Delhi District Court
State vs . Chetan Swarup on 5 July, 2010
1
State Vs. Chetan Swarup
FIR No. 488/07
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - IV: ROHINI (OUTER) : DELHI
Sessions Case No. : 126/08
FIR No. : 488/07
PS : Narela
Under Sections : 308/323/34 IPC
State Versus 1. Chetan Swarup
S/o Sh. Hari Prakash
R/o H. No. 113,
Village Ghoga, Delhi.
2. Sanjay
S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh
Permanent Address: -
R/o Village Rajola,
PS Shodain,
District Asharia, Bihar
Present Address: -
C/o Fathe Singh,
Village Ghoga, Delhi.
Date of Committal ----- 15.09.08
Date of Institution
before this Court ----- 22.12.08
Date on which reserved
for Judgment ----- 28.06.10
1/20
2
State Vs. Chetan Swarup
FIR No. 488/07
Date of Judgment ----- 05.07.10
Final Order ----- Acquittal
JUDGMENT
The Present charge-sheet u/s 173 Cr. PC has been filed against the accused Chetan Swaroop S/o Sh. Hari Prakash and Sanjay s/o Sh. Sadhu Singh on the allegations that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention on 10.09.07 at about 8 am at the fields of Ram Kumar at Village Ghoga, Delhi had voluntarily caused injuries on the person of Naresh Kumar S/o Ram Kumar with Khodna and Dao on various parts of his body including head with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by said act, Naresh Kumar would have died, then both the accused persons would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place, both the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had also voluntarily caused injuries on the person of Phool Kumar S/o Ram Kumar. It is further the case of prosecution that Phool Kumar took his brother Naresh Kumar to hospital from where intimation was sent to the concerned police station and the Investigating Officer reached at the hospital who recorded the statement of Naresh whereupon investigation commenced during which both the accused persons were arrested and after completion of 2/20 3 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 investigation, charge-sheet u/s 173 Cr. PC was filed in the court of Ld. concerned MM who after compliance of necessary legal provisions u/s 207 Cr. PC committed the case to the court of sessions and vide order dated 28.03.09, charge u/Ss 324/308/34 IPC was served on both the accused persons to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. Prosecution in support of its case has examined 8 witnesses in all namely Naresh (the complainant) as PW1, Phool Kumar (brother of injured) as PW2, Dr. Rohit (who examined Naresh), as PW3, HC Raj Kumar (Duty Officer and DD writer) as PW4, Dr. Ram Chander (who medically examined Phool Kumar) as PW5, ASI Jai Bhagwan and ASI Karan Singh (who are in the investigating officers) as PWs 6 and 7 respectively and HC Ranvir Singh (who accompanied PW7) as PW8. Thereafter, statements of both the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC to which both of them submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
3. In the present case the most material witnesses are Naresh and Phool Kumar (PWs 1 and 2) being complainant/injured, hence their testimonies needs to be discussed on priority.
3/20 4State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07
4. Sh. Naresh Kumar (PW1) who is the complainant as well as one of the injured has testified that the accused Chetan Swarup and Sanjay are his relatives and on 10.09.07, he alongwith Phool Kumar came to his field at about 8.00 am where he was cutting Jwar at which point of time, the accused Chetan was having Dao and the accused Sanjay having Khodna who started abusing him and on his objection, the accused Chetan hit him several times on his head with dao and the accused Sanjay also caused injuries on his left leg, left hand and back by Khodna whereupon he raised an alarm on which his brother Phool Kumar (PW2) reached, however he became unconscious and came to know after about 7-8 days that Phool Kumar (PW2) had also received injuries in his hand and expressed his inability to tell if police officials reached at MB Hospital at Pooth Khurd or whether they recorded his statement or not. He had identified the dao and Khodna as Exhibit P-1 and P-2 respectively.
During leading questions put by Ld. APP, he stated that he did not remember when regained his conscious in MB Hospital and if the police officials recorded his statement on 10.09.07 and also could not state whether Exhibit PW1/A bear his thumb impression at point A or not.
During further cross examination of Ld. APP, he denied "It is wrong to suggest that the police recorded my statement Exhibit PWl/A 4/20 5 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 as narrated by me in the hospital when I was fit for statement or that I had put my thumb impression at point 'A' after my statement Exhibit PW1/A was recorded"
During cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he inter-alia stated that he does not know as to who had removed him to the hospital and stated that he regained his conscious after about 4-8 days in the hospital and also that no police officials ever met him and he also denied having visited the police station. He also stated that he does not know if his thumb impression was ever obtained or who had obtained it and also stated that the said impression may be of some other person as he is not aware if at all his thumb impression was taken. He also stated that at the relevant time, two persons namely Rakesh and Sandeep who also belonged to his family also working apart from two ladies. He also stated that he does not have any enemity with the accused and also that he do not know if Phool Kumar reached at the spot since he got unconscious and he did not see Phool Kumar (PW2) at the spot and further stated that Phool Kumar (WP2) might have come subsequently after the incident had taken place. He also stated that Phool Kumar (PW2) did not receive any injury in his presence as he did not see him. He also could not state as to what the accused persons were doing in their field and fairly conceded 5/20 6 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 that he had seen the weapon of offence i.e. dao and Khodna for the first time in the court on 01.07.09 i.e. one day prior to his cross examination (as his examination chief was recorded on 30.06.10).
5. Phool Kumar (PW2) has testified that he and his brother Naresh (PW1) are farmers and the accused Chetan and Sanjay are their neighbours. He testified that on 10/09/07 at about 8:00 a.m., he along with his brother (PW1) went to his field where Naresh was cutting Jwar and he went at the place where rice was grown. He further deposed that on hearing the noise of his brother Naresh 'Bachao Bachao', he reached there and saw that the accused Chetana nd Sanjay were hitting his brother Naresh with Khodna and Dao whereupon, his brother got unconscious and when he tried to save his brother from the accused persons, the accused Sanjay hit him with Khodna on his left hand after which both the persons ran away along with weapons of offence and he immediately shifted Naresh to the Hospital at Pooth Khurd from where Naresh was referred to Trauma Centre where he remained admitted for about 3/4 days. He also deposed that he Police officials reached at the Hospital at Pooth Khurd and recorded statement of his brother Naresh Kumar on same day who also told them about the place of occurrence and the Police officialas prepared site plan at his instance. He had identified the Dao and Khodna as Ex. P1 & P2 respectively.
6/20 7State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he inter-alia stated that his father had come to the Court and whatever his father told him outside the Court he had deposed accordingly. He also stated that only his thumb impression was obtained by the Police officials in the Hospital but he was never interrogated by the Police nor visited in the Police station and the Police officials also did not visit his residence. He stated that he never gave his statement to the Police officials. He clarified that field of accused persons were adjacent to their fields and no altercation took place between him and the accused and also that he had removed Naresh to Hospital in a three-wheeler scooter which was driven by a person namely Phool Kumar and elaborated that he had gone to the village and called the three wheeler driver Phool Kumar at which point of time 3/4 villagers also accompanied him from the village to the field but none of them went to the Hospital. He fairly conceded that the Khodna & Dao were not recovered in his presence and he had seen the said weapons only on 01/07/09 i.e. just one day prior to his cross-examination in the Court during his examination in chief.
6. Dr. Rohit (PW3) had medically examined Naresh Kumar (PW1) on the same day as brought by Phool Kumar (PW2) at which point of time Naresh Kumar was found conscious and oriented whose vitals were 7/20 8 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 stable and normal and he was able to move all limbs and he found certain injuries on his person and prepared MLC Ex. PW3/A after which he advised him for X-Ray. He further testified that on 29/09/07, he opined nature of injuries on the person of Naresh as grievous vide endorsement Ex. PW3/B and also proved endorsement of Doctor Ram Chander (PW5) as Exhibits PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D respectively. During cross-examination by the accused he stated that Naresh was referred to Trauma Centre on the same day i.e. 10/09/07.
7. Dr. Ram Chander (PW5) has testified that on 10/09/07, he examined Phool Kumar (PW2) vide MLC Ex. PW5/A and found that there was tenderness and swelling on the left wrist joint and nature of injury was simple.
8. HC Raj Kumar (PW4) has deposed that on 10/09/07 at about 11:15 a.m., he received a Rukka from Constable Amit as sent by HC Jai Bhagwan on the basis of which he made endorsement on the Rukka which is Ex. PW4/B. He further testified that on the same day prior to registration of FIR, he had also received information from wireless operator regarding a quarrel at village Ghoga in the field near Johad (water pool) whereupon, he recorded DD NO. 16A and proved its copy as Ex. PW4/C which was marked to HC Bhagwan for investigation.
8/20 9State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07
9. ASI Jai Bhagwan (PW6-who is the Investigating Officer) has testified that on 10/09/07, on receiving DD No. 16A (Ex. PW4/C), he along with Constable Amit went in the field of Ram Kumar, Village Ghoga and came to know that injured was shifted to MB Hospital after which he reached to the said Hospital from where he collected MLCs of Naresh Kumar (PW1) and Phool Kumar (PW2) and also recorded the statement of Naresh Kumar (Ex. PW1/A) after which he prepared Rukka Ex. PW4/B and handed it over to Constable Amit for getting the FIR registered and after due compliance, Ct. Amit came back to the spot and handed him over the original Rukka and copy of FIR and thereafter, he along with Phool Kumar (PW2) came to the spot where at the instance of Phool Kumar, he prepared site plan which is Ex. PW6/A and also recorded statement of witnesses and on next day, the investigation was handed over to ASI Karan Singh (PW7). He also testified that on 14/09/07, he again joined the investigation with ASI Karan Singh (PW7) and on the basis of secret information, the accused Sanjay was arrested from Ghoga Dairy vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/B whose personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW6/C and his disclosure statement Ex. PW6/D was also recorded in pursuance of which the accused Sanjay got effected the recovery of an iron tiller which was seized vide memo Ex. PW6/E and he also recorded statement of witnesses after which they went to the Police Station and case property was deposited in the Malkhana and accused was kept in the lock-up. He identified iron tiller i.e. "Lohe ka 9/20 10 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 khodna" as Ex. PW2.
During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel it has inter-alia been placed on record that the complainant Naresh Kumar (PW1) never met him and Phool Kumar (PW2) met him prior to this case. He also stated that accused Sanjay was arrested in his presence but no recovery was effected at his instance in his presence.
10. ASI Karan Singh (PW7- who is also one of the Investigating Officer) has testified that on 12/09/07, he along with HC Jai Bhagwan (PW6) conducted necessary investigation in pursuance of which on 14/09/07, he along with HC Jai Bhagwan reached at Ghoga Mod, Narela Road where a secret informer met them who apprised that the accused Sanjay who had committed the said offence along with accused Chetan was sitting in a Kotha at Ghoga Dairy near Ghoga Mod whereupon he asked few public persons to join the investigation but they refused whereupon both of them reached at the said Kotha where the accused Sanjay was found lying on a cot who was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B and his personal search was conducted and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, the accused Sanjay pointed out to the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW7/A and also got recovered one Khodna made of iron from the field of Jwar situated at village Ghoga which was seized vide memo Ex. PW6/E. He further testified that thereafter they took the accused Sanjay to Satyawadi Raja Harish Chander 10/20 11 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 Hospital where he was medically examined and thereafter he was brought to the Police Station. He further testified that on 19/09/07, he along with HC Ranbir Singh (PW8) conducted further investigation in the matter during which near Singhu Border, they received a secret information that the accused Chetan was standing at the Bus Stand near Polio booth, Singhu Border whereupon he asked some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and thereafter they reached at the Bus Stand from where the accused Chetan was arrested at the instance of informer vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/B whose personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/C and in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PW7/D, the accused Chetan pointed out to the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PW7/E and also led them to a pit near the road in which water was logged and from there, he got recovered one Dao which he used in the commission of said offences and he prepared sketch of said Dao which is Ex. PW7/F, converted it into a pullinda and sealed it with the seal of 'KS' after which seal was handed over to HC Ranbir (PW8) and said pullinda was seized vide memo Ex. PW7/G. He further testified that thereafter the accused was taken for medical examination after which he was kept in the lock-up and case property was deposited in the Malkhana. He also obtained the results on MLCs of Naresh Kumar (PW1) and Phool Kumar (PW2) and after completion of investigation, handed over the case file to SHO concerned for preparation of Charge-Sheet. He identified the case property i.e. Khodna & Dao as 11/20 12 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 Exhibits P1 & P2 respectively.
During cross-examination on behalf of both the accused persons, he inter-alia stated that the complainant and both the accused persons were residents of same village who are neighbours and the accused were never identified by the complainant Naresh Kumar (PW1) prior to their arrest. He also stated that at the time of arrest of accused Sanjay from the Kotha at Ghoga Dairy, no person was present and fairly conceded that he had not shown the weapon of offence either to the complainant nor got the same identified by PWs 1 and 2 or by any other eye witness at all.
11. It would be pertinent to mention that HC Ranbir Singh (PW8) has deposed on the lines of ASI Karan Singh (PW7), hence his testimony is not repeated for the sake of brevity, however during his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that at the time of his arrest, accused Chetan Swaroop was standing near Polio Booth near the Bus Stand and none else was present at that place at the relevant time.
12. I have heard final arguments as advanced by Ld. APP Sh. P.K.Samadhya for the State and Sh. B.S.Rana, Ld. defence counsel for both the accused persons and given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions made by them and have also gone through the material as placed on record.
12/20 13State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 Ld. APP has argued that Naresh Kumar and Phool Singh who are complainant as well as injured who have supported the case of the prosecution on all material aspects and have also corroborated the versions of each other which have also further been duly corroborated by Dr. Rohit and Dr. Ram Chander (PWs 3 and 5) who had medically examined them and there is nothing on record if PWs 1 and 2 did not receive injuries at the hands of the accused persons in the manner as alleged. Ld. APP has further contended that the detailed investigation as conducted by ASI Jai Bhagwan and ASI Karan Singh (PWs 6 and 7) have also been proved on record and all the relevant documents which have been prepared are proved which have also lend sufficient corroboration to the versions of PWs 1 and 2. Ld. APP has prayed that since prosecution has succeeded in bringing home guilt of both the accused persons namely Chetan Swarup and Sanjay on record for committing offences as punishable u/s 308/324/34 IPC, hence they must be convicted.
13. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel has vehemently argued that Naresh (PW1) stated that he regained consciousness after about 4-5 days of the incident in the hospital and thereafter, his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer but the Investigating Officer has categorically deposed that statement of Naresh (PW1) was recorded on the day of incident itself i.e. on 10.09.09 and hence, grave contradiction has crept on record. He 13/20 14 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 has further submitted that even Phool Kumar (PW2) has stated that statement of PW1 was recorded by the police officials on the same day but PW1 has very categorically stated that his statement was never recorded by the police officials which is in contradiction to version of Investigating Officer and to PW2 as well. He has further averred that as per Dr. Rohit (PW3), when Naresh (PW1) was brought to the hospital, he was conscious oriented but Naresh (PW1) has stated that he regained conscious only after 4-5 days of the incident. Ld. defence counsel has also submitted that as per ASI Jai Bhagwan (PW6), the accused Sanjay was arrested in his presence but nothing was recovered from him which is contradicted by another IO namely, ASI Karan Singh (PW-7) who has categorically stated that PW-6 remained with him throughout the investigation and recovery was affected from the accused Sanjay in his presence. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that (PW7) has fairly admitted that he had neither shown Khodna and dao to PWs 1 and 2 nor ever got identified them by the said witnesses and argued that in these circumstances, how ASI Karan Singh (PW7) would come to know if the said Khodna and the dao are the same weapons of offences which were used by the accused when admittedly they were never shown to PWs 1 and 2 and were never sent for any expert opinion to ascertain if the injuries on the persons of Naresh and Phool Kumar were possible by the same or not. He also submitted that material contradictions have crept on record in the depositions of Naresh and Phool Kumar (PWs 1 14/20 15 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 and 2) and also in testimonies of Naresh (PW1) qua his initial complaint made to the police officials wherein he submitted that he had seen the accused persons causing injuries on the persons of Phool Kumar (PW-2) but in the court, he denied if he ever witnessed it. Ld. defence counsel submitted that PW2 has conceded that he had deposed whatever his father has told him and hence he is a tutored witness whose testimony cannot be relied upon. He further argued that testimonies of Naresh and Phool Kumar (PWs 1 and 2) have not been corroborated by any other independent witnesses though many of them were present at the time of occurrence at the spot and even the persons whose help was sought by Phool Kumar (PW2) to shift Naresh (PW1) to the hospital has not been examined nor cited in the list of witnesses. Ld. defence counsel has prayed that since prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of both the accused persons namely Chetan Swarup and Sanjay, hence they must be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
14. In the present case, the most material witnesses upon whose testimonies the entire case of prosecution rests are PWs 1 & 2 i.e. Naresh Kumar & Phool Kumar who are the complainant as well as the injured and though their testimonies have been discussed at length earlier, yet for appreciation of evidence, it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant portions of their testimonies even at the cost of repetition.
15/20 16State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 Naresh Kumar (PW1) has inter-alia deposed that when the accused persons were causing injuries on his person, he raised an alarm whereupon his brother Phool Kumar (PW2) reached and he became conscious and further stated that he came to know after about 7-8 days that Phool Kumar (PW2) had also received injuries. He expressed his inability to state whether or not Police officials ever recorded his statement. During cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State he, denied if Police officials recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A or he even put his thumb impressions on it at point 'A'.
During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he categorically stated that he does not know as to who shifted him to the Hospital and also that he regained his conscious after about 4-5 days during which time no Police official ever met him and has conceded that he does not know as to when Phool Kumar (PW2) reached at the spot as he had got unconscious and he had not seen Phool Kumar (PW2) at the spot at all who might have come there subsequently and in his presence, Phool Kumar (PW2) did not receive any injury. He also admitted that he had seen the weapon of offence only one day prior to his cross-examination in the Court during his examination in chief.
Phool Kumar (PW2) who is also examined as an eye witness and is also one of the injured has contradicted the version of Naresh Kumar (PW1) on material aspects as he has inter-alia deposed that Police officials 16/20 17 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 had recorded statement of Naresh Kumar (PW1) on the same day itself at the hospital and during cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he also stated that no person was working in the adjacent field. It would be relevant to mention that Naresh Kumar (PW1) has categorically stated that in the adjacent field, two ladies and two men namely Rakesh and Sandip who belong to their village were working were but Phool Kumar (PW2) has out- rightly denied it. He also stated that Naresh Kumar was shifted to the Hospital in a three-wheeler scooter which was driven by another person in the name of Phool Kumar whom he had brought him from the village at which point of time about 3/4 other villagers also accompanied him who helped him but none of those villagers accompanied him to hospital. It is quite surprising that the said Phool Kumar has not even been cited in the list of witnesses nor examined in the Court and no effort has been made in this regard. It is also quite surprising that PW Phool Kumar (PW2) has fairly conceded before the court that he is deposing whatever his father has told him. It has also been placed on record that Dao and Khodna were never shown or got identified by the Investigating Officer from Naresh Kumar and Phool Kumar as the weapon of offences and they had admitted to have only seen them just one day prior to their cross-examination in the Court during their examination in chief. It is very surprising that when the weapons of offences as per the Investigating Officer were recovered why they were now shown to the complainant and the injured regarding their identification and 17/20 18 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 there is nothing on record to suggest as to how the Police officials believed came to conclusion that the said Khodna and Dao were the weapons of offences used in this case to cause injuries on the persons of Naresh Kumar (PW1) & Phool Kumar (PW2). It would also be pertinent to mention here that as per version of the Investigating Officer, he had recorded statement of Naresh Kumar (PW1) on the same day itself in the Hospital who was conscious and even Dr. Rohit (PW3) who medically examined Naresh Kumar (PW1) has categorically stated that Naresh Kumar (PW1) when brought to the hospital was conscious and oriented and was fit for statement on the same day and in these circumstances, the contention of Naresh Kumar (PW1) that he regained conscious only after 4/5 days of the occurrence and that his statement was never recorded stands falsified by the Investigating Officers as discussed and in these circumstances, court is of the considered opinion that either Naresh Kumar (PW1)` is telling a lie or his brother and other police officials are deposing falsely as when he gained conscious after 4/5 days then how his statement can be recorded on the same day and it is astonishing that though he was conscious and well oriented, still he is not aware if at all he ever put any thumb impression on his statement. It would also be pertinent to mention that PWs 1 & 2 have been very categorically stated that their statements were never recorded by the Police officials whereas the Investigating Officer has been very specific in stating that he recorded their statements during the course of investigation.
18/20 19State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 It would also be appropriate to mention that ASI Jai Bhagwan (PW6) has deposed that accused Sanjay was arrested in his presence by ASI Karan Singh (PW7) but no recovery was effected in his presence, however ASI Karan Singh (PW7) has categorically stated that ASI Jai Bhagwan (PW6) remained with him throughout the proceedings and even at the time of recovery of weapon of offence in pursuance of disclosure statement of Sanjay, PW6 was present with him. The same is quite contradictory and on perusal of seizure memo of Khodna which is Ex. PW6/E dated 14/09/07, signature of ASI Jai Bhagwan (PW6) also exist on it though he denied his presence at the time of its recovery.
It also cannot be lost sight of that the weapons of offences which were alleged to have been used by the accused persons in committing the said offences were nowhere got identified by PWs 1 & 2 and it remains a mystery as to how ASI Karan Singh (PW7) came to know that these were the weapons of offences which were used in the case until and unless they were identified by PWs 1 and 2 and further the said weapons of offence were never sent for expert opinion to ascertain if the injuries were caused by them or could have been caused by them.
Further, it cannot be lost sight of that Naresh Kumar (PW1) in his initial complaint, as recorded by the Police officials on the same day i.e. 10/09/07, has emphatically stated that he had seen the accused persons causing injuries to Phool Kumar (PW2) but in the Court he has denied 19/20 20 State Vs. Chetan Swarup FIR No. 488/07 regarding the above stating that he did not see if at all any of the accused persons ever inflicted any injuries to Phool Kumar (PW2) as he got unconscious whereas the Doctor, before whom he was promptly shifted, declared him in conscious state and fir for statement.
15. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of material as placed on record and in view of above discussion, court is of the considered opinion that various witnesses as examined by the prosecution have not corroborated the versions of each other on several basic material aspects of the case and their testimonies are quite contradictory qua occurrence as well in which circumstances benefit of doubt is extended to both the accused persons namely Chetan Swarup and Sanjay and they are acquitted of the charges as leveled against them U/Ss 324/308/34 IPC. Their sureties are discharged. Endorsement on documents of sureties, if any, be cancelled as per rules. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary legal formalities.
Announced in the open Court (BARKHA GUPTA)
on this 5th day of July 2010 Additional Sessions Judge - IV
Outer District
Rohini District Court
Delhi
20/20