Delhi District Court
State vs . Tarun Kumar on 17 August, 2021
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 03 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. Tarun Kumar
FIR No : 01/2013
U/s : 279/338/304A IPC &
185/134(a)/146/196 M.V. Act
P.S. : Rajinder Nagar
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 288008/2016 2. Date of commission of offence : 05.01.2013 3. Date of institution of the case : 17.08.2013 4. Name of the complainant : State 5. Name of accused, parentage & : Tarun Kumar S/o Sh. Govind Ram 6. Offence complained or proved : 279/338/304A IPC & 185/134(a)/146/196 M.V. Act 7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Date on which order was reserved : 02.08.2021 9. Final order : Aquitted 10. Date of final order : 17.08.2021 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR FIR No.01/2013 KAPOOR Date: 2021.08.17 State Vs. Tarun Kumar 16:17:39 +0530
1. The accused is facing trial for the offences u/s 279/304A/338 IPC. The genesis of prosecution story is that on 05.01.2013 at 01:00 am at near Yes Bank ATM, Shankar Road, New Delhi, accused Tarun Kumar was driving vehicle bearing no. DL 8CC 6678 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or public safety of others and due to his act of rash or negligent driving of the vehicle, he caused an accident resulting into death of one Sh. Surender. It is also in the allegations that due to the rash or negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused, his wife/co-passenger Smt. Kavita also sustained grievous injury in the alleged accident. The criminal law was set into the motion vide registration of present case FIR pursuant to the complaint of Sh. Rupesh Mishra who stated himself to be an eye witness of the alleged accident. During the course of investigation, the injured persons were taken to the hospital and victim Surender was found dead. Thereafter, the site plan was prepared by the IO and the offending vehicle was taken into possession. The deceased was identified as Surender and the postmortem of his dead body was conducted. Meanwhile, the MLC of injured Kavita was also obtained, as per which, the injury sustained by her was found to be grievous in nature and hence, charges u/s 338 IPC were added in the case FIR. During the investigation, it was also found that the accused was driving the vehicle the under the influence of alcohol and he was not having a valid insurance of the alleged offending vehicle. After the completion of investigation, the chargesheet for offences u/s 279/338/304A IPC and Section 185/134(a)/146/196 of M.V. Act was submitted for the trial of accused.
2. The cognizance of the alleged offences was accordingly taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and after procuring the presence of accused through instrumentality of Court, he was admitted on bail, the offences being bailable in nature and after supplying the copy of charge-sheet and documents to accused, the FIR No.01/2013 Digitally signed State Vs. Tarun Kumar RISHABH by RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2021.08.17 16:18:30 +0530 provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were also complied with.
3. On finding the sufficient grounds to proceed against accused for offences punishable u/s 279/304A/338 IPC, the notice of accusation was served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all.
5. The accused admitted certain the documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C and the examination of formal witnesses qua such documents was dispensed with. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed 30.03.2021. Pursuant thereto, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances, were put to the accused. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.
6. I have heard the rival contentions of Ld. APP for the State and also of the Ld. Defence Counsel.
7. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place, the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or public safety of others and due to his act of rash or negligent driving, he caused the alleged accident which has resulted into death of Surender and causing of grievous injuries to co-passenger Kavita and hence, the accused deserves to be convicted for the offences punishable u/s 279/304A/338 IPC.
8. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that the accused has been FIR No.01/2013 Digitally signed by State Vs. Tarun Kumar RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2021.08.17 16:18:56 +0530 falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no iota of evidence to establish the fact that the accused was driving the vehicle in question on the given date, time and place. It is further contended that none of the alleged eye witnesses have identified the accused as the driver of the alleged vehicle and there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime or to establish rash or negligent act on his part, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
9. The allegations against the accused are that on 05.01.2013 at around 01:00 am at near Yes Bank ATM, Shankar Road, New Delhi, the accused was driving car bearing no. DL 8CC 6678 and his wife Kavita was also traveling in the aforesaid vehicle. The accused dashed the vehicle into an unknown person (later identified as deceased Surender) and ran away from the spot. The vehicle driven by the accused was found in an accidental condition at pavement at near Patel Nagar round about and the police was informed that injured persons were taken to the hospital. It is also in allegations that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner leading to the accident in question, in which victim Surender lost his life and Kavita sustained grievous injury.
10. As stated earlier, that in order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all.
11. Prior to delving into the merits of the present case, let us briefly discuss testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses.
PW-1 Sh. Rupesh Mishra is the complainant in the present case. He has been cited as an eye witness to the alleged accident. He deposed that on 05.01.2013, he was working as a security guard at Khawahish Design studio and was performing his Digitally signed FIR No.01/2013 RISHABH by RISHABH KAPOOR State Vs. Tarun Kumar KAPOOR Date: 2021.08.17 16:19:17 +0530 duties outside said studio on the pavement alongside the road. He further deposed that one person who was coming on pavement stepped down the road due to fear of dogs and suddenly one car bearing no. DL 8CC 6678 which was coming from Shankar Road, hit said person and by the impact of collision, the mudguard of the back side of car broke down and fell on the road and the car fled away from spot. He deposed of having informed the PCR and gave the registration number of car to the police. Thereafter, he was taken by police for identification of car at Patel Nagar red light, where same was found in an accidental condition. He deposed that police recorded the complaint on his statement in english, which he cannot understand. He also stated that police obtained his signatures on two documents. He denied of having made complaint Ex.PW1/A. He however, identified his signatures on same. He admitted that the complaint Ex.PW1/A was recorded by police on his dictation in hindi but he stated that he does not understand the meaning of english words written by police in Ex.PW1/A. In his cross examination, he stated that in his PCR call, he had mentioned the number of offending vehicle as DL-12 and had also informed the police that the vehicle was having "Ujala color"(white colour). He affirmed that the offending vehicle was bearing no. DL-12 and was of "Ujala Colour" (white colour). He further stated that the mudguard was not present at the spot of occurrence and same was planted by the police at the spot two hours after the accident. He stated of having not given the vehicle no. DL 8CC 6678 to the police nor has identified the driver of same at any point of time. He further stated that there was heavy fog on the day of accident and there were plenty of plants covered in green nets on the both sides, which were about 3-4 feet in height and hence, he could not see the number of offending vehicle or its driver. He admitted that his name was wrongly given by the police and he has not made any statement before the police. Thereafter, this witness was re-examined by the Ld. APP for State on the pretext that he was not stating FIR No.01/2013 Digitally State Vs. Tarun Kumar signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2021.08.17 complete facts on record and four photographs of the vehicle Ex.P-1(colly) were shown to him, to which he stated that same was not the offending vehicle. He also denied of having given the number of offending vehicle as DL 8CC 6678. PW-2 Sanjay Kumar Shokeen is the driver of CATS Ambulance W-18. He deposed that the pursuant to receipt of call from control room regarding accident at Pusa Gole Chakkar, he proceeded to the spot and found a car in an accidental condition and two persons in the car were lying in the injured condition. The injured persons were a taken to LHMC Hospital. The main injured was shifted to hospital by PCR Van. Thereafter, this witness was declared hostile and was encountered with the questions in the nature of cross examination by the Ld. APP for State. During his cross examination by Ld. APP, he could not state whether the number of the car was DL 8CC 6678. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and during his cross examination, he stated that the accident had already taken place before reached the spot.
PW-3 Kavita is the person who allegedly sustained injuries on account of the accident in question. She has also been cited as another eye witness of the alleged accident. She deposed that she alongwith her husband (accused Tarun Kumar) was traveling from Bangla Sahib Gurudwara in blue color zen car and when their car reached at Pusa Road, same was hit by another car and due to which, the car in which she was traveling, got rammed towards the gole chakkar. She could not tell the details of car by which her car was hit. She stated that her husband (accused) was driving the car and speed of the car was around 30/40 km/h. This witness was also shown the photographs of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 8CC 6678, Ex.P1 to P4, but she could not identify the same stating that she had undergone many surgeries. She however, identified the colour of the car in which she was traveling. Thereafter, this witness was also declared hostile and was encountered with the questions in the nature of cross examination by the Ld. APP for State. She FIR No.01/2013 Digitally signed State Vs. Tarun Kumar by RISHABH KAPOOR RISHABH Date:
KAPOOR 2021.08.17
16:19:55
+0530
admitted that the number of blue zen car in which she was traveling, was DL 8CC 6678. She however, could not tell the exact date of accident. She denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of car by her husband Tarun Kumar. She also denied that at the time of the accident, she and her husband were under the influence of alcohol. She also denied of deposing falsely to save her husband. She stated of having not given statement Mark Z before the police.
PW-4 S. Arvinder Singh is the mechanical expert who had inspected the vehicle bearing no. DL 8CC 6678. He proved mechanical inspection report Ex.PW4/A, on record.
PW-5 HC Devi Sahay deposed that on the date of accident, pursuant to the directions given by the IO, he clicked photographs of the scen of crime and handed over the same to IO. He stated that photographs are Ex.P-1 (colly) and its negatives are Ex.P-2. During the course of his examination, this witness has placed on record negatives Ex.P-2 and the objection regarding taking the same on record at that stage, was raised by the Defence Counsel. During the cross examination, this witness denied that negatives Ex.P-2 are fabricated and he did not take permission from police or Court for retaining the negatives.
PW-6 SI Dal Singh deposed that on 05.01.2013, on receiving information about road accident through PCR call, he reached the spot and found that vehicle bearing no. DL 8CC 6678 was lying in an accidental condition. He also stated that accused Tarun Kumar was also present in the vehicle in an injured condition. In his cross examination, this witness admitted that he is not eye witness of the alleged accident.
PW-7 Ct. Dinesh Kumar is the formal witness who had taken the rukka for registration of FIR. He also deposed that of being a witness to seizure memos Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B as well as personal search memo of victim Ex.PW7/C. FIR No.01/2013 Digitally signed State Vs. Tarun Kumar by RISHABH KAPOOR RISHABH Date:
KAPOOR 2021.08.17
16:20:08
PW-8 Ct. Surender deposed that after the postmortem of deceased Surender, his body was handed over to his LRs and one tooth of deceased was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. PW-9 SI Gianender Singh is the IO of the present case. He deposed that pursuant to receipt of DD No.5A Ex.PW9/A regarding road accident near Fire Station in front of Yes Bank ATM, Shankar Road, New Delhi, he alongwith Ct. Dinesh reached at the spot, where a person was lying in an injured condition. One Rupesh Mishra who was an eye witness of accident met him on the spot and got recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. In the meanwhile, PSI Munna Lal also arrived at spot and informed him regarding receipt of call vide DD No.4A dated 05.01.2013 and he also informed that a Maruti Zen car bearing no. DL 8CC 6678 was lying in an accidental condition. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Dinesh left the spot and reached Patel Nagar Gole Chakkar where the Maruti Zen car was lying in an accidental condition. He deposed of having informed that the injured persons were taken to hospital. He further deposed of having clicked the photographs of crime scen and injured lying on spot at Shankar road, was taken to LHMC where he was found "brought dead". Thereafter, the rukka bearing endorsement Ex.PW9/B was prepared and handed over to Ct. Dinesh for registration of the case FIR. The site plan Ex.PW9/C was also prepared and Maruti Zen car and its mudgurd were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B, respectively. The mobile phone of deceased was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. He identified the photographs of the offending car Ex.P-1 (colly) and photographs of mudguard as Ex.P-2. In his cross examination, he denied that the mudguard was planted by him and that he has falsely implicated the accused in the present case. He also denied that PW Rupesh Mishra did not identify the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. He could not tell about the time spain taken by the CATS Ambulance to reach the spot. He FIR No.01/2013 Digitally State Vs. Tarun Kumar signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2021.08.17 stated that apart from Rupesh Mishra, there was no other eye witness of the alleged accident. He could not tell about the educational qualification of Rupesh Mishra. He stated that PW Rupesh Mishra had given statement in hindi and also put his signature in hindi and statement of Rupesh Mishra was recorded in hindi language. He admitted that some words/sentences including the vehicle number, certain addresses and word accidental car, are written in english language. He denied that Rupesh Mishra was not aware about english language and therefore, he has misused this fact and has recorded his statement beyond the knowledge of PW Rupesh Mishra. He denied that Rupesh Mishra has told that the number of offending vehicle was DL-12 and that its colour was "Ujala Colour"(white colour). He denied that Rupesh Mishra had not identified the driver of the offending vehicle at any point of time. He also denied that there was dens fog on road at the date of occurrence and that the divider of the road was covered with plants which were 3-4 feet in height covered in green plastic nets on both the sides. He stated that distance between the divider and the position of eye witness was approximately 20 feet, but he denied that same has not been deliberately mentioned in site plan Ex.PW9/C. He stated that the pavement on which the deceased was lying, has been shown in site plan. He could not tell whether there were any plants on divider or not. He denied that PW Rupesh Mishra told him that due to green plastic nets on plants on divider, he could not identify the number of offending vehicle.
12. The accused also admitted the correctness of statement of PW Anita recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., the postmortem report no. 17/13 pertaining to deceased Surender, MLC No. 27722 pertaining to patient Kavita, FIR No. 01/13 alongwith DD No. 4A and 5A dated 05.01.2013 u/s 294 Cr.P.C. and examination of the witnesses regarding aforestated documents, was accordingly dispensed with.
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
FIR No.01/2013 RISHABH KAPOOR State Vs. Tarun Kumar
KAPOOR Date:
2021.08.17
16:20:33
+0530
13. This is the entire evidence on case record.
14. Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to discuss the essential ingredients of offences u/s 279/304A/338 IPC and the position of law on the subject.
15. It is a settled law that section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to the likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Section 304A IPC punishes the act of causing death (not amounting to culpable homicide) of a person by doing a rash or negligent act. Section 338 IPC lays down for a punishment of an offence of causing grievous hurt to any person by doing a rash or negligent act to an endanger human life of personal safety or others. In order to establish the liability of a person for these offences, it is necessary to establish the following facts:
(i) That the person accused of the offence was driving the vehicle on a public way at a relevant time when the accident ensued.
(ii) That the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused person.
(iii) That the rash or negligent driving of the vehicle was done in a way so as to endanger human life or public safety or other.
(iv) That due to the rash or negligent driving of vehicle by the accused, injury simple or grievous as the case may be, is caused to any other person.
(v) That due to rash or negligent driving of the vehicle, death of another person is caused subject of course to the condition that such act of causing death was not amounting to culpable homicide.
If the conditions mentioned in point no. (i) to (iii) are satisfied, then the Digitally signed FIR No.01/2013 RISHABH by RISHABH State Vs. Tarun Kumar KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2021.08.17 16:20:55 +0530 accused can be held liable for offence u/s 279 IPC. Whereas, in cases where the conditions mentioned in point no. (i) to (iv) are satisfied, then liability can also be attributed to accused for offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC depending upon the nature of injury sustained by the victim. Where the conditions mentioned in point no. (i) to (iii) and (v) are satisfied, then the accused can also be held liable for offence u/s 304A IPC alongwith section 279 IPC.
16. In the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while discussing the ingredients of section 279/304A IPC observed that;
"As observed is Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely cause hurt or injury to any person. As regards the offence punishable u/s 304A IPC, it was observed that the act of the accused was responsible for death and that such act of the accused must have been rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra) to establish an offence either u/s 279 IPC or Section 304A IPC, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved.
17. The abovementioned judgment sufficiently enlightens us that for establishing accusation u/s 279/304A IPC prosecution is not only required to establish that the accused was rash or negligent while driving the vehicle, but it is additionally incumbent on the prosecution to establish that the causa causans death of deceased was the act of accused. Further, what would constitute a rash and negligent act has been described by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andra Pradesh decided on 28.07.2000,in the following words:
Digitally signedFIR No.01/2013 RISHABH by RISHABH
KAPOOR
State Vs. Tarun Kumar
KAPOOR Date: 2021.08.17
16:21:09 +0530
A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act till rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.
18. Having discussed the position of law on the subject, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the present case.
19. In the light of discussion made above, it clearly emerges that the prosecution was duty bound to establish the fact that the accused Tarun Kumar was driving the alleged offending vehicle on the given date, time and place as a very first ingredient to constitute the alleged offences and it is only after the successful proof of the identity of accused as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, the occasion to delve into the existence of rash or negligent act on his part, would arrive. The testimony of PW Rupesh Mishra who is the star prosecution witness does not establish the identity of accused Tarun Kumar as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. PW-1 constantly changed his stands and had retracted from the fact of having made complaint narrating the number of the offending vehicle as DL 8CC 6678. He also stated of having narrated to the police that the offending vehicle was of white colour, whereas from the photographs of the alleged offending vehicle Ex.P-1(colly), it perceives that this vehicle is blue in colour. PW- 1 could not utter a single word regarding the fact that the offending vehicle driven by accused Tarun Kumar. Even in his re-examination at the instance of Ld. APP for State nothing incriminating against accused could elicited from the testimony of Digitally FIR No.01/2013 signed by State Vs. Tarun Kumar RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2021.08.17 16:21:20 his witness. Therefore, in sought, the testimony of PW-1 is of no avail so as to establish the liability of accused for the alleged offences.
PW-2 Sanjay Kumar Shokeen and PW-6 SI Dal Singh who were the driver of the CATS Ambulance and the police official of PCR Van, clearly ruled out that the alleged accident had taken place in their presence. Both the witnesses have stated that the accident had already taken place before they reached the spot. Even though PW-6 SI Dal Singh stated that the accused was lying in an injured condition in vehicle bearing no. DL 8CC 6678 at Pusa Road roundabout but this fact in itself is not sufficient to presume that the accident was caused by the car in which the accused was found in an injured state or that he was driving the offending vehicle at a relevant time. Therefore, from the testimonies of these witnesses also, the identity of accused as the driver of offending vehicle could not be established. Further, PW-3 Kavita who is also cited as an eye witness and a person who had sustained injury in the alleged accident, did not depose anything in support of the prosecution story and rather her version is to the extent that the vehicle bearing no. DL 8CC 6678 which was driven by her husband i.e. accused Tarun Kumar was rammed by some other vehicle while they were returning after offering prayer at Bangla Sahib Gurdwara. Even in her detailed cross examination by the Ld. APP for State, nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from the testimony of this witness. She admitted that in the MLC of accused, the doctor had mentioned that there was a smell of alcohol. The correctness of said MLCs have also not been disputed by the accused but again merely on the basis of the fact that the accused was driving his vehicle after consumption of alcohol, it cannot be presumed that he had committed the alleged offences when both the eye witnesses have failed to identify him as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle.
20. From the testimony of PW Rupesh Mishra, it also emerges that on the date Digitally FIR No.01/2013 signed by State Vs. Tarun Kumar RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2021.08.17 16:21:34 of alleged accident there was a bunch of and plenty of plants which were about 3-4 feet in height and were covered with green nets on both sides of the pavement and due to existence of said plants, the view of PW-1 was blocked and hence, he could not see the number of the offending vehicle or face of its driver. This version of PW-1 when read in the light of the version of PW-9 SI Gianender Singh creates serious doubts on the prosecution story, as during the examination of PW-9 SI Gianender Singh, it has come to fore that in the site plan Ex.PW9/C, the IO has failed to mention about the divider over which plants and net covering blocking the view of complainant were present. It can also be deduced that the site plan does not correctly mention the approximate distance between the place of accident and the position of eye witness i.e. PW-1 Rupesh Mishra. These facts casts serious doubts on the prosecution story. PW-1 Rupesh Mishra had also deposed that that IO implanted mudguard of vehicle on the spot after two hours of occurrence and that his signatures were obtained by the IO on two blank papers. PW-9 SI Gianender Singh also stated that PW-1 had given his statement in hindi language and same was recorded in hindi under the dictation of PW-1, but he could not clearly explain such circumstances in which certain english sentences including the make of car, has been added in same. These facts further casts serious doubts on the prosecution story and probabilised the version of defence that the vehicle of accused was hit by some other unknown vehicle at Patel Nagar roundabout and in order to hush up the investigation of the present case, the accused has been falsely implicated by the IO by planting recovery of mudguard of his vehicle on the spot of occurrence at Shankar Road. Herein, it also becomes pertinent to mention that in a criminal trial burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory Digitally FIR No.01/2013 signed by State Vs. Tarun Kumar RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2021.08.17 16:21:59 exception pleaded in the present case.
21. In the light of discussion made above, this Court is of the firm view that prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place the accused was driving the vehicle bearing no. DL 8CC 6678 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or public safety of others and that due to his rash or negligent driving, the accused caused the accident resulting into death of Surender and causing grievous injuries to co-passenger Kavita, hence, the accused cannot held liable for the offences with which has been charged. The accused Tarun Kumar is accordingly, acquitted for offences punishable u/s 279/304A/338 IPC.
22. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trail stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled.
Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by (Rishabh Kapoor)
RISHABH
RISHABH KAPOOR MM-03 (Central), THC, Delhi
KAPOOR Date: 17.08.2021
2021.08.17
16:22:12
+0530
FIR No.01/2013 State Vs. Tarun Kumar