Delhi District Court
State vs Tausin on 12 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA NIRMAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Cr CASE 24802/2019
STATE Vs. Tausin
FIR NO.0099/19
PS Chitranjan Park.
JUDGMENT
a. CNR NO. DLSE020468452019
b. Name of the Arjun Caprihan S/o Bharat
Complainant Caprihan
c. Name of the accused & Tausin
his parentage and S/o Sheru
address R/o Village-Pavi Sadakpur, Loni,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
d. Offence charged U/s 279/427 IPC
e. Date of commission of 26.06.2019
offence
f. Date of Institution 28.11.2019
g. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty for 279/427 IPC
h. Order Reserved on 18.04.2026
i. Date of Pronouncement 12.05.2026
j. Final Order Acquittal
Cr CASE 24802/2019
STATE Vs. Tausin
FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.1
PS Chitranjan Park.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused along with Ld. Counsel Mr. Mohd. Shamim.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2019 at about 05.00 am in front of house No.M-113, GK- II, NDS Block Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS C.R. Park, accused was found driving truck bearing registration no. UP17T3293 and while driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner to endanger human life and personal safety of others and accused committed mischief by causing wrongful loss and damage to the car bearing No.DL8CAP6328 and wall of the house of the complainant Mr. Arjun thereby accused has committed offences punishable u/s 279/427 IPC.
2. This case was registered on the complaint of complainant Arjun Chapirihan who stated in his original complaint (Ex. PW1/A) that in the morning of 26.06.2019 at about 05.00 pm he came out of his house for morning walk then a truck driver, who was who was coming from the road in-front of his house in S-Block GK-II and who was driving rash and negligent manner, had hit against the parked vehicle on side of the road and had also hit against the car complainant bearing registration no. DL08CAP6328, CRETA white colour, from back side and also hit against the wall of the house of the Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.2 PS Chitranjan Park.
complainant due to which a crack in the wall appeared. The truck stopped there. Thereafter, truck driver got down from the truck who revealed his name as Tausin S/o Sheru R/o Village Pavi Sarakpur, Khadda Colony near Masjid Thana Tonica City Ghaziabad U.P. Complainant further stated that when he went to take stock of vehicles nearby, truck driver, leaving the truck on the spot, fled away from the spot. He called the police at 100 number and went in search of truck driver but he could not be found. The registration number of the truck was UP17T3293, thereafter, he went to his office at Faridabad. Thereafter, he came to police station and produced his damaged car No.DL08CAP6328.
3. Thereafter, remaining investigation was carried out. After completion of investigation, final report in the form of charge sheet under Section 279/427 IPC was forwarded to the Court against the accused for trial.
4. After taking cognizance of the offences by the court, accused was summoned. Pursuant to his appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copy of charge sheet was supplied to him. Subsequently, after perusal of the judicial file and hearing the parties, a prima facie case against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/427 IPC was found to be made out. Accordingly, on 07.11.2020, formal notice of accusation for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/427 IPC, to which he pleaded not Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.3 PS Chitranjan Park.
guilty and claimed trial was served upon the accused. Thereafter, the matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, examined the following witnesses; viz.
i) PW-1 Sh. Arjun Chaprihan (public witness),
ii) PW2 HC Rajender (MHCM),
iii) PW3 T.U. Siddiqui (Expert witness),
iv) PW4 Khalid (public witness)
v) PW5 HC Vikash (police witness)
vi) PW6 ASI Radhey Shyam (Investigating Officer).
vii) PW7 HC Om Prakash (police witness)
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the following documents:
1. Complaint Ex. PW1/A,
2. Photographs of the spot Ex. PW1/B (colly)
3. Photographs of the offending vehicle Ex.PW1/C.
4. Copy of register no.19 having relevant entries Ex.PW2/A.
5. Mechanical inspection report with regard to vehicle bearing No.UP17T3293 Ex.PW3/A.
6. Mechanical inspection report with regard to vehicle bearing No.DL8CAP6328 Ex.PW3/B.
7. Arrest memo Ex.PW4/A.
8. Personal search memo Ex.PW4/B. Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.4 PS Chitranjan Park.
9. Seizure memo of RC, insurance of offending vehicle Ex.PW4/C.
10. Seizure memo of DL of the offending vehicle Ex.PW5/A.
11. Tehrir Ex.PW6/A.
12. Site-plan Ex.PW6/B.
13. Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act Ex.PW6/C.
14. Seizure memo of vehicle bearing no.DL8CAP6328 Ex.PW6/D.
15. Seizure memo of vehicle bearing No.UP17T3293 Ex.PW6/E.
7. In addition to the above-mentioned witnesses, accused also admitted documents i.e. (i) FIR No.0099/2019 as Ex. A-1 in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C vide order dated 20.11.2023, hence, the said witnesses were dropped on the submissions of Ld. APP for State.
8. After prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all incriminating circumstances led against them during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to him, affording him an opportunity to give his explanation, if any. Accused pleaded innocence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, accused preferred not to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully.
Cr CASE 24802/2019STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.5 PS Chitranjan Park.
After hearing rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence on file, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP or the state cannot be accepted for the reasons given below.
10. First of all, the accused has been charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. Before proceeding further, for reference Section 279 IPC is reproduced as under:-
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, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are:
(i) driving of a vehicle or riding on a public way,
(ii) such driving or riding must be so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
*****
11. To bring home the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, first of all, the identity of the author of rash or Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.6 PS Chitranjan Park.
negligent act must be fixed. PW-1/Complainant Mr. Arjun Chaprihan, has appeared as a public witness stated that in 2019 the incident had taken place around 5 AM and his mother came out of the house for morning walk and she heard loud noise at the gate of house. He further stated that they live on first floor and when they went downstairs, they saw one truck bearing number UP17T3293 had hit against the wall of the house, also damaging his Creta car bearing number DL08CAP6328. He also stated that the truck driver fled away from the spot after the accident. However, he has identified the accused during the cross-examination. Thus, identification of the accused is established.
12. Now, the prosecution also had to prove on record the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused while driving the offending vehicle for the purpose of the proving offence under section 279 IPC.
13. In Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan (SC) 2012(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 245, it has been held as follows:-
"11. 'Negligence' means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.7 PS Chitranjan Park.
comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence.
12. The Court has to adopt another parameter, i.e., 'reasonable care' in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian on the road and this duty attains a higher degree when the pedestrian happen to be children of tender years. It is axiomatic to say that while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others.Cr CASE 24802/2019
STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.8 PS Chitranjan Park.
13.The other principle that is pressed in aid by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes - one that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the opposite party is responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in cases where the claimant is able to prove the accident but cannot prove how the accident occurred. The courts have also applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where no direct evidence was brought on record. The Act itself contains a provision which concerns with the consequences of driving dangerously alike the provision in the Indian Penal Code that the vehicle is driven in a manner dangerous to public life. Where a person does such an offence he is punished as per the provisions of Section 184 of the Act. The courts have also taken the concept of 'culpable rashness' and 'culpable negligence' into consideration in cases of road accidents. 'Culpable rashness' is acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.9 PS Chitranjan Park.
but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite consciousness (luxuria). 'Culpable negligence' is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection. In such a case the mere fact of accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. This maxim suggests that on the circumstances of a given case the res speaks and is eloquent because the facts stand unexplained, with the result that the natural and reasonable inference from the facts, not a conjectural inference, shows that the act is attributable to some person's negligent conduct. [Ref. Justice Rajesh Tandon's 'An Exhaustive Commentary on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' (First Edition, 2010]."
14. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the only public witness examined by the prosecution is PW-1/ Complainant Arjun Chaprihan who has stated, as discussed Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.10 PS Chitranjan Park.
above, that he came out of the house after the incident had already taken place. He has stated in his examination in chief that accused had fled away from the spot after the incident. He has also stated in during his cross-examination that he came outside when he heard bang at the of wall of his house. Further, in his original statement to the police (Ex. PW1/A) he has stated that he came out of his house for morning walk then a truck driver, who was coming from the road in-front of his house situated in S-Block GK-II and who was driving rash and negligent manner, had hit against the parked vehicle on side of the road and had also hit against the car and also that wall of his house. he has also stated in his examination in chief that his mother went outside for a morning walk and she heard that noise at the gate of the said house, at the same time he has further stated that they live on first floor and they came downstairs when the truck had hit against the wall of the house. Thus, the statement of the PW-1 Arjun Chaprihan, is self- contradictory, and he is not a reliable witness. Further his mother has not been examined as a prosecution witness. Thus, the prosecution had material witnesses to support the case of the prosecution but their names have not even been cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses and as such best witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution and benefit of the same shall go to the accused. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Amit Kantiwal v. Mukesh Mittal (Punjab And Haryana) CRM- A No.863-MA of 2014 (O&M). D/d. 30.03.2015.
Cr CASE 24802/2019STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.11 PS Chitranjan Park.
15. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is clear that the case of the prosecution solely rests on the testimony of a solitary witness namely Arjun Chaprihan complainant. There is no other eye witness of the present case. Accordingly, the accused cannot be convicted on the sole testimony of the complainant especially when the same suffers from contradictions and inconsistencies as discussed above. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Laxman Chandar Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay), 2016 (1) AIR Bom.R (Cri) 751, wherein it has been held as follows:
15. Except Taibai, there was no other witness to the occurrence. The other witnesses i.e. PW No.1 -
Laxman Mane, PW 3 - Kashinath Borse, PW 4 -
Bhimabai had not witnessed the incident and the alleged assault. The evidence of Kashinath (PW 3) only shows that he had heard exchange of words between the deceased Lahanu and Chander. Bhimabai (PW4) was declared as hostile and questions in the nature of cross-examination were permitted to be put to her. However, nothing which would advance the prosecution version could be elicited from her even pursuant to such questioning and she categorically denied having seen the appellant giving a dig by elblow to deceased Lahanu. When the criminal act attributed to the appellant, was sought to be established by the testimony of a solitary witness it Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.12 PS Chitranjan Park.
was absolutely necessary for the court to arrive at a satisfaction that such solitary witness is 'wholly reliable'. For basing a conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness - without any corroboration - the Court must be satisfied that such witness is 'wholly reliable'. In the instant case, there were a number of infirmities and contradictions in the version of Taibai and these infirmities were noticed and recorded by the learned Sessions Judge himself. Apart from these infirmities and contradictory versions, what cannot be overlooked is that the version of assaulting another by giving him a blow by the elbow, itself is an abnormal happening. Why would the person not give a straight and normal blow, if he wanted to hit another and would instead only give a nudge or dig by elbow, was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Somebody intending to cause physical hurt to a person, giving such person only a nudge, is quite unheard of. Thus, this improbability coupled with the other infirmities in the evidence of Taibai, and the absence of any corroboration whatsoever to her claim, should have led the learned Sessions Judge to doubt the assertion of Taibai to the effect that the appellant had hit her husband by the elbow."
16. Further, in Kandhara Singh v. State of Punjab, Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.13 PS Chitranjan Park.
(P&H) 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 679, it has been observed as follows:-
"6. The argument advanced by Mr. R.S. Rai, learned Senior Advocate is two fold. Firstly, he urged that though, the case is based on the testimony of the sole eye-witness i.e. Nishan Singh and no doubt, he could not be disbelieved merely for the reason of his relationship with the deceased, but his testimony, if scrutinised, does not land us anywhere and he is bound to be disbelieved as his testimony does not meet with the following required standards; (i) He does not describe the manner as to how the petitioner was rash and negligent; (ii) he has failed to establish the identity of the petitioner. Having examined the testimony of Nishan Singh (PW4), I see some substance in his arguments. Nishan Singh (PW4) has stated during his examination that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at a high speed, but he has not specifically stated anywhere if he was rash or negligent, much less he has not testified as to at what speed, he was driving the vehicle. Regarding high speed, it may be observed that the driver may be driving the vehicle at a high speed, but he cannot be said to be rash or negligent, unless it is explained as to in what manner he was rash or negligent. It is Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.14 PS Chitranjan Park.
a matter of common parlance that if a person is driving the vehicle upto 100 km per hour, then the same could not be said to be a high speed and it could be assessed as high, if he exceeded 100 km per hour. In absence of such categorical statement, the words 'high speed' without further explanation about its rate, could not be termed as a rash or negligent act in the terms of Section 304A Indian Penal Code. It is also worthwhile to mention that Nishan Singh during his examination as PW4 has been changing his stand. As per the First Information Report, the offending vehicle was a 'Maruti Van', which allegedly struck against the deceased, but in his testimony recorded in court Nishan Singh (PW4) has stated that the petitioner was driving the 'matador', therefore, this discrepancy leads me to infer that he was not witness to the occurrence. His house is allegedly situated at about 100 yards from the place of occurrence, therefore, he may have come after hearing the noise of collusion after the occurrence was over."
17. Further, in State of Karnataka v. Satish , (SC) 1998(8) SCC 493, it has been held as follows:-
"4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.15 PS Chitranjan Park.
"high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses 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 such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.16 PS Chitranjan Park.
submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case.
5.There being no evidence on the record to establish "negligence" or "rashness" in driving the truck on the part of the respondent, it cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the respondent is a perverse view. To us it appears that the view of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is a reasonably possible view. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged."
18. In the present case also, the public witness has not deposed regarding the physical condition of the road, and what was the condition of the traffic on the road at the time of accident etc. in the absence of which rashness and negligence on the part of the accused cannot be ascertained. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama, (SC) 1975 AIR (SC) 1324, wherein it has been held as follows:-
Cr CASE 24802/2019STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.17 PS Chitranjan Park.
"6. The facts in the case speak eloquently about what should have happened. The main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed but the width of the road, the density of the traffic and the attempt, as in this case, to overtake the other vehicles resulting in going to the wrong side of the road and being responsible for the accident. Even if the accident took place in the twinkling of an eye it is not difficult for an eye witness to notice a car overtaking other vehicles and going to the wrong side of the road and hitting a vehicle travelling on that side of the road. The criterion adopted by the learned Judge for assessing the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 and rejecting it is thoroughly unjustifiable. There may be cases where it is difficult to be clear or specific in giving details as to the cause of the accident but this is not one such case. The reference by the learned Judge about the slight damage to the electric post and the conclusion drawn therefrom that the car could not have been going at a high speed is not correct as we shall show later. His further observation that the fact that the car travelled another 45 feet and hit against the parapet wall and turned turtle showed that the car must have been travelling at an extremely high speed but there is a little blue paint on the pole Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.18 PS Chitranjan Park.
and a faint gray stain on the parapet wall is self contradictory unless we are to infer that the learned Judge implied that the one or the other is not true. He does not so hold. There can be no doubt about the car having hit the electric post and the parapet wall. That and the fact of its overturning would establish the rash and negligent driving. A car driven normally and travelling behind a bus does not go to the opposite side of the road and hit an electric post and parapet wall and turn turtle. The car apparently stopped only because it turned turtle. It did not hit the electric post or the parapet wall full tilt; if it did it would have stopped at one of those points. We should remember that the collision with the scooter and pushing it back would have considerably reduced the speed of the car. Even so it travelled farther. The slight damage to the electric post and the parapet wall is because the car hit them sideways. Nobody has suggested that they were brought into existence for the purpose of this case. The car would probably not have stopped but for turning turtle and it should have been travelling quite fast before it could overturn as the learned Judge himself realises. There is only one conclusion possible on the facts of this case and that is that the accused came over to the wrong side of the road and was responsible for Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.19 PS Chitranjan Park.
the accident and that is clearly a rash and negligent act in the condition of the road and the condition of the traffic."
19. Further, there is no other evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove any rashness and negligence on the part of the accused and as such the accused cannot be held guilty. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Braham Dass v. State of H.P., (SC) 2010(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 418, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"4. Obviously the foundation in accusations under Section 279 Indian Penal Code is not negligence. Similarly in Section 304 A the stress is on causing death by negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in application of either Section 279 or 304 A 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."
20. Coming back to the facts of present case, accused has also been served with notice under section 427 IPC.
427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees- Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.20 PS Chitranjan Park.
to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Mischief has been defined under section 425 IPC.
425. Mischief.--Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
21. Coming back to the facts of the present case no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove any intention to cause any mischief on the part of the accused. No public witness has come on record even to prove that the wall was hit by the accused while driving the said truck with intention to cause any damage or destruction to the wall and as such the accused cannot be held guilty for offence under section 427 IPC also.
22. Further, it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Clear and unimpeachable evidence is necessary to convict a person. This court finds that such evidence is absent in this case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Anil s/o Shamrao Sute & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 541.
Cr CASE 24802/2019STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.21 PS Chitranjan Park.
23. Thus, in my considered view, rashness and negligence on the part of the accused is not proved on record by the prosecution. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the offence punishable under Section 279 and 427 IPC is not proved against the accused.
24. In the light of above discussion and reasons, this Court is of the considered view that evidence led by the prosecution is highly insufficient and is discrepant on the material aspects of this case. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused present in the Court beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts. In the instant case prosecution has failed to prove its case and as such while extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, he is hereby acquitted of the charges leveled against him by the prosecution. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open (SEEMA NIRMAL)
On 12.05.2026 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts,
New Delhi/12.05.2026
It is certified by me that this judgment contains 22 pages and each page is personally signed by me.
(SEEMA NIRMAL) JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/12.05.2026 Cr CASE 24802/2019 STATE Vs. Tausin FIR NO.0099/19 Page No.22 PS Chitranjan Park.