Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjeet on 3 April, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SMT. BIMLA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH) : DELHI
S.C. No. 99/11
ID No. 02401R0080282011
State
Vs.
Ranjeet
S/o Sunder Lal
R/o 9340, Katra Ganga Bishan
Kishan Ganj,
Delhi
FIR No. 146/10
PS. Bara Hindu Rao
U/S 307/379/34 IPC
Date of Institution: 21.02.11
Date of reserving for judgment: 27.03.12
Date of pronouncement: 03.04.12
JUDGMENT
In the present case, charge has been framed against accused Ranjeet in respect of offences U/S 307 and 379 IPC. The allegation in the charge is that on 20.12.10 at about 7:00 PM at railway track between Kishan Ganj and Old Delhi Railway Station, Bara Hindu Rao, he [accused] gave stab injury to HC Ved Prakash under such circumstances and with such knowledge that if he [accused] had Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 1/22 2 caused death of HC Ved Prakash, he [accused] would have been guilty of murder of HC Ved Prakash. It has also been alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place, he [accused] alongwith unknown persons committed theft of an inverter, belonging to HC Ved Prakash. 2 Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial.
3 To prove its case prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. They are Constable Babu Lal(PW1), SI Rohit Kumar(PW-2), Constable Rishi Ram(PW-3), Dr. Vivek Singh(PW-4), Dr. Madhup Garg(PW-5), HC Pankaj Kumar(PW-6), HC Ved Prakash(PW-7), SI Ganga Dhar(PW-8), Constable Satya Bhan(PW-9), Constable Dheer Singh(PW-10), ASI S.K. Srivastava(PW-11), HC Jagdev Singh(PW-
12),Sh. Gagandeep Singh(PW-13), SI Pramod(PW-14) and Inspector Satish Bhardwaj (PW-15).
4 Statement of accused has been recorded U/S 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied the allegations of prosecution. He has submitted that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He had not gone to railway track and did not accompany anyone else. He had not seen HC Ved Prakash, before being implicated in this case. He has not made any disclosure statement. His signatures were obtained on blank papers, under coercion. He was shown to injured before being produced before the court. HC Ved Prakash has made a false statement against him as he failed to satisfy his illegal demands.
Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 2/22 35 Accused examined one witness in his defence. He is Pushpender Kumar Sharma [DW-1].
6 I have heard the arguments from ld. counsel for accused and Ld. Addl. P.P for State.
7 Ld. counsel for accused has prayed for acquittal of accused by submitting that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Knife has not been recovered. No description of accused was given by complainant in his statement. Testimony of complainant is not corroborated with the testimony of other PWs. Railway employee has not been examined by the I.O. No hospital staff was joined by I.O at the time of identification of accused by complainant. Inverter allegedly belonging to complainant has not been recovered. No receipt of inverter has been placed on record. Particulars of shop, from where inverter was purchased by complainant have not been disclosed by him.
8 On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has prayed for conviction of accused by submitting that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. All the PWs have supported the prosecution case. 9 First of all, I am taking up Section 307 IPC.
10 In the present case, out of 15 witnesses, PW-7 HC Ved Prakash is the star witness of the case being the injured. He [PW-7] has deposed that on 20.12.10 he was working as a Head Constable in Tis Hazari Security. His duty hours were from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 3/22 4On that day, he was going back to his house in Bahadurgarh, after finishing his duty. He was carrying a new inverter, which was purchased by him after replacing the old one. He was going to Kishan Ganj Railway Station. When he [PW-7] reached Old Rohtak Road near old iron bridge, he saw accused, present in court, on the railway track, having a knife meant for cutting meat in his hand. He [PW-7] was in police uniform at that time. He [PW-7] thought that the accused might stab someone with the said knife and cause any incident, so, he must apprehend him. He kept the inverter on one side and tried to apprehend the accused. When, he caught the accused by his hand, he [accused] stabbed on his [PW-7's] left hand with the abovesaid knife. When he [PW-7] tried to hold accused from his neck, he [accused] hit him [PW-7] with the said knife on neck. Thereafter, he [PW-7] hit the accused with leg and accused stabbed on his left thigh with the same knife. Thereafter, accused stabbed him on on the abdomen many times with the same knife. He [PW-7] started bleeding. Thereafter, he [PW-7] observed that one more boy was standing near the bushes, who lifted the inverter and accused accompanied him and took away his[PW-7's] inverter. Both the boys went towards the bushes. He raised an alarm but no one reached there. Thereafter, he went down the bridge via the way meant for the horses. He raised his hands to get stopped Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 4/22 5 motorcycles and auto rickshaws's but no one stopped his vehicle. One of the autorickshaw's driver stopped his auto. He [PW-7] sat in the auto and reached Azad Market chowk. One QRT [Quick Reaction Team] police vehicle was standing, in which three/four police officials were sitting. He narrated the incident to them, who in turn passed on the message in the P.S. He [PW-7] was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital in the said QRT police vehicle. Thereafter, he fell unconscious. The incident took place at 6:30 PM on 20.12.10. He [PW-7] remained hospitalised for about 16-17 days. Police came to the hospital and recorded his statement. He has further deposed that on 03.01.11 when he [PW-7] was being shifted from ICU to ward No. 5, Hindu Rao hospital, at about 5:30 PM, he saw the accused in the custody of one Constable and Sub-Inspector and accused was taken towards ward No. 4. He [PW-7] identified the accused vide identification memo Ex.PW3/C. He [PW-7] came to know his name as Ranjeet. On 24.01.11 he had accompanied the I.O to the place of incident. The site plan Mark X was prepared by the I.O. In the hospital, his blood stained clothes were taken into possession. He has identified his torn and blood stained clothes as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-6. 11 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-7 has deposed that on the date of incident there was darkness as it was winter season and there was no electricity light on the railway track. When he Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 5/22 6 [PW-7] saw the accused, he [accused] was facing towards him. It was not much dark at that time and he could see the face of the accused in the light of train, which had come at that time. He had bought the inverter and the receipt of the same was lying in the box, which had been taken by the accused. Hence, he could not handover the receipt of the same to the IO during investigation. IO did not ask him as to from where he had purchased the inverter, so he [PW-7] did not tell the IO regarding the same. The Inverter was of 'Micro Tech' make and of green/white colour. He did not tell the make and colour of the inverter to the IO as IO did not ask the same from him. The place of incident was about half a kilometer away from the Kishan Ganj Railway Station. He has denied that near the alleged place of occurrence there is a railway cabin, from where the signal is given to the passing trains. He shouted for help, but train did not stop. At the time of incident, no railway employee was present at or near the place of incident. He could not note down the registration of the auto rickshaw, in which he was taken to Azad Market Chowk, as he was not in a position to note down the same. The statement of the auto driver was not recorded by the IO in his presence. He did not tell the incident to any Railway Police Force official as no Railway Police Force official met him there. He went towards Azad Market Chowk instead of going towards Railway Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 6/22 7 station. He took the auto rickshaw under the Old Rohtak Road Bridge, which is 200 steps away from the place of incident. After the incident, he had seen the accused in the hospital Bara Hindu Rao, when he was being shifted from ICU to Ward No. 5. Thereafter, he [PW-7] again saw the accused in the Hon'ble Court on 01.06.11, when he came to depose in the court. He had seen the accused in the hospital on 03.01.11. He has denied that he had seen the accused in the hospital on 28.12.10 and not on 3.1.11. At the time, when he [PW-7] saw the accused in the hospital, he[accused] was with one SI and one constable. He had identified the accused in the hospital between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. His statement was recorded by the IO on 20.12.10 itself at about 7 PM in the hospital. He had gone to the place of occurrence on 24.1.11 and had shown the same to the I.O. He has denied that the site plan was never prepared at his instance, and therefore, it does not bear his signature. He has denied that inverter was neither purchased by him nor was stolen or that he has concocted a false story with a view to implicate the accused in the present case. He has denied that the accused, present in the court was not present at the place of incident or that he has identified the accused at the instance of the I.O. He has denied that accused, present in the court had neither caused any injury to him nor he was holding any knife or that he had not seen the accused on the date of occurrence. He has Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 7/22 8 denied that he is making a false statement or that the accused, present in court, has nothing to do with the present case or that he has been falsely implicated in this case as he [accused] had failed to concede his illegal demands or that he did not respond to the call of the IO, who wanted to get some work done by him. He has denied that he is deposing falsely.
12 After going through the testimony of PW-7, I am of the considered view that his testimony is trustworthy and reliable and does not suffer from any infirmity. It is worth noting that he has denied all the relevant suggestions put to him by ld. counsel for accused. He has fully supported the prosecution story by categorically deposing that when he [PW-7] tried to apprehend the accused to avoid any untoward incident, he [accused] gave various stab injuries to him on various parts of body.
13 Further, the testimony of PW-7 is corroborated with the testimonies of other PWs.
14 In the present case, PW-7 has deposed that Quick Relief Team Vehicle took him to hospital after he received the stab injury. It is worth noting that PW-1 Constable Babu Lal has deposed that on 20.12.10, he was on duty from 3:00 PM to 10:00 PM alongwith Constable Vinod in quick reaction team at Azad Market Red Light. At about 7:00 PM, HC Ved Prakash came to them in an injured Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 8/22 9 condition. He [Ved Prakash] told them that he has been stabbed at railway track. He [PW-1] gave information to the duty officer at P.S. Bara Hindu Rao. They [PW-1 and Constable Vinod] took the injured HC Ved Prakash to the Hindu Rao Hospital in QRT vehicle and got him admitted there.
15 An opportunity to cross-examine this witness has been given to ld. counsel for accused but he did not avail of that opportunity. 16 The testimony of PW-1 Constable Babu Lal that he alongwith Constable Vinod got the injured HC Ved Prakash admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital is corroborated with the MLC Ex. PW4/A which proves that Constable Babu Lal [PW-1] had brought the injured HC Ved Prakash to the hospital and got him admitted there. 17 Further, the testimony of PW-1 Constable Babu Lal that he gave information to the duty officer, at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao about HC Ved Prakash receiving stab injury at railway track Kishan Ganj and taking him to the hospital is corroborated with the testimony of PW-6 HC Pankaj Kumar.
18 He [PW-6] has deposed that on 20.12.10 at about 7:00 PM he recorded DD No. 22A Ex. PW2/A at P.S. Now, a perusal of DD No. 22A Ex. PW2/A shows that the information was given to the duty officer HC Pankaj Kumar by PW-1, Constable Babu Lal. DD Ex. PW2/A further shows that Constable Babu Lal took the injured to Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 9/22 10 Hindu Rao Hospital in QRT Vehicle alongwith Constable Vinod. The said DD was handed over to SI Gangadhar for necessary action, who left P.S alongwith PSI Rohit Kumar.
19 Prosecution has also examined SI Gangadhar as PW-8. He [PW-8] SI Gangadhar has also supported the prosecution story by deposing that on 20.12.10 after receiving DD No. 22A he alongwith SI Rohit went to Hindu Rao Hospital and found HC Ved Prakash admitted in the hospital. He collected the MLC of injured HC Ved Prakash. In the meantime, Inspector Satish Bhardwaj reached the hospital. He [PW-8] handed over the copy of DD No. 22A and MLC to Inspector Satish Bhardwaj.
20 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-8 has denied that he neither received any DD nor he visited the hospital with SI Rohit.
21 Further, PW-2 SI Rohit Kumar, whose testimony remains unchallenged also has supported the prosecution case by deposing on the same lines as those of PW-8 and is not discussed to avoid repetition.
22 Further, the testimony of PW-7 is corroborated with medical evidence.
23 In the present case, PW-4 Dr. Vivek Singh has medically examined PW-7 vide MLC Ex. PW4/A. He [PW-4] has deposed that Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 10/22 11 on 20.12.10 at 7:10 PM injured Ved Prakash was brought to Hindu Rao Hospital with the alleged history of assault with sharp weapon. On local examination, the following injuries were found on the person of Ved Prakash:
1 Two inch long incised wound on left knee 2 Eight inch long incised wound on left thigh 3 Two inch long incised wound on left palm below thumb 4 Three inch long incised wound below mandible [lower jaw] right side 5 One inch long incised wound on neck 6 Two wounds on abdomen with exposed intestine.
24 He [PW-4 has further deposed that the injuries were under observation but were caused with sharp weapon.
25 An opportunity to cross-examine PW-4 has been given to ld. counsel for accused but he did not avail of that opportunity. 26 Since the testimony of PW-7 HC Ved Prakash is corroborated with the testimonies of other PWs, I do not find any force in the argument of ld. counsel for accused that the testimony of PW-7 cannot be believed as the same is not corroborated with the testimonies of other PWs.
27 Further, after going through the testimony of PW-7 and other material on record, I am of the considered view that there was an Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 11/22 12 attempt on the part of accused to kill PW-7. It is worth noting that as per MLC Ex. PW4/A, PW-7 was in police uniform and accused did not give a second thought not to give the knife blows to a police official. It is further worth noting that accused has not given only one stab injury to HC Ved Prakash [PW-7] but gave several knife blows to him, as is clear from the MLC Ex. PW4/A. A perusal of MLC Ex. PW4/A shows that HC Ved Prakash had suffered two wounds on his abdomen with exposed intestine and one incised wound on his neck. It is worth noting that abdomen and neck are the vital parts of body.
28 It is further worth noting that Dr. Sidharth Mehrotra has given opinion regarding the nature of injuries, suffered by injured HC Ved Prakash vide MLC Ex. PW5/A. However, he has left the services of hospital. To prove the MLC Ex. PW5/A, prosecution has examined PW-5 Dr. Madhup Garg, who has been deputed by Medical Supdt. Hindu Rao Hospital. PW-5 Dr. Madhup Garg has identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Sidharth Mehrotra on MLC Ex. PW5/A as he had worked with Dr. Sidharth Mehrotra and had seen him writing and signing the documents. As per MLC Ex. PW5/A, the nature of injury opined by Dr. Sidharth Mehrotra is 'dangerous'.
29 An opportunity to cross-examine this witness has been given Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 12/22 13 to ld. counsel for accused but he did not avail of that opportunity. 30 Further, the true and trustworthy testimony of PW-7, which is corroborated with the testimonies of other witnesses, cannot be disbelieved only because that weapon of offence namely, knife was not recovered.
31 It is worth noting that in the present case, PW-11 ASI S.K. Srivastava has arrested accused on 25.12.10 in a kalandra U/S 41.1[a] Cr.PC and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW11/A, since accused had disclosed about his involvement in the present case. He [PW-11] informed PW-14 SI Pramod and handed over the documents to him.
32 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-11 has deposed that accused was arrested by him at railway crossing, Kishan Ganj. At that time, HC Narender and Constable Sajjan were with him. He has denied that he did not arrest the accused or that the accused was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in this case. 33 Further, PW-14 SI Pramod also has deposed that on 26.12.10 an information was given to him vide DD No. 2B Ex. PW14/A that ASI S.K. Srivastava had arrested accused Ranjeet, wherein he [accused] disclosed regarding his involvement in the present FIR. He reached Tis Hazari Court and met ASI S.K. Srivastava, who handed over to him the disclosure statement Ex. PW11/A of accused. He Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 13/22 14 [PW-14] recorded the disclosure statement, Ex. PW9/A of accused Ranjeet. Thereafter, he was sent to JC. He [PW-14] has further deposed that on 03.01.11 he alongwith Constable Rishi Ram went to Tis Hazari Court. Accused was produced in the court and an application for the TIP of accused was moved. But he [accused] refused to participate in TIP proceedings. Thereafter, one day police remand of accused was taken. Accused led the police to place of occurrence and pointing out memo Ex. PW3/A was prepared. Thereafter, search of weapon was made near railway station Kishan Ganj but it was not recovered. Thereafter, SI Pramod [PW- 14] and Constable Rishi Ram [PW-3] went to Hindu Rao Hospital where accused was identified by injured HC Ved Prakash, who was admitted in the hospital.
34 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-14 SI Pramod has deposed that he tried to join the public witnesses in the investigation but they left without giving their names and particulars. He did not take any action against them. The place of occurrence is near the outer signal of Kishan Ganj Railway Station and he searched the weapon there. He interrogated the railway officials regarding the weapon of offence. He has denied that he did not interrogate any railway employee because no search was made for the weapon of offence. He has denied that actual accused, who caused injuries to Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 14/22 15 complainant [should be injured] could not be arrested and the accused was falsely implicated in this case after he was apprehended by police in a kalandra U/S 41.1[a] Cr.P.C.
35 Further, the true and reliable testimony of PW-7 cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he did not give description of accused in his statement or that hospital staff was not joined by I.O at the time of identification of accused by PW-7. It is worth noting that PW-7 has duly identified the accused and categorically denied that the accused was not present at the place of incident or that he [PW-7] has identified the accused at the instance of I.O or that accused did not cause any injury to him or that accused was not holding any knife and had nothing to do with the present case.
36 Further, testimony of PW-7 cannot be disbelieved if railway official/employee was not joined in the case.
37 It is worth noting that PW-7 has categorically deposed that at the time of incident, no railway employee was present at or near the place of incident. He [Pw-7] did not tell the incident to any Railway Police Force official as no such official met him there. 38 In the present case, accused has examined Pushpender Kumar Sharma as DW-1. He [DW-1] has deposed that on 20.12.10 he went to Kishan Ganj Railway Station to see off his friend Sunny. He saw a quarrel between an old man aged about 40-42 years and a boy aged about 27-28 years, who was having a knife in his hand. When he Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 15/22 16 reached near them he saw that boy was stabbing the old man. 39 An opportunity to cross-examine this witness has been given to Ld. Addl. PP, but she did not avail of that opportunity. 40 After going through the testimony of DW-1, I am of the considered view that testimony of DW-1 is of no avail to accused as DW-1 has nowhere deposed that accused did not cause any injury to Ved Prakash. I am of the considered view that testimony of DW-1 rather strengthens the prosecution story that one aged person of 40-42 years age was stabbed by a young boy aged about 27-28 years with knife.
41 After going through the testimony of PW-7 which is corroborated with the testimony of other PWs as well as medical evidence, I am of the considered view that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused so far as Section 307 IPC is concerned. Accordingly, accused is convicted in respect of offence U/S 307 IPC.
42 Now, I am taking offence U/S 379 IPC with which accused has been charged with.
43 In the present case, PW-7 has categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that on the day of incident, he was carrying a new inverter which was purchased by him after replacing the old one. The said inverter was put by him on one side as he wanted to Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 16/22 17 apprehend accused, who was having knife in his hand. He [PW-7] has further deposed that that after causing stab injury to him, accused took said inverter alongwith another boy, who was standing near the bushes. He raised alarm but no one reached there. 44 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, he [PW-7] has deposed that he had bought the inverter and the receipt of same was lying in the box, which had been taken by the accused and therefore, he could not handover the receipt of the same to the I.O. He has further deposed that I.O did not ask him as to from where he had purchased the inverter, so, he did not tell the I.O regarding the same. He has deposed that inverter was of Micro Tech make and of green-white colour.
45 I am of the considered view that testimony of PW-7 cannot be disbelieved if the inverter could not be recovered and PW-7 could not produce the receipt regarding the purchase of inverter. It is worth noting that PW-7 in his testimony has duly explained the reason for not producing the receipt of inverter to the I.O. It is worth noting that he [PW-7] has categorically given the make and colour of inverter, which was purchased by him. Further, PW-7 has also duly explained the reasons for not disclosing the particulars of shop, from where he had purchased the inverter.
46 In view of the clinching and trustworthy evidence of PW-7, Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 17/22 18 I am of the considered view that prosecution has also successfully proved its case against accused in respect of offence U/S 379 r/w Section 34 IPC also. Accordingly, accused is convicted in respect of offence U/S 379 r/w Section 34 IPC.
47 To conclude, accused Ranjeet is convicted in respect of offence U/S 307 IPC and also in respect of offence U/S 379 r/w Section 34 IPC.
Announced in the open court today
on 03.04.12 (Smt. Bimla Kumari)
Additional Sessions Judge-II(North)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 18/22
19
IN THE COURT OF SMT. BIMLA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH) : DELHI
S.C. No. 99/11
ID No. 02401R0080282011
State
Vs.
Ranjeet
S/o Sunder Lal
R/o 9340, Katra Ganga Bishan
Kishan Ganj,
Delhi
FIR No. 146/10
PS. Bara Hindu Rao
U/S 307/379/34 IPC
Arguments heard: 03.04.12
Order announced: 07.04.12
ORDER ON SENTENCE
In the present case, accused Ranjeet has been convicted in respect of offences U/S 307 and 379 r/w Section 34 IPC vide my separate judgment dated 03.04.12.
2 I have heard arguments on the point of sentence from ld. counsel for convict and Ld. Addl. PP.
Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 19/22 203 Ld. counsel for convict has prayed for a lenient view by submitting that accused/convict Ranjeet is 31 years old. He is married but not having any child. His father is not alive. His mother and wife are housewives. His younger brother is studying. He has one sister, who is married and is living separately. He was a labourer and working in a factory, manufacturing tourist/school bags. One case under Arms Act is pending against him. In one criminal case under NDPS Act, he has been acquitted. He is the only earning member of the family.
4 On the other hand, ld. Addl. P. P for State has prayed for imposition of maximum punishment upon the convict for the proved commission of offences.
5 In the present case, accused/convict Ranjeet has been convicted in respect of offence U/S 307 IPC, which is reproduced here for ready reference:
"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned."Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 20/22 21
6 In the present case, accused/convict has made an attempt to cause murder of PW HC Ved Prakash. It is worth noting that accused/convict gave several stab injuries when HC Ved Prakash was in police uniform. Accused/convict did not give a second thought for not causing injury to a police official. It is further significant to note that accused/convict has not inflicted not only one knife blow on the body of HC Ved Prakash but has inflicted several knife blows on his body, which have been proved as dangerous as per MLC Ex. PW5/A. 7 In these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that accused/convict does not deserve any mercy. Accordingly, accused/convict Ranjeet is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in respect of offence U/S 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict will suffer simple imprisonment for five months.
8 In the present case, accused/convict has also been convicted in respect of offence U/S 379 r/w Section 34 IPC. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of case, accused/convicted is sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year.
9 It is ordered that substantive sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently.
10 Accused/convict will get the benefit of Section 428 CrPC. 11 As per record, accused/convict Ranjeet has been in JC from 28.12.10 to 18.08.11 and from 03.04.12 till date.
Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 21/22 2212 A copy of this order be also given to the convict free of costs.
13 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today
on 07.04.12 (Bimla Kumari)
Additional Sessions Judge-II(North)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 99/11 Page 22/22