Delhi District Court
Fir No:471/09; Ps Shahdara; U/S ... vs . Vishal Jain & Others on 30 March, 2011
1 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS IN THE COURT OF SH. B.S. CHUMBAK:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE DELHI Case ID Number 02402R0155462010 Session Case No. 27/10 Assigned to Sessions 30/07/10 Arguments heard on 30/03/11 Date of order 30/03/11 FIR NO. 471/09 Police Station SHAHDARA Under Section 366/376/506/34 IPC Out come of the judgment ACQUITTAL STATE VS 1. VISHAL JAIN 2. LOKESH JAIN @ SUNNY BOTH S/O LATE SUBHASH CHAND JAIN R/O 1/6817, GALI NO.2, EAST ROHTASH NAGAR, SHAHDARA, DELHI Present: Sh. S.K. Dass Ld. Addl. PP for state. Sh. Usman Khan Advocate on behalf of both the accused. JUDGMENT
1. On 23.12.09 a case u/s 365/366/376/506/34 IPC was registered vide FIR no. 471/09 at PS Shahdara on the basis of written complaint filed by Page 1/25 2 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS Anju Rani (prosecutrix) d/o Ram Karan r/o 351/5 G.T. Road, Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana against Vishal Jain and Lokesh Jain @ Sunny both sons of Subash Chand Jain r/o 1/6817, Gali no.2, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
2. Brief facts arising out of this case are that on 17.12.09 prosecutrix filed a complaint to SHO PS Shahdara and relevant facts of the complaint are as follows :
"Vishal Jain was known to her since last two and half years as she met with him about two and half years ago. She used to talk on telephone with him two three times in a month. One day he reached in his computer class and told her that he would leave her at his house. When she refused to accept the same he offered her for a job relating to computer and also got noted down the address of the office. On 25.11.09 she reached at Metro Station, Shahdara. Vishal Jain met her there, took her to a house at Mauzpur. His brother Sunny was also with him. Two three friends were also present in the house. Vishal Jain extended threat of solemnization of marriage with her and on the same night committed rape upon her without her consent. Vishal Jain also took her in a Page 2/25 3 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS temple and under threat of killing her, forcibly the marriage was got solemnized with her, thereafter he took her at his house and again committed sexual intercourse with her. She narrated this incident before her parents."
3. After registration of the case investigation was initiated. Accused Vishal Jain was arrested at the instance of prosecutrix. They both were got medically examined at GTB hospital vide MLC no.A 5665/09 and MLC no. A-5895/09 respectively. After medical examination of prosecutrix doctor gave her opinion as "hymen ruptured and on the MLC of Vishal Jain it was opined that "nothing to suggest that patient/accused not capable to perform sexual intercourse." Exhibits were sealed in a sealed pullanda and deposited in the malkhana. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded. Site plan was prepared. Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded. Photocopy of the document showing age proof was taken in possession. On 08.04.2010 co-accused Lokesh @ Sunny brother of accused Vishal Jain was formally arrested as he had already been released on anticipatory bail. Page 3/25 4 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS The exhibits were sent to FSL Rohin. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of necessary investigation challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C was presented in the court of Ld. MM. Report of FSL was obtained and same was submitted to the trail court.
4. Ld. MM after taking cognizance for the offence supplied the copies of the challan to both the accused as provided u/s 207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the court of Sessions and on turn allocated to this court for trial. Thereafter case was fixed for arguments on charge.
5. After hearing arguments and on perusal of the material placed on record charge for the offence u/s 366/506/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons and charge for the offence u/s 376 IPC was framed against accused Vishal Jain to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
6. Prosecutrix Anju Rani appeared as (PW1), L.Ct. Shallu as (PW2), Ct. Page 4/25 5 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS Anand Kumar as (PW3), HC Suraj Pal Singh as (PW4), Ram Karan as (PW5), Ct. Manjeet Singh as (PW6), Dr. P.Ram CMO GTB hospital as (PW7), Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, Ld. MM as (PW8), SI Usha as (PW9) and Dr. Divya, Sr. Resident, Department of Gynecologist, GTB hospital as (PW10), thereafter no PW was left to be examined, therefore, prosecution evidence was closed.
7. Brief testimony of all the PW's are as follows:
(i) She deposed that accused Vishal Jain was known to him prior to this incident. He informed her about the vacancy of one post of computer clerk in a office and assured her to come to Shahdara Metro Station and accordingly on 25.11.09 she reached at Metro Station, Shahdara and made a telephonic call to him to receive her. He and his brother Sunny and two other friends reached there in a car. Accused Vishal Jain took her to his house instead of dropping her at the office for interview. No other family member was present at the house of Vishal Jain. Accused Vishal Jain also took mobile phone and original Page 5/25 6 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS educational certificate from her on the pretext that he would take her to the place of interview but he postponed the same for next day. She further deposed that Vishal Jain started misbehaving with her and also molested her. He took her to his bed room and attempted to outrage her modesty. She pushed him and tried to run away from that room.
Accused Sunny and two other persons were also present there and they again pushed her inside the house of Vishal Jain and bolted the door from inside. Accused Vishal Jain removed her clothes. Sunny also entered in the bed room and took her naked photographs inside the room. She further deposed that accused Vishal Jain forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent and also extended threat of exposing her necked photographs in the public in case she would disclose this incident to anyone. She was kept confined in a room for the whole night. Accused Vishal also offered water and after taking the same she became unconscious and when she regain consciousness she found mother of accused Vishal Jain present there. She further deposed that next day morning both the accused took her in a car at Page 6/25 7 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS Karkardooma Court in a chamber of an Advocate and obtained her signatures on some papers, thereafter, they both took her in a Mandir and got her marriage solemnized forcibly. She further deposed that both the accused took her in a room at unknown place and also extended threat of killing her, if she would disclose the incident to anyone. Accused Vishal Jain again committed rape upon her in the night of 26.11.09. She further deposed that before leaving her house she had left the address and telephone number of Vishal Jain at her house, therefore, her parents made a telephonic call to Vishal Jain and accused Vishal Jain disclosed before them that he alongwith herself were going outside and would return next day. She further deposed that on 27.11.09 both the accused again took her to their house at Shahdara and on reaching there mother of both accused Vishal Jain and Lokesh Jain @ Sunny tried to make her understand regarding the incident and also suggested that not to disclose the incident to anyone but she informed her parents through telephone of Vishal Jain. Page 7/25 8 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS She further deposed that on 27.11.09 her brother Amit and cousin brother Pramod reached at the house of accused, therefore, accused Vishal Jain took her in a separate room and extended threat about not to disclose the incident to her brothers. They also forced her brother to write a letter that they were taking her with them, thereafter she was allowed to return to her house. She narrated the whole incident to her parents and thereafter went to PS Samalkha and filed a complaint Ex.PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. She further deposed that l 23.12.09 she was taken by the police officials at the house of accused Vishal Jain. He was found present in the house and was arrested on her identification vide arrest memo Ex. PW PW1/B. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/C. She further deposed that she was got medically examined at GTB hospital. She identified both the accused present in the court and further stated that her original educational certificates and photographs taken by them were not returned to her. During her cross examination she stated that accused Vishal Jain met Page 8/25 9 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS her first time in the year 2006 at Computer Institute Samalkha, Haryana and since then she used to talk with him telephonically but never met personally. She further stated that accused Vishal Jain met her once a time i.e on 25.11.09 prior to this incident. She further stated that in para no.3 of the complaint it is mentioned that on 21.11.09 accused Vishal Jain reached at Samalkha and met her at 4:30 p.m and forced her to sit in his car for which she refused. She further stated that they had gone to PS Shahdara on 15.12.09 and handed over the complaint to the police officials. She further stated that on 25.11.09 she made several calls to Vishal Jain from Samalkha intimating thereby that she was coming to Delhi for interview and Vishal Jain also made several calls to her directing the way how to reach Shahdara. She denied the suggestion that on 25.11.09 she was at Samalkha till 4 p.m with accused Vishal Jain and entered in Delhi at about 4:30 p.m. She also stated that she got recorded in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C that she reached at Shahdara Metro Station in the morning time and from there Vishal Jain took her to his house at Mauzpur thereby she confronted from her complaint Page 9/25 10 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS Ex.PW1/A wherein it was not so recorded. She also admitted that when she leave her house from Samalkha her original certificates, one suit was with her as she had to go to her Mausi's house. When marriage certificate dated 26.11.09 shown to the witness she admitted her signature but stated that these were forcibly obtained but she failed to depose as to how her passport size photograph came in possession of accused which was admittedly affixed on the marriage certificate. She also admitted that letter mark A bears the signature of her cousin brother Pramod and further admitted that when her real brother and cousin brothe reached at PS Shahdara she was sitting in a car which was parked outside the PS. She also admitted her 13 photographs when shown to her in the court which are Ex.PW1/1 to PW1/12. She further stated that after solemnization of marriage she again went to the house of accused Vishal Jain but she denied the suggestion that after marriage she lived with accused person happily and came from his house with a bag of clothes containing three pair of suits, tooth paste and brush etc. She also admitted that her one suit which she brought with her was Page 10/25 11 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS taken by accused Vishal Jain from her possession. She denied the suggestion that photograph Mark X with her niece was handed over by her to Vishal Jain but she admitted her photograph with her niece and which might have been available in her documents which was taken away by accused Vishal Jain. Rest of her testimony is reiterated by him as submitted by him during examination in chief.
(ii) PW2 deposed that on 23.12.09 she took the prosecutrix at GTB hospital for her medical examination. Doctor who had examined the prosecutrix handed over four separate sealed pullanda duly sealed with the seal of MLC GTB hospital alongwith sample seal. Prosecutrix was examined vide MLC no. C-505/09. She handed over all the sealed pullandas to IO WSI Usha alongwith sample seal, same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. During her cross examination she reiterated her testimony as submitted by her during examination in chief.
Page 11/25 12 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS
(iii) PW3 deposed that on 05.02.10 as per directions of IO he took six sealed pullanda and one sample seal from MHCM Shahdara vide RC no. 92/21 and deposited the same to the office of FSL Rohini. He further deposed that during the pullandas remained in his possession the same were not tampered with.
(iv) PW4 is the formal witness. He only recorded formal FIR no. 471/09 on the basis of rukka sent by WSI Usha through Ct. Amit. Copy of the FIR is Ex. PW4/A.
(v) PW5 is the father of prosecutrix and deposed that on 25.11.09 her daughter Kumari Anju Rani had gone to Delhi for an interview but she did not return to his house till evening, he made inquiries from her friends and other known persons but her whereabouts could not be ascertained. Next day morning he received a telephonic all from her daughter and came to know that someone has induced her on account Page 12/25 13 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS of an interview and has confined in a house bearing no . 6817/1 Hanuman Gali, Shahdara under pressure.
On receipt of this information he alongwith his brother and sons reached at the given address and found sister of Vishal Jain present there but she failed to disclose any fact about this incident. He remained at the aforesaid address till 6 p.m. During that period neither Vishal Jain nor his younger brother (co-accused) also reached there. Then they made a call at PCR. Police official reached there, younger brother of Vishal Jain (co-accused) also reached there. He was interrogated but he also failed to disclose any clue about this incident rather extended threat upon them when they tried to ask about the whereabouts of his daughter and Vishal Jain. On forceful asking by the police official Lokesh Jain @ Sunny had a talk with Vishal Jain on telephone and disclosed false facts with regard to his placement i.e who had now reached at Ambala and going for Kashmir but during subsequent interrogation by the police officials on telephone it was revealed that he was present somewhere in Maujpur, Delhi at doctor's shop but Vishal Jain refused to come to his Page 13/25 14 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS house on that day. His son and his nephew signed the undertaking under force and took her daughter with them. He further deposed that on the next date day, he took his daughter to nearby police station i.e at Samalka, the police official of PP Samalka refused to lodge the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Her daughter was mentally upset, therefore, he alone went to PS Shahdara to file the written complaint already available with him. He further stated that despite his efforts for settlement both the accused failed to co-operate and hence present case was registered.
He further deposed that his daughter was got medically examined at GTB hospital. He also handed over the photocopy of the certificate of Board of Secondary education mentioning therein the date of birth of his daughter as 09.08.1988. The seizure memo Ex. PW5/A was prepared in his presence.
During his cross examination he stated that on 25.11.09 when his daughter left her house for interview she had not disclosed the name and address of Vishal Jain and only on 26.11.09 she disclosed the Page 14/25 15 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS name and address of Vishal Jain. Rest of his testimony is reiterated by him as submitted by him during examination in chief
(vi) PW6 is a formal witness and deposed that on 23/12/2009 as per direction of IO he accompanied accused Vishal Jain to GTB Hospital for his medical examination. Doctor handed over two sealed pullandas and one sample seal to him which he later on handed over to the IO and IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW 6/A.
(vii) PW 7 proved the MLC bearing no. 5895/09 dated 23/12/09 whereby accused Vishal Jain was examined. MLC is Ex.PW7/A and after examination he gave opinion with regard to the fact that "there was nothing to suggest that patient Vishal Jain was not able to perform sexual intercourse." Sample of semen and blood were also collected and handed over to the IO with the seal of the hospital. Page 15/25 16 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS
(viii) PW8 proved the factum of recording statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Statement is Ex. PW8/A.
(ix) PW9 is the IO of this case and deposed that on 23.12.09 prosecutrix Kumari Anju Rani alongwith her father (PW5) reached at PS Shahdara and on that day a complaint which was earlier filed by prosecutrix was assigned to her for investigation. The complaint is already Ex.PW1/A. He made endorsement on the complaint after verifying the facts from the prosecutrix and got the case registered u/s 365/366/376/506/34 IPC. The endorsement made by him in his own hand and is Ex.PW9/A bearing her signature at point A. After registration of the case prosecutrix was got medically examined by Lct. Shallu. All the exhibits were handed over to her and she deposited all the exhibits with MHCM. Site plan was prepared on the identification of prosecutrix which is Ex.PW9/B. On the identification of prosecutrix accused Vishal Jain was arrested, interrogated, his personal search was Page 16/25 17 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS conducted. Arrest memo is Ex. PW1/B and personal search memo is Ex. PW1/ C. Co-accused Lokesh Jain was also formally arrested on 8.4.10 vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/D. He also sent Ct. Manjeet with accused Vishal Jain to GTB hospital for his medical examination and all the exhibits were handed over by doctor to Ct. Manjeet which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A and deposited the exhibits with MHCM. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Vishal Jain Ex.PW9/E. He further deposed that on 24.12.09 statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded which is already Ex.PW8/A. All the exhibits were sent to CFSL Rohini through Ct. Anand. CFSL report Ex.PW9/F is also placed on record. After recording statement of witnesses and on completion of necessary investigation he filed the challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C in the court of Ld. MM. During cross examination she stated that she had visited the Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar to verify the factum of solemnization of Page 17/25 18 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS marriage of accused Vishal Jain with prosecutrix. She also recorded statement of Pandit Brij Kumar Pandey s/o sh. Bala Pd. Pandey r/o 21/64 Yamuna Bazar, Delhi. In his statement Pandit Brij Kumar stated that the marriage of the prosecutrix with Vishal Jain was solemnized in his presence and at that time there was no instances of pressure, threat/forceful activity by the accused were noticed. However, he specifically stated that marriage was solemnized in a peaceful manner and without raising any objection by the prosecutrix. Statement of Pandit Brij Kumar Pandey recorded by her is Ex.PW9/DX.
(x) PW10 deposed that MLC no. C-56651/09 dated 23.12.09 pertaining to Anju Rani was prepared by Dr. Suchi Aggarwal who has left the hospital and she identified her signature and handwriting being worked with her. MLC is Ex. PW10/A. Thereafter, no PW was left to be examined, therefore, case was fixed for examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
Page 18/25 19 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS
8. During the course of examination of both the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C they both controverted all the allegations as alleged against them and submitted that they both were innocent and falsely implicated in this case and they also did not desire to lead defence evidence, therefore, defence evidence was closed and case was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for state and on behalf of ld. Counsel for accused.
10. Ld. counsel for accused submitted that before convicting the accused under any penal of law it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in the present case no ingridents of offence u/s 366/376/506/34 IPC is brought on record against both the accused and ingridents for the offence u/s 376 IPC is also not brought on record against accused Vishal Jain.
11. In support of his contention it is submitted that admittedly PW1 Page 19/25 20 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS Ms. Anju Rani (prosecutrix) and accused Vishal Jain were known to each other since the year 2006. On the day of incident she left her house after leaving the address of accused Vishal Jain at her house and when she left her house she was also having extra wearing clothes and other daily user articles with her which clearly goes to show that she with the aim to join the company of the accused left her house.
12. Admittedly the marriage was solemnized between prosecutrix and accused at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar. The photographs Ex.PW1/X1 to PW1/X/12 showing the solemnization of marriage are also brought on record and on perusal of each photograph no instances of any force/pressure to solemnize the marriage is noticed. The factum of solemnization of marriage in peaceful manner is further corroborated by Pandit Brij Kumar Pandey in his statement duly recorded by the IO and this fact is further admitted by the IO who investigated the case and Pandit Brij Kumar Pandey specifically stated that marriage was solemnized between prosecutrix and accused Vishal Jain in a peaceful Page 20/25 21 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS manner and prosecutrix happily joined the ceremonies.
13. Thirdly the date of birth of prosecutrix i.e 09.08.1988 as mentioned in her matriculation examination certificate is also not disputed and on the basis of her date of birth on the day of incident she was about 21 years old and was competent to take decision with regard to her marriage prospectus. Date of birth certificate which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A and photocopy of marriage certificate admitted by prosecutrix Mark A clearly goes to show that marriage was solemnized between accused Vishal Jain and prosecutrix in a peaceful manner and prosecutrix during her cross examination admitted her signature on the said certificate and her photographs affixed thereon.
14. Letter Mark A written by Pramod Kumar, brother of prosecutrix to SHO PS Shahdara, which has also been admitted by the father of prosecutrix wherein it is specifically mentioned that marriage of her sister Anju has been solemnized with Vishal Jain and he on his own Page 21/25 22 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS responsibility taking her sister to his house which again goes to show that on the day of writing the letter i.e on 27.11.09 the factum of marriage was well known to the family members of the prosecutrix and they also admitted the factum of marriage of Anju with Vishal Jain.
15. There are other material contradictions in the testimony of PW1 Kumari Anju Rani and her father PW5 and in view of the aforesaid discussion it is established that no ingridents for the offence to convict the accused for the offence for which they have been charged are brought on record by the prosecution and requested for their acquittal.
16. On the contrary Ld. Addl. PP for state submitted that present case was registered on the basis of complaint Ex. PW1/A and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW8/A of the prosecutrix. She was also examined as PW1 and in her testimony she stated that she was called by the accused on the pretext of providing job of computer clerk on 25.11.09 and instead of providing her job she was taken to house of accused at Page 22/25 23 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS Mauzpur and was raped. She further stated that her marriage was solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar under force and threat. Her testimony is further corroborated by PW5, father of prosecutrix and other police officials and in such type of cases the testimony of prosecutrix who has deposed that she has been raped and she was forced to get marry with accused alone is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution and in view of the statement of prosecutrix as well as testimony of other PW's examined by prosecution, it is established that prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence as alleged against them and requested for conviction of both the accused.
17. After hearing arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for both the parties, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the documents brought on record which has already been discussed I am of the considered view that prosecutrix was more than 21 years old on the Page 23/25 24 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS day of alleged incident. On perusal of the photographs and also on the basis of statement of Pandit Brij Kumar Pandey in whose presence the marriage between Vishal Jain and prosecutrix was solemnized clearly goes to show that there was no instances of threat and pressure during the solemnization of marriage. The physical appearance of the prosecutrix coupled with the fact that she of her own left her house while having extra wearing clothes and other daily use items with her and joined the company of accused again goes to show that she joined the company of accused with her own consent. Marriage is also solemnized and thereafter sexual relationship were established with her. In such circumstances I am of the considered view that no ingridents to prove the offence u/s 366/376/506/34 IPC is proved against the accused persons. Accordingly, accused Vishal Jain is acquitted for the offence as alleged against him u/s 366/376/506/34 IPC and Lokesh Jain is acquitted for the offence as alleged against him u/s 366/506/34 IPC.
18. The bail bond/ surety bond furnished by both the accused Page 24/25 25 FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS shall remain in force till the expiry of six months and both accused are further directed to appear before the appellant court, if they are required to appear before the appellant court in view of the provision of Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (B.S. CHUMBAK)
DATED Dt. 30th March 2011 ASJ-3 (North-East) KKD
DELHI
Page 25/25