrix] aged about 22 years filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC dated 15.6.09 in the court of Ld. Magistrate praying for registration of FIR and investigation.
Complainant alleged that Accused Iqbal used to run a barbar shop in her vicinity. On 24.3.09 he allured and induced her and took her at H. No. 16/1480, EBapa Nagar, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Complainant further alleged that Accused Iqbal put a knife on her neck and forced her to marry him and threatened her if she refused to marry, he would kill her brother. He also told her that he liked her very much. She alleged that under the fear and in order to save the life of her brother, she affixed her signature and thumb impressions on some typed papers which were in Urdu on which her photograph and photograph of Accused Iqbal were affixed. She was also forced to put her signatures on some blank papers and affidavits and at the same night Accused Iqbal had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She alleged that while committing the said act, Accused threatened her not to disclose regarding the incident or otherwise, he would kill her brother. Accused Iqbal kept her 34 days under illegal detention in a room and continuously sexually assaulted her without her consent and on 27.3.09, Accused Iqbal left her near her house while threatening not to disclose regarding the incident to any of the agency or family members.
Complainant 'S' also alleged that on 09.4.09 while she was going to the market for purchasing some household goods, Accused Iqbal and his uncle Pappu caught her and forcibly took her in a Maruti car to their house. The window panes of the car were black and closed and two persons namely Ahmed Hussain, father of the Accused Iqbal and one driver were already sitting inside the car. She alleged that they took her to the village Shivala Kalan where they illegally detained her in a room and offered a cup of tea with some intoxicating substance mixed into it and after consuming the same, she became drowsy. She alleged that all the family members of Accused Iqbal kept her in a room and Accused Iqbal had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She was beaten mercilessly by Accused Iqbal and he directed her to live there being his wife.
Complainant 'S' further alleged that on 24.4.09 Accused Iqbal and his uncle Pappu took her to Bijnaur court and while taking her to the court, she was forced to wear Burqa and threatened not to disclose the matter to anybody and due to fear she did not disclose that matter to anybody. She stated that after reaching in a court, they contacted a lawyer and forced her to put signatures on some application and papers and when they were returning to the bus stand, she found her brother and other family members all of a sudden and on seeing them, she started crying and they left her and ran away. Thereafter, she accompanied her family members and started residing with them and did not disclose the matter to the police.
Prosecutrix 'S' further alleged that on 27.5.09 at about 10 AM, Accused Iqbal along with his uncle Pappu entered forcibly into the residence of her brother at D7, C.T. I. Govt. Quarter, Raja Garden, New Delhi and started pulling her and abusing her. They directed her to accompany them quietly and when her brother tried to intervene, they humiliated him by calling him 'Chamar Chura' and also started beating him but due to hue and cry, they left the place while threatening her with dire consequences.
Prosecutrix alleged that now Accsused Iqbal and his uncle Pappu are blackmailing and threatening her for disclosing these facts to some known persons. The complaint is Ex. PW1/A. Vide order dated 10.12.09 passed by the Ld. MM/Delhi, a case under Section 328/376/384/506/34 IPC was directed to be registered on the complaint of 'S' and investigation was handed over to Insp. Joginder Singh.
During the course of investigation, Prosecutrix was got medically examined vide MLC no. 844 dated 22.4.10. No exhibits were preserved by the doctor due to long delay in medical examination after incident. However, the doctor has opined as Hymen Torn "Old".
Statement of Prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 CrPC as well as under Section 164 CrPC during the investigation of the case. Statements of witnesses were also got recorded. It was revealed during investigation that after releasing from the custody of Accused persons, Prosecutrix lodged a complaint with Bijnaur Police on which a case FIR No. 1383/09 dated 26.4.09 under Section 294 IPC was registered at PS Kotwali, Bijnaur. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed in court.
Charges On the basis of material on record, all Accused persons were charged for offence punishable under Section 366/506/34 IPC while Accused Iqbal was separately charged for offence 328/376 IPC vide order dated 17.1.12. All Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial when the charges were read over and explained to them.
Prosecution Evidence Prosecutrix/Complainant 'S' was examined as PW1. In her examination in chief, she more or less reiterated the contents of her complaint which was exhibited by her Ex. PW1/A. She also correctly identified all the Accused persons. She further deposed that after registration of the case on her complaint Ex. PW1/A, she was got medically examined at LHMC for which she gave her consent which is Ex. PW1/B on MLC Ex. PW3/A. She also deposed that she was examined under Section 164 CrPC by the concerned MM. Her said statement is Ex. PW1/C bearing her signatures on each page at points A. PW2 is HC Jagdish Prasad who was posted as Duty Officer on 21.4.10 and who registered FIR of the present case, copy of which is Ex. PW2/A. In order to prove the factum of recording of statement of the Prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC, Prosecution examined Sh. Siddharth Mathur, Ld. MM/Delhi who recorded statement of the Prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC which is Ex. PW1/C. The medical examination of the Prosecutrix was conducted by PW3 Dr. Meenakshi vide MLC Ex. PW3/A. Apart from the said witnesses, Prosecution also relied upon the testimony of PW5 Sunil Kumar. He deposed that Prosecutrix is daughter of his uncle and is living near his house along with her mother. On 24.3.09 he received a phone call of mother of the Prosecutrix informing that Prosecutrix has gone somewhere. He further deposed that he tried to trace the Prosecutrix but she was not found. On 27.3.09 the Prosecutrix 'S' returned on her own. He further disclosed that she appeared to be afraid.
PW5 also deposed that on 09.4.09 she was again found missing and could not be traced despite efforts. On 25.4.09 an information was received from PS Prasad Nagar through ASI Kiran about presence of Prosecutrix 'S' in Bijnaur. He deposed that on receipt of this information, he along with his father and Raj Kumar, owner of the shop of the Accused persons went to Bijnaur. While they were going to Bijnaur, Kotwali on foot and reached near Choraha, they heard the voice of the Prosecutrix who was with the Accused persons. PW5 correctly identified all the Accused persons and deposed that when they proceeded towards Prosecutrix, all the three Accused persons fled away from the spot. On an inquiry, Prosecutrix 'S' informed them that she was confined by the Accused persons in house at village Shivala Kalan. He further deposed that after sometime, Accused Iqbal returned to the spot and they caught hold of him and took him to Bijnaur, Kotwali and got registered a complaint against him. Thereafter, they brought the Prosecutrix to their house on the same night. He further deposed that on 27.5.09 all three Accused persons came to his house and at that time only his wife and Prosecutrix were present at the house and he had gone for his work. He deposed that he was told by his wife about the incident that Accused Iqbal tried to pull the hand of Prosecutrix 'S' and also used abusive language against her and his wife. He further deposed that Prosecutrix used to keep unwell and she lodged a complaint at PS Prasad Nagar after she recovered ie. after about 11/2 months.
Prosecution also relied upon the testimony of PW6 Raj Kumar who as per the case of the Prosecution brought the Prosecutrix 'S' back from Bijnaur along with PW5 on 26.4.09.
Insp. Joginder Singh, IO of the case was examined as PW7. He deposed regarding investigation conducted by him pursuant to the registration of FIR on 21.4.10.
It is necessary to mention at this juncture that during the course of proceedings, at the request of Prosecution PW Raj Kumar, father of PW5 Sunil Kumar was dropped vide order dated 08.1.13. Further, vide order dated 13.2.13, it was submitted that Prosecution does not wish to examine PW ASI Kiran Sethi, who got the Prosecutrix medically examined and got her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as this fact was not disputed by the Defence. Accordingly, this witness was also dropped. Further, MHCR from PS Kotwali was also ordered to be dropped since the FIR bearing No. 1383/09 PS Kotwali, Bijnaur was also exhibited as Ex. PW6/DA.
Plea of the Accused The evidence on record was put to the Accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Though Accused Iqbal admitted that Prosecutrix was residing at H. No. 16/1505, E Bapa Nagar, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh during the period MarchApril, 2009 which was in front of shop of PW6 Raj Kumar. Accused, however, denied allegations against him and pleaded innocence claiming that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also stated that he was running a Saloon opposite to the house of Prosecutrix and used to frequently visit her house and knew her since childhood. He stated that he and Prosecutrix were in love and Prosecutrix used to call him and they also used to exchange love letters. He stated that Prosecutrix wanted to elope from her house with him in order to marry him as they belong to different religions as the marriage would not have been accepted by her family. He stated that she withdrew Rs. 6000/ from the bank account of her mother on 24.3.09 and they came to Tis Hazari Court where they got prepared their affidavits for the purpose of marriage and Prosecutrix voluntarily converted to Islaam and they got married on the same day. He stated that Prosecutrix accompanied him to Khanpur, Delhi and lived there along with him like husband and wife.
Accused Iqbal further pleaded that on 27.3.09 mother, brothers and jija of Prosecutrix came to their house and took her along with them by saying that they would solemnize proper marriage of Prosecutrix with him. On 09.4.09 Prosecutrix left her house on her own and came to me. They went to Karkardooma Court and met their lawyer and made complaint against family members of Prosecutrix who were harassing her. Thereafter, Prosecutrix accompanied him to his house at his native village Bijnaur, UP and voluntarily resided there.
Accused Iqbal further pleaded that on 24.4.09 the Prosecutrix made a complaint before the court of CJM, Bijnaur against her brother as her brother was causing hindrance in the matrimonial life of the Prosecutrix and to this regard Prosecutrix also deposed before the court. Thereafter, police took them to PS Kotwali City and they were kept in the PS for about 03 days as somebody made a false complaint that he took Prosecutrix to Bijnaur without her consent. Thereafter, parents of the Prosecutrix reached at PS Kotwali and with the intervention of the local political persons of Bajrang Dal, they were released from the PS. He pleaded that parents of the Prosecutrix again promised him that they will get the marriage solemnized as per customs and rites but brother of Prosecutrix Sunil implicated him in a false case. Thereafter, they came to Delhi and later he along with his father and uncle received summons from Delhi court about the present case.
Accused Pappu and Ahmed Hussain in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC pleaded innocence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated.
Argumnets, Analysis and Findings All three Accused persons refused to lead any evidence in their defence.
I have heard arguments of Defence as well as Prosecution in the light of the evidence on record and considered the relevant case law cited before me in support of respective arguments.
While on the one hand the Prosecution argued that the testimony of rape victim needs no corroboration and conviction of the Accused can be based upon her sole testimony, if it is found worthy of trust, on the other hand, Defence contended that testimony of the Prosecutrix in the present case is not such, which would make her story trustworthy and the Accused is entitled to be acquitted. Ld. APP relied upon following judgments in support of his arguments that testimony of the Prosecutrix in the present case is sufficient to convict the Accused for the charges for which is he facing trial: Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs State of Gujarat AIR 1983 Supreme Court 753 (1) wherein it has been held that "Corroboration is not the sina qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society." It has been further held that "Overmuch importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilitiesfactor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses."
On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs State of (NCT) of Delhi 2009 [4] JCC 2809 wherein it is held that "It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the Prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter."
The testimony of the Prosecutrix must now, therefore, be analyised to assess as to whether her deposition is such which would prove the case of the Prosecution beyond the realm of reasonable doubt or not. I may at this juncture refer to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Krishan Kumar Malik Vs State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 wherein it has been held that "Solitary evidence of Prosecutrix is sufficient, provided same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality but herein evidence of Prosecutrix shows several lacunae and does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold Accused guilty of rape."
It is borne out from the chargesheet based on the complaint lodged by Prosecutrix 'S' wherein it is alleged on 24.3.09 Accused allured and induced her and took her to H. No. 16/1480, EBapa Nagar, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. Accused Iqbal put knife on her neck and forced her to marry him under threat to kill her brother, if she refused for the marriage. She has alleged in the complaint that she was forced to affix her signatures and thumb impression on some typed urdu paper upon which photograph of Prosecutrix and Accused were affixed. Due to the said threats extended by the Accused, she has also alleged that she was forced to put her signatures on some blank papers and affidavits by Accused Iqbal. She also alleged that Accused Iqbal sexually assaulted her and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent on the same night while threatening not to disclose anything regarding incident to anyone, otherwise, he would kill her brother. She further alleged that she was kept by the Accused in a room for 34 days where she was repeatedly raped and on 27.3.09 Accused left her near her house with the threat not to disclose regarding the incident to any of the agency or family members.
The next allegation against the Accused as per the case of the Prosecution is that all the Accused persons forcibly abducted her on 09.4.09 while she was going to the market and took her to village Shivala Kalan where she was illegally detained and was also made to consume tea laced with some intoxicating substance and that Accused Iqbal again committed rape upon her. She further alleged that on 24.4.09 Accused persons took her to Bijnaur Court where she was forced to wear Burqa and threatened not to disclose the matter to anybody. She was forced to sign on some application and papers while coming from court, she found her family members were coming towards them and was brought back by her family members. However, on 27.5.09, Accused along with his uncle Pappu again forcibly entered in the house of her brother and started abusing her.
The testimony of the Prosecutrix PW1, however, reveals a totally different tale. On going through the same, I am unable to hold the Accused guilty of the alleged offences. The Prosecutrix, in my view, by her deposition before the court demolished the case of the Prosecution and her deposition, in these circumstances, cannot be relied upon to convict the Accused. The reasons for the same can be enumerated as under:
(a) In her crossexamination, the Prosecutrix PW1 admitted knowing Accused Iqbal since her childhood. She also admitted that she was having a bank account at Punjab National Bank along with her mother and she withdrew Rs. 6000/ from her bank account on 24.3.09. Although, the witness further voluntarily stated that her mother had asked her to withdraw the said amount, this fact is not substantiated by any evidence, whatsoever.
(b) PW1 further admitted that love letters Ex. PW1/DE (collectively) [running into 21 pages] are in her handwriting.
(c) PW1 'S' further admitted her signatures on the extract of register of Oath Commission which is Ex. PW1/DE. Though she deposed that her signatures were forcibly obtained by Accused Iqbal on the said documents. The witness on being further crossexamined, admitted that when she was present at Bijnaur Court, where several other persons were also present. She also admitted her signatures on complaint dated 24.4.09 Ex. PW1/G and her photograph on the said complaint. A perusal of complaint Ex. PW1/DG would reveal that said complaint has been made by the Prosecutrix herself addressed to ACJM, Bijnaur alleging that she has married Accused Iqbal voluntarily on 24.3.09 and that her brother Sumit has been opposing the same and also gave her beatings on 22.4.09. A perusal of her statement Ex. PW1/DH would also reveal that she made allegations of beatings given to her by her brother Sumit before the court of Ld. CJM, Bijnaur.
(d) Though in her crossexamination she stated that she did not know who had written statement Ex. PW1/DH and that her signatures had been forcibly obtained on the same, the said stand of the Prosecutrix does not seem believable upon going through her testimony in its totality. In her crossexamination, Prosecutrix had categorically deposed that she did not make any complaint before any authority either at Bijnaur or at Delhi regarding her signatures having been forcibly obtained on complaint Ex. PW1/DG or on her statement Ex. PW1/DH. She further admitted that she did not make any complaint to Bijnaur Police regarding her illegal confinement by the Accused. She also admitted that neither her uncle nor her brother had made any complaint at Bijnaur against her illegal confinement or rape by the Accused.
(e) During the course of arguments, it was pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel that the Prosecutrix also admitted that she had appeared before Honble Allahabad High Court wherein she had filed Habeas Corpus petition along with Accused Iqbal against police officials of Bijnaur and her brothers Sumit and Sunil S/o Raj Kumar. Though said writ petition was not exhibited during the course of trial, however, Prosecutrix in her crossexamination admitted that she had appeared before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. She deposed that she handed over one application containing the factum of illegal confinement and rape by Accused upon her. She further deposed that Hon'ble Judge of Allahabad High Court read it and returned the same to her. This piece of testimony of the Prosecutrix is certainly nothing more than a figment of her imagination and it is certainly unbelievable that Hon'ble Judge of Allahabad High Court would return her application simply after reading it, as deposed by her before the court.
(f) It is also noteworthy that in her crossexamination Prosecutrix admitted that her mother disowned her on 27.4.09 by way of publication in newspaper, the clipping of which is Ex. PW1/DJ. It was contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that mother of the Prosecutrix had disowned her on 27.3.09 pursuant to her marriage with the Accused on 24.3.09.
(g) Prosecutrix PW1 herself had not disputed that her photograph and signatures appear on the Nikahnama Ex. PW1/DK. The contention of the Prosecutrix that she was forced to append her thumb impression or sign the aforesaid document, in my opinion, cannot be accepted. Her deposition that she was under threat that all Accused persons would kill her brother also does not seem believable. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the Prosecution that Accused persons had any access to the brother of the Prosecutrix or that they could by any means cause any harm to him or that Prosecutrix had any reason to be under any threat, as deposed by her.
For the reasons enumerated above, I am thus of the considered opinion that the story as sought to be put forth by the Prosecutrix is totally improbable, unbelievable, and cannot be said to be worthy of credit.
Besides the testimony of PW1, I find several other grounds to disbelieve the case of the Prosecution. They are as under:
(a) The falsity of the testimony of Prosecutrix is also writ large upon a careful perusal of the crossexamination of IO PW7 Insp. Joginder Singh. In his crossexamination, IO admitted that he had issued a notice under Section 91 CrPC to Sh. Roshan Lal, Adv (Oath Commissioner). The notice is Ex. PW7/DA and the reply to the said notice is Ex. PW7/DB. On going through the said document, it is apparent that Oath Commissioner submitted to the Investigating Officer that on 24.3.09, Iqbal and Prosecutrix 'S' came to his seat for attestation of three affidavits regarding marriage and one affidavit for conversion. He had also stated before attesting their affidavit, he had asked them whether they understand the contents of the affidavits and they admitted that they are signing the said documents after fully understanding the contents thereof. He has also mentioned in his said reply Ex. PW7/DB that said persons also affixed their photographs and put thumb impression and signatures on the said register as well as in the affidavits.
(b) Similarly, IO admitted that during the course of investigation, he had interrogated Maulana Qazi Riazuddin Amini and seized marriage documents of Accused Iqbal and Prosecutrix 'S' while seizure memo Ex. PW7/C. Interestingly, even Maulana Qazi Riazuddin Amini was not even cited as a witness by the Prosecution.
(c) IO PW7 also admitted that it is mentioned in the chargesheet (report under Section 173 CrPC Ex. PW7/DB) at point A to A that during the course of investigation Nikahnama was got verified and found to be true. It was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that as per chargesheet Accused persons were not arrested during investigation and chargesheet without arrest was submitted due to the foregoing reasons.
(d) From the deposition of IO PW7 it has also been reflected that vide DD No. 4A dated 25.3.09 Ex. PW7/A the mother of the Prosecutrix lodged report about the missing of the Prosecutrix 'S'. However, as admitted by the IO in his crossexamination, on 28.3.09, Ganga Devi, mother of the Prosecutrix informed vide DD No. 25A Ex. PW7/DE that her daughter Prosecutrix had returned home and that she was at the house of her friend and no further action be taken on the missing report.
From the said deposition of the IO PW7, it is crystal clear that Defence has been able to demolish the case of the Prosecution completely. The Defence raised by the Accused has been established on record from the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses itself. The plea of the Accused that he got married to the Prosecutrix on 24.3.09 stands proved from the Nikahnama Ex. PW7/DC. IO PW7 has also stated that he verified and found the Nikahnama to be correct. He has also stated that as per Oath Commissioner to whom notice Ex. PW7/DA was issued, Accused Iqbal and the Prosecutrix had signed their affidavits for marriage and conversion of the Prosecutrix to Islam voluntarily in his presence. Obviously, it is for this reason that Maulana Qazi Riazuddin Amini and the Oath Commissioner were not cited as Prosecution witnesses though they were admittedly interrogated during the course of investigation.
Prosecutrix has herself admitted that she withdrew sum of Rs. 6000/ from her bank account. IO PW7 further clarified that her mother reported vide DD No. Ex. PW7/E dated 28.3.09, Prosecutrix had returned home and requests that no further action should be taken on the missing report. This clearly shows that the allegations against Accused that he had abducted Prosecutrix on 24.3.09, illegally confined her or committed rape upon her are totally false. The Prosecutrix has claimed that she was threatened by the Accused that they would kill her brother. However, this contention of the Prosecutrix has been found to be not believable, as discussed above.
Moreover, the Prosecutrix has admitted that she did not make any complaint to the police on the day when she was left by the Accused near hear house on 27.3.09. She also admitted that she did not go to any doctor. She also admitted that her mother did not inform about the aforesaid acts of the Accused. Rather, from DD Ex. PW7/E, it is apparent that the mother of the Prosecutrix did not want any action to be taken on missing report of Prosecutrix lodged vide DD Ex PW7/A. Moreover, Prosecutrix was admittedly disowned by her mother vide publication in newspaper, the clipping of which is Ex. PW1/DJ. This already shows that the allegation levelled by the Prosecutrix against the Accused are false.
I also find no force in the deposition of the Prosecutrix with regard to the charge under Section 328 IPC. Though the Prosecutrix PW1 deposed that she was given tea laced with some intoxicating substance by Accused Iqbal. However, I find on going through her crossexamination that she did not undergo any medical examination upon returning home on 27.3.09. There is no medical evidence to support her claim that she was given any intoxicating substance by the Accused. She has also failed to explain as to why she did not approach any doctor after she was allegedly kept intoxicated by the Accused on 24.7.09 to 27.3.09.
Moreover, admittedly, no complaint regarding alleged offence committed by the Accused persons was made to the police till filing of the complaint dated 15.6.09 before the court of Ld. MM/Delhi. The Prosecution has failed to explain the delay which certainly is fatal to the case of the Prosecution considering the totality of facts and circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the evidence on record and the aforesaid discussion, I am also unable to find any cogent evidence to hold the Accused guilty for offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.
Consequently, in the light of above discussion and the evidence on record, all the three Accused are hereby acquitted of the charges on which they were facing trial. Their bail bonds cancelled. Sureties discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on 22.04.2013 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.