Delhi District Court
Conspiracy. Direct Evidence Of ... vs . on 20 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors.
FIR No. 1005/99
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 387/120B IPC
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 69678/16
Date of Institution : 11.12.2000
Date of Commission of Offence : 29.11.1999
Name of the complainant : Surender Kumar Chadha
S/o Mulkraj Chadha
R/o 11, Bhera Enclave,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
Name & address of the accused : A-1 Mohd. Adnan Khan
S/o Late Sh. Mohd. Sagir Khan
R/o RZ-S-75, Nihal Vihar
Nangloi, Delhi
A-2 Satish Kumar
S/o Pratap Singh
R/o 319, R-Block, Jawalapuri
Delhi.
A-3 Ved Prakash
S/o Rajender Singh
R/o C-68, Aman Vihar,
Sultanpuri, Delhi
A-4 Dal Chand
S/o Giner Singh
R/o D-150C, D Block, Karan
Vihar, Rohini, Sector-20
Delhi.
Offence complained of : 387/120B IPC
State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 1 /19
FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment : 11.08.2016
Date of announcing of judgment : 20.08.2016.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case under Section 387 Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code.
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 29.11.1999, the complainant Surender Kumar Chadha lodged a complaint with the SHO, PS Paschim Vihar that an anonymous letter has been thrown at his residence, 11 Bhera Enclave. The letter contained a threat that if the complainant failed to make payment of Rs.10 Lacs, his son Kamal Chadha would be kidnapped and killed. On basis of said complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. The accused persons were apprehended. A piece of blank paper was seized from the possession of the accused Mohd. Adnan Khan and one ball point pen was recovered from the possession of the accused Dal Chand. Hence, the accused persons are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 387/120B IPC.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Copy of the charge-
sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 387/120-B IPC was framed against the accused State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 2 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar persons vide order dated 07.11.2003 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses i.e (1) Surender Kumar Chadha (2) Kamal Chadha (3) HC Ved Pal (4) HC Sunder Lal (5) HC Harish Kumar (6) ASI Raj Kumar Khatri (7) ASI Bua Lal (8) Inspector Suresh Kumar (9) HC Satish Kumar and (10) Ct. Narender.
5. PW-1 i.e the complainant deposed that on 27.11.1999 he found a letter lying inside his house. Some unknown person had demanded Rs.10 Lacs and threatened to kill his son Kamal Chadha. He was instructed to go in a Rikshaw to the village situated near his house. He went to the police station Paschim Vihar and filed complaint Ex.PW1/A. The letter Ex.PW1/B was handed over to the police. He could not recall whether the letter was in envelope or not. He further deposed that the police reached his house and security was provided to his son Kamal Chadha. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP as he was resiling from his earlier statement. During cross examination by the APP, he admitted that the date of complaint to the police is 29.11.1999. He also admitted that as per the letter, he was instructed to go to Syed Village on 30.11.1999 at 11.00 am in a rikshaw along with the money. He admitted that he had been threatened that his son would be kidnapped and killed. He admitted that the letter was in an envelope on which it is mentioned "Mile Kamal Ke State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 3 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar Dada Ko". The letter and envelope were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C.
6. During cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that he had signed only one paper which is Ex.PW1/A. He could not tell whether the said letter was sealed after seizure.
7. PW-2 Kamal Chadha deposed that on 27 or 28.11.1999 one letter was found inside his house. Some unknown person had demanded Rs.10 Lacs and also threatened to kill him. The letter was received by his father Surender Kumar Chadha. He further corroborated the testimony of PW-1.
8. During cross examination, PW-2 could not tell who had written the said letter.
No postal stamp was affixed thereupon. The letter was in Hindi. They had gone to the police station on the same day. He stated that the police had not recorded his statement as he was 17 years old. However, SHO had verbally interrogated him.
9. PW-3 HC Ved Pal deposed that he was handed over a special message in FIR No.1005/99 for reporting it to the Ld. Area MM, Additional CP and DCP, West. He went to the residence of the said officials and handed over the FIR to them. His statement is Mark X. During cross examination, he admitted that no receiving was obtained from the concerned officers. He could not tell whether any entry was made in the DD register or not.
10. PW-4 HC Sunder Lal deposed that on 29.11.1999 he along with SI Suresh Kumar was on patrolling duty at GH-14 Chowk. One constable came there and State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 4 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar handed over one rukka and copy of FIR No.1005/99 to him. They reached the house of the complainant. The complainant handed over one envelope to the IO. He did not know about the contents of the envelope. IO seized the envelope vide memo Ex.PW1/D. On 30.11.1999, he along with SI Suresh Kumar, HC Raj Kumar, HC Bua Lal, Ct. Satish, Ct. Harish had gone to the Syed Village in search of the accused. IO asked some passersby to join the raiding party but none agreed. They along with accused Ved Prakash reached at shop no.RZ-68, Syed Village, where the IO arrested the accused Satish, Dal Chand and Mohd. Adnan at the instance of Ved Prakash. Personal search of the accused persons was conducted. Personal search of the accused Mohd. Adnan is Ex.PW4/A. In formal search of the accused Satish, one desi katta was recovered from his pocket. Mohd. Adnan produced one blank paper to the IO and told him that he had torn the aforesaid blank paper and written the letter on one piece to the grandfather of the complainant.
11. During cross examination by the Ld. APP, PW-4 admitted that one pen was recovered from the possession of the accused Dal Chand vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. The disclosure statement of the accused Mohd. Adnan and accused Dal Chand are Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D respectively. He admitted that IO had seized one letter and one envelope from the complainant.
12. During cross examination by defence Counsel, the witness stated that he did not know as to whether IO SI Suresh Kumar had made the departure entry at State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 5 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar the police station. Ct. Narender met them while on patrolling at GH-14 Chowk.
13. PW-5 HC Harish Kumar deposed that on 30.11.1999 he joined the investigation in the present case. He along with SI Suresh Kumar, HC Raj Kumar, HC Bua Lal, Ct. Sunder Lal and Ct. Satish had gone to Bhera Enclave. On the directions of the IO, HC Bua Lal Ct. Sunder Lal and himself had gone to Syed Village. SI Suresh Kumar met them along with accused Ved Prakash. They raided shop no.RZ-68 from where Mohd. Adnan, Satish and Dal Chand were arrested and their personal search were conducted. Mohd. Adnan handed over a white paper to the IO which was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B. One pen was recovered from accused Dal Chand. The disclosure statement of the accused persons were recorded. In cross examination, he could not remember the number of the departure entry. He could not remember whether IO had asked any public person to join the investigation.
14. PW-6 ASI Raj Kumar Khatri deposed that on 30.11.1999 he alongwith SI Suresh Kumar, HC Bua Lal, Ct. Satish Kumar, Ct. Harish Kumar and Ct. Sunder Lal had gone to Bhera Enclave for investigation. He alongwith SI Suresh Kumar and Ct. Satish remained there while HC Bua Lal, Ct. Harish Kumar and Ct. Sunder Lal went to Sayyad village. When they were waiting at Kothi No.11, the accused Ved Prakash came there and was moving around. They apprehended him on suspicion. On his cursory search, one button actuated knife was recovered. His disclosure statement was recorded. He alongwith SI Suresh, Ct. State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 6 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar Satish and accused went at a shop at Sayed village, where they apprehended accused Adnan, Vijay and Dal Chand. One country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of Satish. The witness failed to identify any of the accused. However, on being pointed out by the Ld. APP, he identified all the accused.
15. In the cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-6 could not tell what was recovered from the possession of the accused persons apart from the button operated knife and pistol. He admitted that no public person was examined by the IO in his presence. He could not recall whether the site plan was prepared by the IO or not.
16. PW-7 ASI Bua Lal deposed that on 30.11.1999 he along with SI Suresh Kaushik, HC Rajkumar, Ct. Satish, Ct. Sunder and Ct. Harish were conducting the investigation of FIR No.1005/99 in a civil dress at house of the complainant. They were separated in two parts, one party remained at the spot and second one was directed to go to Sayed Village Bus Stand. SI Suresh Kaushik, HC Rajkumar and Ct. Satish reached at the spot with accused Ved Prakash. On his pointing out, they conducted the raid at Shop no. RZ-68, Syed village and apprehended the accused Satish, Mohd Adnan and Dal Chand. On personal search of the accused Satish, one desi katta was recovered. He arrested the accused and recorded his disclosure statement. Copy of the same was handed over to the SI Suresh Kaushik. After that SI Suresh Kaushik apprehended all three accused under FIR no.1005/99. His statement was recorded by SI Suresh State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 7 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar Kaushik u/s 161 of Cr.P.C and same is Ex.PW7/A.
17. During cross examination, he could not tell the DD entry vide which they had left for investigation. He stated that the shop no. RZ-68 was being run by accused Mohd. Adnan and this fact was told to him by accused Ved Prakash. He admitted that no enquiry was made regarding ownership of the said shop.
18. PW-8 Inspector Suresh Kumar deposed that on 29.11.1999 the complainant Surender Kumar Chadha lodged a complaint with SHO Paschim Vihar. FIR was lodged and investigation was marked to him. He met the complainant and recorded his statement. He also seized the envelope and recorded the statement of Kamal Kumar, son of the complainant. On 30.11.1999, a raiding party was constituted consisting of himself, HC Rajkumar, HC Bua Lal, Ct. Harish, Ct. Sunder Lal and Ct. Satish. The raiding party was divided into two parts. He along with HC Rajkumar and Ct. Satish remained at Bhera Enclave and the other party consisting of HC Bua Lal, Ct. Harish and Ct. Sunder Lal was deputed near Syed Nangloi Village. At about 4.00 pm they apprehended accused Ved Prakash in suspicious condition. On checking, one buttondar knife was recovered from his possession. He disclosed that he along with Satish Kumar, Adnan Khan and Dal Chand had made a conspiracy to kidnap Kamal Kumar, son of the complainant and had written the threat letter Ex.PW1/B to the complainant. After enquiry, Ved Prakash was arrested and his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A was recorded by HC Rajkumar. They proceeded to Village State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 8 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar Syed Nangloi where they met the other raiding party. The raiding party apprehended remaining three accused from shop no.68 Village Syed Nangloi. One desi katta was recovered from the possession of Satish Kumar. He arrested all three accused and conducted their personal search. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Adnan Khan and Dal Chand. On the pointing out of accused Adnan Khan one half piece of paper was recovered which is Ex.PW8/B. On the pointing out of accused Dal Chand, one pen make Reynold was recovered. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. Specimen hand writing of the accused Adnan Khan who had written the threat letter were obtained by and sent to the FSL for comparison of hand writing. Same is Ex.PW8/C/D. FSL report was filed later on by another officer. Investigation was completed and challan was filed in the Court. He identified the Pen as Ex.P1.
19. During cross examination, he stated that public persons were asked to join the investigation but none agreed and left without disclosing their names and address. He had not served any notice on the person who had refused to join the investigation. He could not remember the departure or arrival entry for conducting the raid. He denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused Mohd. Adnan. They had left the police post Mianwali Nagar for raid in a private vehicle in civil dress. He could not remember the number of the said vehicle nor he had maintained any logbook. He admitted that no chance State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 9 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar prints were recovered from the spot. The sketch of the recovered pen was not prepared by him. He could not remember whether pen was sealed or not. He could not remember who had taken the documents to the FSL. He could not remember whether the pen was sent to the FSL or not.
20. PW-9 HC Satish Kumar has corroborated the testimony of PW-8. During cross examination, he stated that he did not remember whether IO had joined any public person. They went to the spot i.e village Sayed Nangloi on foot.
21. PW-10 Ct. Narender deposed that on 29.11.1999 the duty officer handed over to him the original tehrir and copy of FIR, which he handed over to IO SI Suresh Kumar at PP Mianwali Nagar. During cross examination, he stated that he had handed over the original tehrir and copy of FIR to the IO at about 12.00 am.
22. After the prosecution evidence was closed, statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. No defence evidence was led despite opportunity.
23. I have heard the submissions made by the Learned APP for state and the Learned Counsels for accused persons and carefully perused the record.
24. Learned Counsel for accused persons have submitted that no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused persons. No public person was joined as witness during investigation. No name was mentioned on the letter. The only evidence against the accused are the disclosure statements which are not admissible in evidence. Further, the admitted signatures of the State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 10 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar accused Mohd. Adnan, sent to the FSL are not on record.
25. Per contra, Learned APP has submitted that as per the FSL report dated 31.10.2000, the handwriting of accused Mohd. Adnan matches the handwriting appearing on the letter Ex.PW1/B which proves that the threat letter was written by him. He has submitted that all the accused are in collusion with each other and hatched a criminal conspiracy to extort money from the complainant.
26. Let us first discuss the provision of law relevant for the purpose of this case.
Section 387 Indian Penal Code prescribes a punishment for a term which may extend to seven years and fine the offence for putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion. The definition of the offence of 'Extortion' is laid down under Section 383 Indian Penal Code. The said Section is reproduced verbatim as under:-
"Section 383 IPC.Extortion - Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion."
27. Section 120 A IPC defines the offence of Criminal Conspiracy. Same is reproduced verbatim as under:-
"Section 120-A. Criminal Conspiracy- "When two or more State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 11 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar persons agree to do, or cause to be done:-
1. an illegal act, or
2. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy"
28. In the case at hand, the allegation against the accused persons are that they hatched a criminal conspiracy to extort Rs, 10 lakhs from the complainant by threatening to kidnap and kill his son and sent a threat letter in pusuance to such agreement.
29. There is no direct evidence available on record against the accused persons.
No name is mentioned in the letter Ex.PW1/B or the envelope thereof. None of the prosecution witnesses had seen any of the accused persons throwing the letter inside the house of the complainant or putting it in the post box. There is no witness who had seen any of the accused actually writing the letter Ex.PW1/B.
30. However, it is a well settled position of criminal law that in a case of conspiracy, the agreement between the conspirators cannot be proved directly but it can be only inferred from the circumstances of each case. The conspiracy need not be established by evidence of an actual agreement between the conspirators and the overt acts raise a presumption of an agreement and knowledge of the conspiracy. Direct evidence of conspiracy is almost an imposibility. In State vs. Mohd. Afzal & Ors., 2003 VII AD (Delhi) 1, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 12 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar observed, "If conspiracies are hatched in the darkness of secrecy and direct evidence is seldom forthcoming and if the offence is to be proved in relation to the acts, deeds or things done by the co-conspirators, the question would arise as to what in the nature of these acts, deeds or things."
31. The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are :-
1. An agreement between two or more persons.
2. An agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either an illegal act or an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
32. It is pertinent on the part of the prosecution to establish that such an agreement existed between the conspirators and each one of them played his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose.
33. In the case at hand, the only evidence against the accused persons is the letter Ex. PW1/B, allegedly written by Mohd. Adnan. It is for the prosecution to prove that the handwriting on the alleged letter belongs to the said accused. As per law, the handwriting of a person can be proved by following two methods:-
a) By way of expert evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
b) Under Section 47 Indian Evidence Act 1872.
State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 13 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar
34. It would not be out of place to refer to the case titled as "Sukhwinder Singh & Ors vs State of Punjab" 1994(3) SCR1061Supreme Court, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, "Under the Indian Evidence Act, two direct methods of proving the handwriting of a person are:
a) by an admission of the person who wrote it;
b) by the evidence of some witness who saw it being written by that person.
35. Apart from these, there are some other methods of proving of handwriting by opinion. They are:
a) By the evidence of a handwriting expert (Section 45);
b) By the evidence of a witness acquainted with the handwriting of a person who is said to have written the disputed writing (Section 47);
c) Opinion formed by the court itself on comparison made of the disputed writing with the admitted or specimen writing (Section 73)."
36. Under Section 45 Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of an expert specifically skilled in handwriting/ finger impressions can be taken to form an opinion regarding the identity of the handwriting of accused.
37. Under Section 47 Indian Evidence Act, the court may take into consideration, the opinion of any person who is acquainted with the handwriting of the person who had allegedly written the letter/document. As per the Explanation to Section 47, a person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write; or when he received documents State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 14 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar purporting to be written by that person in answer to document written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person; or when in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by him have been habitually submitted to that person.
38. Under Section 73 Indian Evidence Act, to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of a person by whom it purpotes to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or prove to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved. It further says that the court may direct any person present in the court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the same with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person,
39. In the case at hand, none of the witnesses have deposed that they had actually seen the accused writing, nor had any witness identified the handwriting and signatures of the accused Mohd Adnan on the said letter being well acquainted with his handwriting. The only substantial evidence against the accused Mohd. Adnan Khan is the FSL report. The expert who had prepared the FSL Report has not been cited as a witness by the prosecution nor was he summoned and examined during trial. However, the FSL report is admissible per se under Section 293 Cr.P.C and can be read in evidence. As per the FSL report dated 31.10.2000, handwriting of accused Mohd. Adnan was found similar to the State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 15 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar handwriting appearing on the letter Ex.PW1/B. However, the admitted signatures of accused Mohd. Adnan obtained by the IO for comparison with the handwriting on the letter, are not on judicial record. Infact, there is no record of the procedure whereby the speciman signature of the accused were obtained by the IO.
40. Further, on a bare perusal of the testimony of PW-8, it can be easily inferred that he had obtained the specimen signature of the accused Mohd. Adnan while he was still in the police custody without obtaining permission of the court concerned.
41. In the case of "Sapan Haldar & Anr. Vs State", 191 (12) DLT 225 (FB), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi faced the question regarding admissibility of sample handwriting or signatures obtained from an accused during investigation taken by the investigating officer. The Hon'ble High Court held that handwriting and signatures of the accused do not fall within the definition of "measurements" in Section 2 (a) of the identification of Prisoners Act 1920. The Relevant portion of the said Judgment is reproduced as under:-
"(i) Handwriting and signature are not measurements as defined under Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. Therefore, Section 4 and Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoiners Act, 1920 will not apply to a handwriting sample or a sample signature. Thus, an State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 16 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar investigating officer, during investigation cannot obtain a handwriting sample or a signature sample from a person accused of having committed an offence.
(ii) Prior to June 23, 2006, when Act No.25 of 2005 was notified, interalia, inserting Section 311A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even a Magistrate could not direct a person accused to give specimen signatures or handwriting samples. In cases where Magistrates have directed so, the evidence was held to be inadmissible as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Babu Mishra's case (supra). According to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, only the court concerned can direct a person appearing before it to submit samples of his handwriting and/ or signature for purpose of comparison."
42. In the case at hand, the IO did not obtain the permission of the court concerned before taking the sample handwriting of the accused Mohd. Adnan under Section 73 Indian Evidence Act. Also, the said sample handwriting is not even placed on the judicial record. Hence, the FSL report cannot be read in evidence.
43. The only evidence against the accused persons is the disclosure statement, State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 17 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar which is not admissible. The recovery of pen from the possession of the accused Dal Chand and blank paper from the accused Mohd. Adnan are of no consequence as it cannot be proved that the said piece of blank paper was used for writing the said threat letter or the said pen having same ink was used to write the threat letter. Similar papers and pen are commonly available in the market.
44. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
45. In view of the above discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonble doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove that the threat letter in question was written by the accused persons in furtherance of their common agreement to extort Rs. 10 lakhs from the complainant by putting him in fear of his son's life. Accordingly, the charge against the accused has not been proved and thus they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Adnan Khan s/o Late Mohd. State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 18 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar Sagir Khan, Satish Kumar s/o Pratap Singh , Ved Prakash s/o Rajender Singh and Dal Chand s/o Giner Singh are acquitted under Section 387/120B Indian Penal Code.
46. As per Section 437 A Cr.P.C, the accused persons are admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each of like amount.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20th August 2016 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/THC/20.08.16 Certified that this judgment contains 19 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/THC/20.08.16 State v. Mohd. Adnan Khan & Ors. U/s 387/120B IPC 19 /19 FIR No. 1005/99 PS Paschim Vihar