Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan Kumar on 10 November, 2017
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SH BHUPESH KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No. 95/2015
State Versus Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Prem Pal Singh
R/o H.No. K5/213, Mohan Garden
Uttam Nagar, Delhi
FIR No. : 442/15
U/s : 365/366/376/328/342/506 IPC
Police Station : Ranhola
DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE
AFTER COMMITTAL: 15/09/2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:10/11/2017
JUDGMENT
1.The brief facts of the case as emerged from the chargesheet are that on 12.06.2015 on receipt of complaint of the prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file but withheld to protect her identity) DD No. 37A dated 12.06.2015 was registered at PS Ranhola. In her complaint the prosecutrix has submitted to the effect that on Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 2 :- 28.04.2015 after her school while she was on her way to her house, accused Pawan alongwith his friends met her. The accused enticed her and took her to some unknown place where accused has raped her. Thereafter, the accused has changed her school uniform and made her to wear green color suit. Then the accused proposed to marry her but she rebuked. Then accused took her to his native village, where the accused kept her in house of his uncle. There accused used to beat her and threatened to lift and kill Kartik, nephew of prosecutrix. The accused forcibly married her. One day, police alongwith her family members came to said village to search her but the accused hide her in another house and by putting knife on her neck threaten her not to raise alarm. After some days, the accused brought her back to Delhi and took her to some office where under threat he made her to write a letter. When she was taken to court, she was administered some sedative substance by accused and obtained her signatures. Inter alia, on the basis of these submissions, the prosecutrix has requested the SHO, Ranhola to take appropriate action against accused.
After registration of DD no.37A dt.12.6.2015, the prosecutrix was medically examined at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital.
2. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint of prosecutrix, FIR bearing No. 442/2015 under Sections 365/366/376/342/328 /506 IPC was registered and investigation was carried out. During investigation statement of prosecutrix / complainant was recorded under Section Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 3 :- 164 Cr.P.C. The ageproof documents of prosecutrix were obtained and verified. The marriage certificate, vide which accused forcibly married to the prosecutrix were verified, which was found to be genuine. During investigation it was further revealed that on 06.05.2015 vide DD No. 37B, complainant has informed the police that she has voluntarily left with the accused and both of them married voluntarily. Thereafter, on 07.06.2015 vide DD No. 8A accused has made a PCR call that his wife is missing and thereafter, DD No. 20B was recorded that wife of accused has been traced. Enquiries were made by the IO from the complainant that as to why she has leveled allegations against her husband, to which she replied that earlier she was under the fear of accused. Accused was arrested and was medically examined. After completing other formal investigation, charge sheet under Section 365/366/376/328/342/506 IPC was filed before concerned Ld. MM and after complying with provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Ld. Sessions Court by the Ld. MM.
3. After hearing arguments on charge, my Ld. Predecessor found a prima facie, case to try the accused for commission of offence, punishable under Section 366/376/342/496/506 IPC and accordingly a charge was framed against the accused on 24.09.2015, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. On 04.01.2016 Ms. Ushma Malik, Ld. Amicus Curiae for the Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 4 :- accused made statement on behalf of accused and has admitted the evidence of PWs HC Mohinder, HC Narender, Ct. Savita, Ct. Satish, HC Vijender, MHC(M), HC Ishwar, SI Ranbir, Dr. Rohit, Dr. Khushboo, Dr. Swati Girohar, Ms. Preeti Aggarwala, Ld. MM, Ms. Sunita Dua, Principal and Mr. M. Wasim, Registrar.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined four witnesses.
PW1 is the prosecutrix. She has deposed to the effect that she was studying in class IX and on 28.04.2015 at about 12.30 a.m. while she was returning home from the school, accused met her at Rahul Chowk. The accused was plying a auto rickshaw and offered her to drop at her house. The accused forcibly put her in the auto and his 34 friends, who had covered their faces with clothes. She was forced to drink intoxicated water and was taken to unknown place. The accused has committed rape upon her and thereafter the accused has changed her school uniform with green clothes. Then the accused took her to his native village and kept her at the house of his uncle. She was confined in a room and her hands and feet were tied with a rope. The accused had attacked her with belt and when she raised alarm, her mouth was also tied with a 'Chunni' by the accused. The accused has committed rape upon her forcibly without her consent. The accused asked her to marry him but she requested him to allow her to go to her house. The accused forcibly performed marriage with her on 01.05.2015 in temple situated in Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 5 :- front of the same house where she was kept. The relatives of the accused including his uncle, brothers namely Mr. Pappu and Mr. Veer Singh and his Foofa (husband of paternal auntbua). When she raised alarm at temple, she was given beatings by the accused. When she returned from the temple, accused again administered intoxicated water to her. Thereafter, she was not in her senses and was taken to the Court where accused obtained her signature under threat that Kartik, son of her sister would be kidnapped and cut into pieces. The Delhi Police came to the village of the accused but she was shifted to the house of other relatives of accused where at knife point she was threatened not to raise alarm. She was searched by Delhi Police and her sister and brother in the village but the could not find her. When Delhi Police left, she was again shifted at the house of uncle of accused where she was given beatings. On 06.05.2015 she was brought to the office of some relative of accused at Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar. The accused then called his friends at that place, who were carrying hockies and dandas. The accused was also having a blade in his mouth. The accused threatened her to put acid on her face and kill her relatives, if she did not admit her marriage with him. The accused then produced one letter and asked her to write the same on a different page. But she refused and at this the accused asked his friend to go at parent house, to kill her mother and Kartik. Then accused had taken her to police station and threatened her to kill her mother and son of her sister in case she deny the marriage. Hence, she stated in favor Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 6 :- of the accused before police. She further deposed that house of accused was situated in front of house of her parents. On that night accused again made physical relations with her against her wish. On next day the accused again gave beatings to her and asked her to get Transfer Certificate from the school. Initially she refused for the same but the accused forcibly took her to the school and her TC was obtained, which was given by the accused to his uncle. She was again taken by the accused to his village on that day and she was confined there in a room. The accused gave beatings to her in that room and also raped her. After one month, accused brought her to Delhi to his house and did not allow her to talk with her parents and relatives as he always kept the door of the house locked. On 06.06.2015 accused had consumed liquor in the morning and had also taken several tablets of Alprax and when the accused was sleeping in a room, she bolted the door from the outside and informed to his both sisters regarding the above facts. On the same night, accused was under the influence of drink and Alprax and was not in full senses, she went downstairs to use the washroom and found that the small gate was not having any lock. She went to her parents house and disclosed about the facts to her family members and informed the police at number 100. On the next morning, she went to PS alongwith his family members but her statement was not recorded on that day. Then they appeared before DCP and her statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. The witness further deposed that she was medically examined vide Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 7 :- MLC Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. The witness also identified her statement recorded by the Ld. MM under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW1/D. The complaint dated 08.04.2015 was brought on record by this witness as Ex.PW1/E. The witness further submitted that on 28.06.2015 accused had assaulted her both brothers. Accused was hiding a blade in his mouth and gave injury on the shoulder of her elder brother and he also gave danda blow to her younger brother. Her younger brother remained admitted in the hospital for 4/5 days. On the same day accused tried to commit rape on her sister and during scuffle he torn the clothes of her sister. The accused and his family members had thrown bricks on her house and as a result her mother sustained injury. Thereafter they shifted from that house because it was difficult to live in that house because of the behavior of the accused towards her family members. The witness was crossexamined at length and same shall be discussed during appreciation of evidence.
6. PW2 is Mr. Parveen. He deposed to the effect that on 28.07.2015 he was Constable in Delhi Police and was posted at PS Ranhola. This witness has joined the investigation alongwith IO at the time of arrest of accused and proved the arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW2/A, his personal search memo as Ex.PW2/B and disclosure statement as Ex.PW2/C. The witness further submitted that he alongwith Ct. Satish took the accused to SGM Hospital for medical examination, which was conducted vide memo Ex.PX11.
Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 8 :- Thereafter, the MLC and sample seal pertaining to accused and sample seal were handed over by the Doctor to Ct. Satish, who handed over the same to the IO.
7. PW3 Radha is the younger sister of prosecutrix. She deposed to the effect that on 28.04.2015 she got lodged DD No.43A regarding missing of her sister aged 18 years. DD No. 43A is already Ex.PXY. Later on she alongwith police visited the village of accused situated at Tehsil Chandosi, UP. The accused and the complainant were not found there. They came to know that she was kept somewhere. The villagers had gathered at the residence of accused and misbehaved with the police officials by holding their collar. Then they came back to Delhi. The parents of accused used to reside in front of their house and stated that the accused and the complainant would come back. The accused and his parents produced the complainant at the police station where it was stated by her that she got married with the accused as per her wishes. On 06.06.2015 complainant told her that she was raped by the accused and was forced to marry him under the threat that accused would kill Kartik. Prosecutrix made a phone call at number 100 and the PCR officials directed to approach the concerned PS i.e. Ranhola. Then she alongwith complainant and her brother Ashish went to police station and on the way itself they saw brother and other friends of accused, hence, due to the apprehension, they came back to their residence. On 07.06.2015 she alongwith prosecutrix, her Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 9 :- uncle Sh. Jagdish, her brother Ashish went to PS Ranhola where her sister stated all the facts to the police. On 08.06.2015 she alongwith prosecutrix, her sister Rekha and her brother Ashish went to the office of DCP where statement of prosecutrix was recorded. On 12.05.2015 statement of her sister was recorded and FIR was lodged. Her sister was medically examined. After registration of FIR, accused pressurized them to withdraw the case and threatened to kill and pour Tejab on them. On 25.06.2015 she gave a complaint at PS Ranhola. On 27.06.2015 accused Pawan and his brother and father entered their house and assaulted her, her sister Rekha and her brothers namely Rahul and Manish. They also pelted stones on them. Police was informed and later on FIR under Section 308/354 IPC was registered. She was also crossexamined at length, which shall be discussed during appreciation of evidence.
8. PW4 Inspector Savita is the Investigating Officer. She has deposed that on 12.06.2015 prosecutrix alongwith her sister namely Radha came at the PS and gave a complaint of having committed rape upon her by the accused. The prosecutrix was got medically examined at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital by W/Ct. Savita and after sometime W/Ct. Savita produced MLC and the exhibits before her. She made an endorsement vide Ex.PW4/A and gave the same to duty officer for registration of FIR. The sealed parcels and sample seal were seized by her vide memo Ex.PX2. On 13.06.2015 she moved an application Ex.PW4/B for getting the statement of Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 10 :- prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC and after her statement was recorded, she moved another application Ex.Pw4/C for obtaining the copy of statement, which was provided to her. She further deposed that since it has come in the statement of prosecutrix that accused had married with the prosecutrix, she sent the police officials at Chandosi, UP and got verified this fact. Thereafter, she recorded supplementary statement of prosecutrix wherein she stated that accused forcefully performed marriage with her. She also obtained the age proof of the prosecutrix. On25.07.2015 accused Pawan was arrested on the pointing out of prosecutrix vide arrest memo Ex.Pw2/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.Pw2/B and also recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW2/C. The accused was got medically examined through Ct. Satish at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and after medical examination, Ct. Satish produced one sealed parcel and one sample seal which were taken into possession by her vide seizure memo Ex.PX15. Later on exhibits were sent to FSL and result FSL was collected, which is Ex.PW4/PX1. During the course of investigation she also collected DD Nos. 43A, 37B, 8A, 11A, 20B and placed the same on record. PE was closed.
9. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied all the incriminating evidence came on record against him and further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused has not examined any witness Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 11 :- in his defence.
10. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Subhash Chauhan, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Satbir Singh, Ld. counsel for accused.
11. Ld. Addl. PP for State submitted that prosecution has succeeded to prove that the prosecutrix was abducted by the accused in order to marry her and when the prosecutrix did not agree, the accused threatened her and even marrier her under threat and committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix was examined as PW1. She has supported the version of prosecution. The accused failed to extract anything in his favour during her crossexamination. The evidence of prosecutrix has been supported by the medical evidence to prove that the rape has been committed upon her. Sister of prosecutrix namely Radha PW3 has corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix in respect to the visit of Delhi Police at the native place of the accused and in regard to the conduct of the accused and his associates when the prosecutrix was going to the office of DCP etc.
12. Per contra, Ld. counsel for accused has submitted that no reliance can be made on the evidence of the prosecutrix that she was forcibly taken to the native village of the accused and that she was forced to stay over there. It is further submitted that during crossexamination of PW1 sufficient material came on record that the place where the prosecutrix remained was thickly populated Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 12 :- area but she has not complaint to any covillagers. It is further submitted that the marriage took place between the accused and the prosecutrix was valid marriage and the marriage certificate Ex.PW 1/DB issued by concerned authority is a genuine document. The prosecutrix has voluntarily married the accused and the marriage certificate Ex.PW1/DB was issued by the concerned authority only after satisfying itself that the parties have married voluntarily. It has been further submitted that the when the accused and complainant returned to Delhi, they went to police station and informed the police that she has married accused voluntarily without any pressure. In this respect DD No. 37B dated 06.05.2015, Ex.P5 was recorded. On 07.06.2015 the prosecutrix left her matrimonial home and the missing report in this respect was made by the accused at PS Ranhola qua which DD No. 11A dated 07.06.2015 at 02.50 AM was recorded. However, the prosecutrix was traced and report in this respect was recorded vide DD No. 20B dated 07.06.2015 at 10.50 AM. It has been further submitted that prosecutrix made complaint on 12.06.2015 on the basis of which FIR was registered but prior to that the prosecutrix has gone to police station twice, but she has not reported any matter to police qua her kidnapping and rape etc. It has been further argued that in case the intention of the accused happened to abduct and to commit rape upon the prosecutrix, then there was no reason to keep the prosecutrix at his native village alongwith his family members, instead, he could Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 13 :- have taken her to some secluded place. But since the marriage was voluntarily took place between parties and that is why the prosecutrix stayed for about one month at the native village of the accused. Interalia, on the basis of these submission it has been prayed that the case of the prosecution suffers from material contradictions and infirmities and as such the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
13. Heard. Material perused.
14. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was major on the 28.4.2015 i.e. day she claimed to have been abducted by the accused. Here the court is required to see if the evidence of prosecutrix is clear, consistence and reliable to hold the accused guilty for the offence for which he has been chargsheeted. Hence, the deposition of prosecutrix made as PW1 is required to be scrutinized in the light of her version in the complaint Ex. PW1/A and her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. P.C. Ex. PW1/D and other surrounding circumstances.
In the complaint Ex.PW1/A the prosecutrix has deposed to the effect that on 28.04.2015 while she was returning from her school, she was enticed by the accused. Whereas in her deposition in the Court she has deposed that the accused offered her to drop at her house. In complaint Ex.PW1/A the prosecutrix has not mentioned qua use of any vehicle by the accused, whereas she has deposed Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 14 :- before the Court that the accusee was on auto rickshaw. In the complaint Ex.PW1/A the prosecutrix has not stated that exactly at what place and at what time the accused met her but in her evidence as PW1 she has named the place as Rahul Chowk at 12.30 PM. In complaint Ex.PW1/A the complainant has stated that when the accused took her to some unknown place and raped her then he showed his intentions to marry her. But in her evidence, she has not stated so and deposed in respect of marriage proposal of the accused when the accused took her to his village. In complaint Ex.PW1/A the names of the relatives of the accused have not been mentioned whereas names of certain relatives of the accused have been mentioned in the evidence of prosecutrix PW1. In the statement Ex.PW1/A the prosecutrix has not deposed the manner in which she has escaped from the clutches of the accused. But in the evidence she has deposed to the effect that the accused was under the effect of alcohol and Alprax and she got opportunity to escape.
15. As per the version of the prosecution, the prosecutrix was abducted while she was returning home from her school. The site plan of the spot of her abduction has not been prepared by the IO and the reason of non preparation of the site plan must be best known to him. However, just for the arguments if it is presumed to be correct that the incident of abduction took place at Rahul Chowk at 12.30 p.m., even then it does not inspire the confidence of the Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 15 :- court as in city like Delhi it is not possible to abduct any female in auto rickshaw in broad daylight. Further as matter of record no weapon was shown / pointed at the prosecutrix to put her under fear so that she can be compelled to accompany the accused. There is nothing on record which shows the mode of transportation of the prosecutrix to the native village of accused at Moradabad from Delhi. The prosecutrix is absolutely silent on this score.
16. Further as per evidence of PW1, the accused kept her in his village forcibly and has also married her forcibly. During cross examination, on calling explanation, the prosecutrix has stated that the village where she was kept was a thickly populated area. But the prosecutrix at any stretch of time has not stated that anybody else in the village has helped the accused to accomplish the ill design of the accused to marry her forcibly. She has also not stated that she was ill treated or threatened by any relative or any co villager and that is why she remained constant threat. Hence, the question arises that what prevented the prosecutrix to seek help of any of the covillager of the accused when there was no such threat from any other person. As matter of fact, as per own version of prosecutrix she remained in the village of accused for about one month. Under these eventualities, the conduct of prosecutrix is not free from suspicion that she might be residing with accused, at his native village, with her own will.
Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 16 :-
17. Further as matter of record, the IO has not conducted any investigation at the native village of accused, where the prosecutrix claimed to be kept forcibly by the accused. Further, no site plan of any room or building has been prepared by the IO at pointing out of prosecutrix, where the accused kept her. Even no statement of any covillager has been recorded to ascertain this fact.
18. The marriage certificate of prosecutrix and the accused is on record which is Ex.PW1/DB. The certificate has been issued by Registrar, Hindu Marriage, Sub District Chandosi District Samhbal, UP. Since this document has been issued by the Govt. Authority, in the absence of any cogent material any such document issued by the Govt. Authority cannot be doubted.
19. Further as per prosecutrix when they returned to Delhi she was forced by the accused to write some document. From perusal fo file it is revealed that said document happens to be DD No. 37B recorded on 06.05.2015 at 02:05 PM Ex.PX5. The DD perused carefully and the contents of same shows that the prosecutrix has gave statement to the police that she left her house without any pressure and has undergone Court marriage. Second time complainant went to the police station on 07.06.2015 qua which DD No.20B Ex.PX1D was recorded. This reflects that the prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to bring her grievance to the notice of the police and to seek police assistance when she herself Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 17 :- went to the police station twice prior to registration of FIR on the basis of complaint dt.12.6.2015 Ex. PW1/A. The conduct of the prosecutrix under these eventualities is not free from suspicion as the question remained that why she has not brought the fact of her victimization to the notice of the police when she got the chance for the same. In case Rai Sandeep vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 9 SCC 21, Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia has held as under : A "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose versin should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the crossexamination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 18 :- evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.
In the light of this judgment, the evidence of prosecutrix and surrounding circumstances and other material should be clear to rely upon the version of prosecution.
20. Reverting to the present matter, as discussed earlier there are number of inconsistencies as discussed above in the complaint Ex. PW1/A made by complainant on the basis of which FIR was registered, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 19 :- Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/D and statement of prosecutrix made in the court as PW1. Further, the fact came on record during cross examination of PW1 that she has not made complaint to anybody in the village of accused though the place where she was kept was thickly populated area. Further the record reflects that the prosecutrix got proper opportunities viz. when she appeared before Registrar of Marriage, Chandausi, District Sambhal, U.P., at the time of registration of DD no.37B dt.6.5.2015 Ex. P5, at the time of registration of DD no.20B Ex.PX1D, PS Ranhola. The FIR in this matter was registered on 12.06.2015, whereas as discussed the prosecutrix appeared before competent authorities three times before registration of FIR, but she has not brought the fact of her victimization to competent authorities. Under these eventualities, it cannot be ruled out that the prosecutrix might have made the complaint Ex. PW1/A on 12.6.2015 after thought.
21. In the light of above discussion it is found that the prosecution has failed to bring on record clear, cogent and consistent evidence against the accused and it would not be safe to rely upon the evidence of prosecutrix. Hence, by giving benefit of doubt, the accused stands acquitted for offence under Section 366/376/342/496/506 of IPC. Accused be released from the JC forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The bail bond and surety bonds have been furnished by the accused as per provisions of 437 A Cr.P.C and the same have been accepted for six months.
Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017 -: 20 :-
22. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on (BHUPESH KUMAR) this 10th November, 2017. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/10.11.2017