Delhi District Court
St. vs . Hukum Singh & Ors. on 14 November, 2007
-:1:-
S.C. NO. 93/06
St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B. R. KEDIA ; A.S.J.
TIS HAZARI COURTS ; DELHI
State Vs. 1) Hukum Singh,
S/O Daan Singh
R/O T-261, Jhuggi Kavi
Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh.
2) Inderjeet @ Tinchu,
S/O Hukum Singh
R/O T-261, Jhuggi Kavi
Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh.
3) Smt. Dulari
W/O Hukum Singh
R/O T-261, Jhuggi Kavi
Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh.
4) Dharmender
S/O Hukum Singh
R/O T-261, Jhuggi Kavi
Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh.
5) Miss Champa
D/O Hukum Singh
R/O T-261, Jhuggi Kavi
Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh.
S.C. NO. 93/06
FIR NO. 792/05
P.S. Model Town
U/Sec. 306/34 IPC
Date of institution 13.9.2006.
Arguments heard on 12.11.07.
Judgment delivered on 14.11.07.
-:2:-
S.C. NO. 93/06
St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
J U D G M E N T :-
Five accused persons, namely, 1) Hukum Singh, 2) Inderjeet @ Tinchu, 3) Smt. Dulari, 4) Dharmender and 5) Miss Champa have been chargesheeted for facing trial in a case bearing FIR NO. 792/05, for offence punishable 306/34 IPC as registered at P.S. Model Town, Delhi.
2. The precise case of the prosecution as found reflected from the charge sheet is that on dt. 20.11.05 on receipt of copy of D.D. NO. 13 by S.I. Rajbir Singh, Incharge Police Post Sangam Park, P.S. Model Town, he alongwith Ct. Anand reached the spot at H.NO. T-261, Kabir Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi and was informed that one lady, namely, Smt. Munni W/O Inderjeet @ Tinchu in burning condition was removed to L.N.J.P. Hospital by P.C.R. Police. In the mean time S.I. Rajbir Singh also received D.D. NO. 14. Thereafter, S.I. Rajbir Singh alongwith Ct. Anand reached L.N.J.P. Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Smt. Munni and the injured was opined -:3:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
by the concerned doctor 'Fit for Statement'. As it is revealed that the injured Munni was married with the accused Inderjeet @ Tinchu, two years back, information in this respect was communicated by S.I. Rajbir Singh to Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then S.D.M. Model Town, who came to L.N.J.P. Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Smt. Munni, which is EX. PW-1/A. As per said statement of Smt. Munni, she was married to Inderjeet @ Tinchu on 29.11.03 and was residing at First Floor, Jhuggi No. T-261, Kabir Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. On the previous night, when she asked for Rs. 5/- from her husband for purchasing of bangles, he declined and abused her and gave beating to her for which she lodged complaint against her husband at the police chowki and her husband was taken into custody by the police. Because of said police complaint her, Nand Champa and kunti quarreled with her and kunti gave beating to her. Her Dewar Dharmender and Om Prakash also quarreled with her and Dharmender gave beating to her. Her father in law and mother in law also quarreled with her. Because of the same, out of anger she poured kerosene oil upon herself and set her ablaze at about 11:00 -:4:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
a.m. on that day i.e. 20.11.05. On hearing her scream, some people got extinguished the fire and thereafter P.C.R. Police removed her to the Hospital. After recording of statement of Smt. Munni, S.I. Rajbir Singh came back at the spot and inspected the spot and lifted the matchstick, matchbox, stove, burnt hair and burnt clothes from the spot, Crime Team was called at the spot, who inspected the site and photograph of the spot was got obtained and information was sent to the relatives of the injured. Said D.D. NO. 13 was kept pending. Thereafter, on 10.12.05 D.D. NO. 17 was lodged at P.P. Sangam Park on receiving of information regarding death of said Smt. Munni at L.N.J.P. Hospital. On receipt of copy of D.D. NO. 17, S.I. Rajbir Singh gave information in this regard to the S.D.M. Model Town and also to the relatives of the deceased. On 12.12.05 S.D.M. Model Town got conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Munni. Thereafter, in pursuance of the letter dt. 12.12.05, which is EX. PW-1/B as addressed to the S.H.O. P.S. Model Town, Delhi, F.I.R. bearing no. 792/05, U/S 306 IPC was registered at P.S. Model Town. After registration of the F.I.R., further investigation -:5:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
was entrusted to S.I. Rajbir Singh. During the course of investigation, site plan was prepared, relevant case properties were sent to C.F.S.L., statement of the relevant witnesses were recorded, 4 accused, namely, Hukum Singh, Dulari, Dharmender and Champa were arrested and after conclusion of the investigation chargesheet concerning them was filed before the court of concerned Ld. M.M. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheet concerning accused Inderjeet @ Tinchu was also filed in the court of concerned Ld. M.M., who after compliance of requirements U/S 207 Cr. P.C. was pleased to commit the case to the court of Sessions. As two other accused, namely, Om Prakash and Kunti were found to be juvenile, chargesheet concerning them was reported to be filed before the Juvenile Court. Thereafter, matter concerning these five accused were assigned to this court for trial.
3. On hearing both the sides on the point of charge vide order dt. 27.9.06, charge for the offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC was framed against these five accused to which they pleaded not -:6:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
guilty and claimed for trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case got examined 19 prosecution witnesses, namely, Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then S.D.M. Model Town, as PW-1, HC Devender, Duty Officer, a formal witness as PW-2, Ct. Balwan Singh, who is witness to arrest of accused Hukum Singh, Champa and Dulari as PW-3, HC Saroj, D.D. Writer, who has proved the D.D. NO. 17 as EX. PW-4/A, a formal witness as PW-4, Ct. Jitender, D.D. Writer, who has proved the copy of D.D. NO. 13 as EX. PW-5/A and copy of D.D. NO. 14 as EX. PW-5/B, a formal witness as PW-5, A.S.I. Jai Karan, who was the Incharge of P.C.R. and had removed the injured Munni to L.N.J.P. Hospital, a formal witness as PW-6, S.I. Rajbir Singh, initial I.O. as PW-7, Sh. Manoj Kumar, a formal witness as PW-8, Ct. Sushil Kumar, Photographer from Crime Team, who has proved the photographs of the spot as EX. PW-9/1 to EX. PW-9/4 and negatives of the same as EX.PW-9/5 to EX. PW-9/8 as PW-9, Dr. Sunil from Maulana Azad Medial College, Delhi, who has conducted the post -:7:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
mortem on the dead body of the deceased and proved his P.M. Report as EX. PW-10/A, a formal witness as PW-10, S.I. Manohar Lal, Draughtsman, who has proved the scaled site plan as EX. PW-11/A, a formal witness as PW-11, Ct. Raj Kumar, a formal witness as PW-12, HC Hari Om, who is also a formal witness as PW-13, W/ASI Seema, who is witness to arrest of accused Dulari, Champa and Hukum Singh, a formal witness as PW-14, Ct. Anand Kumar, who has accompanied with the initial I.O. S.I. Rajbir Singh on receipt of copy of D.D. NO.13 on 20.11.05 and partly joined investigation with the I.O. as PW-15, HC Ramesh Kumar, the then MHC(M) P.S. Model Town, who has proved about the entries in register no. 19 regarding receipt an dispatch of the case properties, a formal witness as PW-16, Sh. B.S. Bhatti, Medical Record Clerk from L.N.J.P. Hospital, a formal witness as PW-17, S.I. Suraj Bhan from Mobile Crime Team, North West District, who inspected the spot and proved his report EX. PW-18/A as PW-18 and A.S.I. Karamveer Singh, second I.O. as PW-19.
-:8:-S.C. NO. 93/06
St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
5. After examination of aforesaid 19 prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of accused, U/S 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded, in which the accused persons denied the allegation of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused have not led any evidence in their defence.
6. I have heard Sh. Vikas Sharma, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for all the accused, Sh. Zenul-Abedeen, Ld. A.P.P. for the State and perused the relevant record.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons that these accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and hence they deserve to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even as per the statement of the deceased Munni as recorded by the S.D.M., which is EX. PW-1/A, no case U/S 306/34 IPC is made out against the accused persons and hence these accused deserve to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel -:9:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
that neither any independent public witness from the neighbourhood nor any relative of the deceased Munni has been examined by the I.O. and same is fatal for the case of the prosecution. It is further added that even otherwise the statement of the deceased, EX. PW-1/A cannot be treated as trustworthy as it does not find mentioned that the same was read over to the deceased before obtaining her signature nor it was recorded in the presence of doctor, who opined her 'Fit for Statement'. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that the accused persons cannot be held liable for commission of suicide by the deceased Munni as she was fed up due to false involvement of her husband Inderjeet @ Tinchu in several cases by police. Further more, the accused Inderjeet @ Tinchu, who is the husband of the deceased nor other accused were present at the spot at the time of burning of the deceased. It is further added that though the alleged incident of burning of the deceased had taken place on 20.11.05 and the deceased Munni expired on 10.12.05 but the F.I.R. has been registered after about 12 days i.e. on dt. 12.12.05 and said delay also create suspicion on the stand of the prosecution. It is, thus, urged by -:10:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
the Ld. Counsel for the accused that accused persons deserve to be acquitted.
8. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution by examining aforesaid 19 prosecution witnesses have successfully established its case for the charged offence as against all the accused and they deserve to be convicted accordingly. It is further added by Ld. APP that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the deceased as recorded before Ld. S.D.M., which is EX. PW-1/A and same clearly establish the case against the accused persons and hence they deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is, thus, urged by Ld. APP that the accused persons deserve to be convicted for the offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC for abetting for commission of suicide by the deceased Smt. Munni Devi.
9. From the perusal of the deposition of PW-7 S.I. Rajbir Singh, initial I.O., it is reflected that on 20.11.05 while he was posted -:11:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
as Incharge of police post Sangam Park, P.S. Model Town, on receipt of D.D. NO. 13/A, he alongwith Ct. Anand reached the spot at Jhuggi No. T-261, Kabir Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi at first floor where it was revealed to them that the P.C.R. Van had removed the injured to J.P.N. Hospital. Thereafter, they reached J.P.N. Hospital and found the injured Smt. Munni admitted in J.P.N. Hospital in burnt condition. As the incident had happened within 7 years of marriage of said Smt. Munni, S.I. Rajbir Singh informed the concerned S.D.M. Thereafter, Sh. B.S. Thakur, S.D.M. Model Town reached L.N.J.P. Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Smt. Munni. Said fact is also found corroborated from the deposition of Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then S.D.M. Model Town, Delhi, who has been examined as PW-1. As said PW-1 deposed in the court that on 20.11.05, at about 2:00 p.m. he received message from S.I. Rajbir Singh/I.O., that one lady, namely, Munni had sustained burn injury and has been admitted in J.P.N. Hospital. Thereafter, he reached J.P.N. Hospital at about 3:00 p.m. and after finding her 'Fit for Statement' from the concerned doctor, he recorded her statement, which is EX. PW-1/A, -:12:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
which bears his signature at point-A and signature of Munni at point- B. Said PW-1 further deposed that on 10.12.05 he came to know that said lady Munni expired in the hospital on 10.12.05 and thereafter post mortem was got conducted on 12.12.05. Thereafter, he sent a letter, which is EX. PW-1/B alongwith earlier statement of said Munni as recorded by him on 20.11.05, which is EX. PW-1/A to the S.H.O. P.S. Model Town for taking necessary legal action. In pursuance of said statement EX. PW-1/A coupled with the letter of S.D.M. EX. PW-1/B, F.I.R. bearing no. 792/05, U/S 306/34 IPC, copy of which is EX. PW-2/A, has been registered at P.S. Model Town and further investigation was taken up by PW-7 S.I. Rajbir and afterwards investigation was assigned to PW-19 A.S.I. Karambir Singh and on conclusion of the investigation chargesheet has been filed against the accused persons.
10. From the perusal of the statement of deceased Munni, which was recorded by PW-1 Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then S.D.M., Model Town on dt. 20.11.05 at J.P.N. Hospital, which is EX. PW- -:13:- S.C. NO. 93/06
St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
1/A, it is reflected that she was married to Inderjeet @ Tinchu on 29.11.03 and was residing at First Floor, Jhuggi No. T-261, Kabir Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. On the previous night, when she asked for Rs. 5/- from her husband for purchasing of bangles, he declined and abused her and gave beating to her for which she lodged complaint against her husband at the police chowki and her husband was taken into custody by the police. Because of said police complaint, her Nand Champa and kunti quarreled with her and kunti gave beating to her. Her Dewar Dharmender and Om Prakash also quarreled with her and Dharmender gave beating to her. Her father in law and mother in law also quarreled with her. Because of the same, out of anger she poured kerosene oil upon herself and set her ablaze at about 11:00 a.m. On that day i.e. 20.11.05. On hearing her scream, some people got extinguished the fire and thereafter P.C.R. Police removed her to the hospital. From the perusal of the aforesaid statement of the deceased, which is EX.PW-1/A, it is clearly reflected that deceased Munni, out of her anger set ablaze herself by pouring kerosene oil and lighted the matchstick upon her at about 11:00 a.m. -:14:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
on dt. 20.11.05. There is nothing on record to show that the accused persons had intended that the deceased Munni should commit suicide or knew that she was likely to commit suicide. It appears to be an independent act of the deceased herself out of her own emotions and impulsion as entertained by her at that time.
11. Let us see if, the accused persons can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC for abetting for commission of suicide by the deceased Smt. Munni? In the case reported as AIR 1975 S.C. 175 in Para-6 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
"Thus, in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. ......-:15:- S.C. NO. 93/06
St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107."
In the case reported as 2000(2) JCC Delhi 297, "Lakshmi & Anr. Vs. State" while dealing with the case U/S 306 IPC it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under :-
5. Section 306 I.P.C. provides for abetment of suicide and reads :-
"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term -:16:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Abetment has been defined in Section 107 I.P.C. to mean that :-
"A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
Firstly. - Instigates any person to do that thing, or Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."-:17:- S.C. NO. 93/06
St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
6. Abetment is thus constituted (1) by instigating a person to commit an offence, or (2) by engaging in a conspiracy to commit it, or (3) by intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
7. "In Emperor Vs. Amiruddin Solebhoy AIR 1923 Bombay 44", the meaning of the word "instigate" has been explained as under :-
"A person is said to instigate another to act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, Whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragements."
8. In Rishi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 1988 (1) All India Criminal Law Reports 615, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has also explained the meaning of the word "instigate" as under :- -:18:- S.C. NO. 93/06
St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
"The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement."
9. Thus, in the context of the offence the word "instigate" would mean to suggest, provoke, incite or encourage or stimulate to do an act or to urge forward.
10. "Conspiracy" consists in a combination and agreement by persons to do some illegal act or to effect a legal purpose by means. In order to constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy, there mus be a combining together of two or more persons in the conspiracy and an act or -:19:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
illegal omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing.
11. And a person abets by aiding when by any act done, either prior to, or at the time of, commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate the commission thereof.
12. In order to constitute abetment by aiding, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime (Sri Ram Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 175)
14. Abetment involves active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence and it is of the essence of the crime of abetment that the abettor should substantially assist towards the commission -:20:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
of the offence. In other words, in order to convict a person of abetting the commission of a crime, it is necessary to connect him with those steps in the transaction which are criminal. It is not the case of the prosecution that when the deceased had committed suicide, the accused were present at the place of incident. There is no material, direct or indirect, to show that the accused had either instigated or conspired or aided the deceased in committing the suicide at that time. And it could not be said that the accused persons had abetted the suicide. On the material available no offence punishable under section 306/34 IPC is made out against either of the accused.
In 2002 (2) JCC 466 (Delhi), "Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti Vs. State" while dealing with case relating to Sec. 306/498A IPC, it was observed by our Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para - 6 as under :-
-:21:-S.C. NO. 93/06
St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
"The law on the subject, to my mind, is that the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commissioning of the crime and mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee, unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime, intentionally aiding and, therefore, active complicity is the gist of offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107, IPC, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram & Anr. Vs State of U.P. AIR -:22:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
1975 SC 175. It is, however, difficult to lay down the exact acts of commission or omission which amount to abetment depending upon facts of the each case but the principles have already been laid down in precedents."
In a recent case reported as 2007 IV (AD) Delhi, 498, Prashant Manchanda Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Anr." while dealing with case relating to Sec. 306 IPC, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 11 as under :-
"In order to attract Section 306 IPC, the person to abet commission of suicide must do an overt act or some act which instigates the victim to commit suicide. The act so performed must be immediate cause of the suicide. Here, in this case, Commissioner of Police had suspended the deceased Inspector on 12th October, 2004. The deceased Inspector committed -:23:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
suicide exactly after two years. The suspension was done by the Commissioner of Police as an official act which he was authorized to do under law. Every head of the department is supposed to initiate disciplinary action against subordinates when commission or omission of such acts are brought to his notice which prima facie show dereliction of duty or malafide actions."
Further more, in a recent case reported as 2007 V AD (S.C.) 665, "Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors" it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
12. Similarly, in Mahendera Singh & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, it was observed by this Court that it is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in the spur of the moment or in anger cannot be treated as constituting -:24:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
mens rea. In that case the appellant said to the deceased "to go and die". As a result of such utterance, the deceased went and committed suicide. However, the Supreme Court observed that no offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC was made out because there was no element of mens rea.
13. In "Randhir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab" 2004 (3) SCC 129, it was observed that "more active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC"
14. In the same decision it was observed following the decision in "State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal 1994 (1) SCC 73"
that :--:25:- S.C. NO. 93/06
St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
"The courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens -:26:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in laws.
This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC.
12. By taking the cue from the aforesaid judgments and applying the same to the facts and circumstances to the present case, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution could not be successful in establishing its case for offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC as against these accused for abetting the commission of suicide by deceased Smt. Munni Devi.
13. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that all these five accused persons, namely, 1) Hukum Singh, 2) Inderjeet @ Tinchu, 3) Smt. Dulari, 4) Dharmender and 5) Miss Champa are acquitted for the charged offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC. As accused Inderjeet @ Tinchu and Dharmender are in J.C., they be -:27:- S.C. NO. 93/06 St. Vs. Hukum Singh & Ors.
released forthwith, if not wanted to be detained in any other case and concerned Jail Superintendent be intimated in this regard. As remaining three accused, namely, Hukum Singh, Smt. Dulari and Champa are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. After doing the needful by the Ahlmad of this court, this case file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (B.R. KEDIA) On 14th November 2007. Addl. Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts Delhi.