Delhi District Court
State vs . Ashu & Ors. on 30 November, 2019
1/22
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUMARI
MM02: WEST: TIS HAZARI COURTS:NEW DELHI
FIR No.22/10
PS: Rajouri Garden
U/s. 457/380/511 IPC
State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
Date of Institution of case : 11.05.2010
Date of Judgment reserved: 28.11.2019
Date on which judgment pronounced : 30.11.2019
JUDGMENT
1) Unique ID no. of the case : 62708/16
2) Date of commission of offence : 262701.2010
3) Name of complainant : Sh. Madhusudan
Padmanabhan Arun
S/o Sh. P.I Madhusudan
R/o H. No. 223/D MIG
Flats, Rajouri Garden,
Delhi
4) Name and address of accused :1. Ashu
S/o Sh. Soni
R/o H99, JJ Colony,
Bakkarwala, Delhi
2. Arjun Bahadur
S/o Sh. Ram Bahadur
R/o H397, JJ Colony,
Bakkarwala, Delhi
FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
2/22
3. Rohit Sahu
S/o Sh. Sohan Sahu
(Proceedings against
accused Rohit Sahu
already stands abated
vide order dated
22.05.2018)
5) Offence complained of : U/s 457/380/511 IPC
6) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final Order : Convicted
8) Date of order : 30.11.2019
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
Brief facts
1. Case of the prosecution in brief is that all the accused persons on 2627.01.2010 at about 2.30 am at H. No. 223F, MIG Green Flats, Rajouri Garden, Delhi in furtherance of their common intention, committed lurking house trespass/ house breaking by night in order to commit theft and thereby committed an offence u/s 457 IPC.
Secondly, on the aforementioned date, time and place, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, attempted to commit theft in the house of one Sh. Vardrajan and thereby they committed an offence u/s 380/511 IPC. FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
3/22Trial
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against all the accused persons for offences u/s. 457/380/511 IPC was filed in the court and after complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C., arguments on charge were heard. Vide order dated 21.10.2011, charge were framed U/s. 457/380/511 IPC against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, accused Rohit Sahu expired and accordingly proceedings against him was disposed off as abated vide order dated 22.05.2018.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. Thereafter, statement of both accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons opted not to lead any DE.
Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled legal propositions.
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons and also perused the record carefully.
FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
4/225. PW 1 Madhusudan Padmanabhan Arun stated that he was working in USA Embassy and he was residing with his family at the above mentioned address. On 26.01.2010, he was present at his house. At about 2.30 AM, he heard some noise of breaking of locks. Thereafter, he immediately called Mr. Ramesh and Harminder, who were his neighbours. They consulted with each other regarding the noise and also checked the flats of their building and found that the lock of H. No. 223F was broken. The above mentioned flat i.e. 223F belongs to G. Vardharajan and the same was locked as at that time, G. Vardharajan was residing in USA. They called the police, police came at the spot. Thereafter, police opened the door and they entered inside the house and found the house ransacked. Three persons were apprehended from inside the house and they were having 'chheni' and screw driver. All the accused persons except Rohit were correctly identified by the witness in in the court. The identity of the accused Rohit was not disputed by the counsel for the accused. Witness stated that the accused persons present were apprehended at the spot on the day of incident with one another person. He made a complaint regarding the same to the police, the same is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. The recovered chhenis and screw driver were seized by FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
5/22the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D bearing his signature at point A. The broken lock was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/E bearing his signature at point A. Accused Ashu, Rohit and Arjun were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/H bearing his signature at point A. Personal search of the accused persons were conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/I, Ex. PW1/J and Ex. PW1/K bearing his signature at point A. At that stage, MHC(M) produced the case property along with case particulars of the present case sealed with the seal of 'JP'. The case property were in four separate pullandas. Pulinda no. 1 was opened and it is was found containing one chheni. Pullanda no. 2 was opened and it was found containing one chheni. Pullanda no. 3 was opened and it was found containing one screw driver. Pullanda no. 4 was opened and it was found containing one lock make Harrison. Same were shown to the witness who correctly identified the same. The case properties are Ex. P1, Ex. P2, Ex. P3 and Ex. P 4 respectively.
6. PW2 HC Richpal, stated that on 27.01.2010, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as Duty Officer. His duty was from 12.00 night to 8.00am. On that day, at about 5.05am Ct. Santosh handed over to him Rukka sent by HC Joginder Singh. On the basis FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
6/22of the Rukka, he had registered the present FIR, the copy of the same is Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A (OSR). He made the endorsement on the Rukka and the same is Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point A.
7. PW3 Sh. Harminder Singh stated that on 27.01.2010, he was sleeping in his above mentioned house. He received a telephonic call around 2:30 am from his neighbour Sh. Madhusudan who stated that he had heard noise of thak thak from second floor bearing flat no.223F. The owner of the said flat was Sh. Vardhrajan who was staying in USA at that time. At that time, Sh. Madhusudan also informed Sh. Ramesh Kumar who was residing at the top floor of their building. He immediately approached Madhu Sudan and also informed the police at no.100. They had bolted the front door of the said flat so that persons who were present in the said flat may not escape. The police arrived after some time and entered the said flat and apprehended three persons from the said flat. One person was having chhenis and one was having screwdriver. Witness correctly identified the the accused persons present in the court and stated that they are the same persons who were apprehended from that flat by the police. The name of three accused persons were revealed as Ashu, Arjun and Rohit. Witness stated that he is not able to identify the FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
7/22accused persons by their names due to lapse of time. Witness further expressed his inability to state as to which accused were having chheni and which accused was having screwdriver. The chhenis and screwdriver were seized by the police vide seizue memo which are already Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D bearing his signatures at point B respectively. Police also seized a broken lock vide seizure memo which was already Ex.PW1/E bearing his signature at point B. Personal search of the accused persons were conducted vide memos which were Ex.PW1/I, Ex.PW1/J and Ex.PW1/K bearing his signatures at point B respectively. Accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos which are already Ex.PW1/L, Ex.PW1/M and Ex.PW1/N bearing his signatures at point B respectively.
Witness stated that he could identify the seized case property if shown to him. Case properties have already been exhibited in the evidence of PW1 as Ex.P1 to P4.
Ld. APP crossexamined the witness under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with the permission of the court.
During his cross examination by Ld. APP, witness stated that it might be possible that two chhenis were recovered from the possession of accused Rohit and Arjun and one screwdriver was recovered from accused Ashu. Witness further stated that he was not able to state those facts due to lapse of time.
8. PW4 Sh. Sushil Kumar stated that he had been residing FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
8/22at the above said address with his family for more than 34 years. In year 2010, he was the President of Welfare Association of their flats and the resident of House No.223F was Mr. Vardhrajan. In the month of October, 2009, he had gone to USA and his house was locked. On 27.01.2010 in evening hours, he came to know that a theft had taken place at house no.223F on the last night. During investigation, police recorded his statement.
9. PW5 Retired SI Jai Singh stated that on 27.01.2010, he was posted at office of Mobile Crime Team as Incharge and on that day, he was called at the spot i.e. 223F, MIG Flats, Rajouri Garden by HC Joginder Pal. He was accompanied by HC Udhan Singh, Proficient and Ct. Anil Kumar, Photographer. Chance prints were lifted from the spot and photographs of the spot were clicked. Report was prepared and handed over to IO HC Joginder. Same is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. Later chance prints were sent to Finger Prints Bureau Crime.
10. PW6 Ct. Santosh Kumar stated that on 27.01.2010, he was posted at PP MIG Flats, PS Rajouri Garden as Constable. On that day, HC Joginder received DD NO. 3 PP MIG Flats and he alongwith him went to H. No. 223/F Green MIG Flats, Rajouri Garden. There FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
9/22Complainant M P Arun, one Naresh Kumar and Ct. Naresh met them and they informed that some persons had entered one of the residential house after breaking its locks. They found broken lock. They alongwith complainant and neighbours entered the house. Three persons were found in the house and they apprehended them. Their names were revealed as Arjun, Rohit and Ashu. Two of them namely Arjun and Rohit were carrying "chheni" (iron tool) and Ashu, the third one was carrying screw driver. The lock of almirah in the house was found broken and household articles were lying scattered. IO/HC Joginder seized the recovered two chhenis, screw driver and broken lock after sealing the same with the seal of JP. Seizure Memos are already Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E all bearing his signatures at point C. IO recorded the statement of complainant M P Arun and prepared tehrir which was given to him for registration of FIR. He went to PS Rajouri Garden, got FIR registered and came back to the spot alongwith original tehrir and copy of FIR which he handed over to the IO. IO arrested the accused persons vide arrest memos already Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/H all bearing his signatures at point C and conducted their personal search vide memos already Ex. PW1/I, Ex. PW1/J and Ex. PW1/K all bearing his signatures at point C. Accused persons were interrogated and their disclosure statements were FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
10/22recorded vide memo Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C all bearing his signatures at point A. All the accused persons were correctly identified by the witness.
He could identify the case property if shown to him. At that stage, MHCM produced the case property, i.e., 4 pullandas of white cloth bearing case particulars and sealed with the seal of court. Pullanda No. 1 was opened and was found containing one chheni. Pullanda No. 2 was opened and it was also found containing another chheni. Pullanda No. 3 was opened and was found containing one screw driver. Pullanda No. 4 was opened and was found containing one lock make Harison. Witness has correctly identified the case property and the same was already Ex. P1 to Ex. P4.
11. PW7 Retd. HC Yogender Singh, stated that on the intervening night of 26/27.01.2010, he was posted at PP MIG Flats, PS Rajouri Garden as DD writer. His duty hours were from 8 p.m to 8 a.m. On that day at about 03:20 am, he received an information from Wireless Operator regarding theft at House No. 223B, Rajouri Garden, MIG Green Flats and he reduced the information into writing vide DD no. 3 dt. 27.01.2010. He had brought the original DD register and copy of DD no.3 i.e. Ex.PW7/A (OSR).
12. PW8 ASI Udam Singh, stated that on 27.01.2010, he FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
11/22was posted at Mobile Crime Team, Janakpuri as HC. On that day, on the request of IO, he alongwith the member of the crime team reached at 223, MIG Flats, Rajouri Garden. Where they found the locks of doors and the steel almirah broken. They lifted five chance print from the broken almirah. He prepared the report already Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point B.
13. PW9 Ct. Naresh Kumar stated that on 27.01.2010, he was posted at PP MIG Flats, PS Rajouri Garden as Ct. On that day, he was on night petrolling duty. During the petrolling duty, When he reached the 223, Green MIG Flats, Rajouri Garden, he saw IO/HC Joginder Pal and Ct. Santosh and some public persons present there. They told him that at the abovementioned house, 23 unknown persons entered, for committing theft. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and Ct. Santosh and some public persons entered inside the house where they found that the lock of the main gate was broken. Thereafter, they entered inside the house where they apprehended three persons inside the house carrying Iron Chheni and one screw driver (pechkas). IO seized the same and arrested the accused persons. Accused was correctly identified by witness in the court. IO recorded his statement. Witness stated that he could identify the case FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
12/22property if shown to him. The case property are already Ex. P1 to Ex. P4.
Ld. APP crossexamined the witness under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with the permission of the court.
During his cross examination by Ld. APP, witness stated that seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW 1/D and Ex. PW1/E all bear his signature at point D respectively. He further stated that the disclosure statement of Arjun, Rohit and Ashu already Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/C bear his signature at point B respectively.
14. PW10 ASI Anil Kumar stated that on 27.01.2010 he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, West District as constable. He alongwith the crime team staff including ASI Jai Singh and HC Udham went to the H. No.223 MIG Flat, Rajouri Garden where they met the IO HC Joginder Singh and he clicked five photographs of the crime scene. He brought the negatives of those photographs i.e. Ex.P6.
15. PW11 SI Joginder Pal stated that in the intervening FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
13/22night of 2627.01.2010, he was posted at PP MIG Flats, PS Rajouri Garden as HC. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. At about 3.20 am, he received DD NO. 3 PP MIG Flats regarding theft and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Santosh Kumar went to H. No. 223/F Green MIG Flats, Rajouri Garden. Where Madhu Sudan, Harminder Singh and Ramesh Kumar met with them. Ct. Naresh Kumar was also present there and they informed that some persons had entered in the Flat No. 223/F. The occupant of the flat had gone to U.S.A. Thereafter, he went to the abovesaid flat and found main gate lock was broken. They entered into the house . The goods were lying scattered and lock of the almirah was also broken. Three persons were found in the house and they apprehended them. Their names were revealed as Arjun, Rohit and Ashu. Two of them namely Arjun and Rohit were carrying "chheni" (iron tool) and Ashu, the third one was carrying screw driver. Accused persons namely Ashu and Arjun were correctly identified by the witness in the court. He seized the recovered two chhenis, screw driver and broken lock after sealing the same with the seal of JP. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Santosh Kumar. The same were taken in possession vide Seizure Memos already Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E all bearing his signatures at point D. He recorded the statement of complainant Madhu Sudan already Ex PW1/A. He FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
14/22prepared the Rukka Ex. PW11/A bearing his signature at point A. Rukka was handed over to Ct. Santosh Kumar for registration of the FIR. He went to PS Rajouri Garden and came back to the spot alongwith original tehrir and copy of FIR which was handed over to him. He arrested the accused persons vide their arrest memos already Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/H all bearing his signatures at point D and conducted their personal search vide personal search memos already Ex. PW1/I, Ex. PW1/J and Ex. PW1/K all bearing his signatures at point D. Accused persons were interrogated and their disclosure statements were recorded vide memo already Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C all bearing his signatures at point B. He prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant i.e. Ex. PW 11/B bearing his signature at point A. He recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of the proceedings, they returned to the PS and case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
Physical production of the case property were dispensed with as the same were already produced and exhibited as P1 to P4 in the testimony of PW3.
After completion of the investigation, challan was filed accordingly.
FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
15/2216. In the present case, the allegation against the accused persons are clear and specific. The material witnesses in the present case are the PW1 Madhusudan Padmanabhan and PW3 Harminder Singh. Both the said witnesses have been cited as eye witness of the incident and both of them substantially supported the case of the prosecution in its material particulars. PW1 categorically deposed in his evidence that in the intervening night of 26.01.2010, at around 2.30 am, he heard noise of breaking locks which made him to call Mr. Ramesh and Harminder, who were his neighbours. The witness further deposed to have talked to his neighbours and inspected the building. The lock of H. No. 223F was found broken. The above mentioned flat i.e. 223F belonged to G. Vardharajan and the same was locked, as at that time, G. Vardharajan was residing in USA. Witness further deposed to have called the police. Upon arrival, police opened the door and they entered inside the house and found the house ransacked. It was further the deposition of the witness that three persons were apprehended from inside the house and 'chheni' and screw driver were recovered from their possession. Both the accused persons were correctly identified by the witness in court. PW3 also identified the accused persons while reiterating and reaffirming the depositions of PW1. PW 6 Ct. Santosh Kumar, PW 9 Ct. Naresh Kumar and PW11 SI Joginder also supported the versions of the aforesaid public witnesses. PW6, PW 9 and PW 11 are material FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
16/22witnesses of the case as all of them alogwith the public witnesses PW1 and PW3 apprehended the accused persons from inside the house of the victim alongwith the instruments of house breaking.
17. It is the defense of the accused persons that they were falsely implicated in the present case. However, No material has been brought on record to attribute any motive for false implication of accused persons. There is nothing in the cross examination of the PW1 And PW3 to impeach their credibility. Mere assertions bereft of any credible explanation can not dispense the necessity of evidence of credible and unimpeachable nature.
18. It is also the argument of the Ld. Defense counsel that no photographs or finger print report has been brought on record despite assertion of the witnesses that the spot were photographed and chance print were lifted and as such case of the prosecution should not be believed. However, the submissions of Ld Counsel for accused persons do not inspire the confidence of the court for the reason that it is settled principle of law it is not the quantity but quality of evidence that matters. There is no explanation as to how do the accused persons make their way inside the house of the victim. What were they doing with the instruments of house breaking? What was motive of PW1 and PW3 for their alleged false implications? It has FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
17/22never been the defense of the accused persons that the house in question was not locked. It is also not the case of the accused persons that they were the owner of the house in question. Neither, is it the case of the defense that they were the invitees of the victim. All the dots and strings connect to each other which gives irresistible and inescapable inference that accused persons entered the house of the victim by house breaking at night and attempted to commit theft in the said house. Thus, the presence of accused persons inside the aforesaid house in the wee hours with the instruments of house breaking leaves no option before the court but to draw adverse inference against the defense of the accused persons.
19. Some minor contradictions and inconsistencies were pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons to demolish the testimonies of PW1 and PW3. However, I don't find any major contradictions in the version of the eye witnesses. Human minds nat urally tend to make some improvements or embellishments when be ing asked to state the same submissions again and again. However, what is required by the court is to see and appreciate the substance of the facts mentioned in the statements or depositions and not get swayed away by some flourishes or trimmings which overall does not negate the substance and salience of the facts. The testimony of pub lic witnesses PW1 and PW3 were clear, cogent and convincing. FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
18/2220. Similarly, the testimonies of police witnesses i.e. PW 6 Ct. Santosh Kumar, PW 9 Ct. Naresh Kumar and PW11 SI Joginder also carries the weight and silage to fuel the case of the prosecution towards its conclusion. A critical analysis of the evidence of the aforesaid police witnesses who are also eye witnesses in the present case does not at all reflect that they are untrustworthy. Their evidence is reliable. In this connection the case reported as Tahir Vs. State AIR 1996 SC 3079 would be relevant, wherein it has been held that where the evidence of the police personnel inspires confidence, the same should be accepted even though no public witness has been joined as a witness. It was observed in this case that, "in our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely be cause they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The rule of prudence, however only requires a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, since they can be said to be interested witnesses in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny inspires confidence and is found trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of independent witnesses of FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
19/22the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."
21. Moreover, it is not the quantity of the evidence and wit nesses that matters, but the quality thereof. Section 134 of Evidence Act does not require any minimum number of witnesses that are to be examined for proving a fact. It is the quality of evidence which is most material. Section 134 of Evidence Act reads as follows: "No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact".
22. In this connection, I would like to take a note of a judg ment reported as Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows:
"11.... Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and wellestablished rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or dis proving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this con text may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single wit ness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of inter estedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second cate FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.20/22
gory, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its con clusion. It is in the third category of cases that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single wit ness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses."
23. Vadivelu Thevar case (supra) was referred to with ap proval by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad vs. State of M.P. AIR 1994 SC 1251; wherein the Apex Court held that as a gen eral rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single wit ness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was fur ther held that if there are doubts about the testimony of the sole wit ness the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The timehonored principle is that evi dence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
21/2224. The testimonies of PW1 and PW3 that inspires confi dence is sufficient enough to nail the author of the offence in ques tion. What is required to be seen is whether the testimony of the wit ness inspires confidence and whether there is a ring of truth in his tes timony and the case of the prosecution. In the case reported as State of UP vs. Anil Singh AIR 1998 SC 1998 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if there is a ring of truth in the main, the prosecution case should not be rejected. Therefore, the upshot of the discussion is that the testimony of the eye witness PW1 and PW3 in the present case is sufficient to maintain the conviction of the accused persons.
Order
25. In view of the above discussion, in my considered opinion, prosecution has been able prove the case against the accused persons namely Ashu and Arjun Bahadur u/s 457/380/511 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons namely Ashu and Arjun Bahadur stand convicted for the offences punishable u/s 457/380/511 IPC.
FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.
22/2226. A copy of the Judgment be given free of cost to the convict persons.
27. Let the parties be heard on the point sentence.
28. Bail bond in terms of Section 437A Cr.PC has been obtained from the accused persons namely Ashu and Arjun Bahadur (since convicted) in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I A.D (Del.) 389.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2019.11.30
13:02:09 +0530
Announced in open Court on (DEEPAK KUMARI)
30.11.2019 ( 22 pages) M.M.02(West)/THC,
Delhi/30.11.2019
FIR No. 22/10 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashu & Ors.