Delhi District Court
(Judgment) State vs Mumtaz Ali on 28 February, 2018
(Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali
PS Aman Vihar
FIR no. 315/15
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SHAILENDER MALIK
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)
NORTHWEST: ROHINI: DELHI
Registration/ID : 52650/2016
No.
FIR No : 315/15
Police Station : Aman Vihar
Under Section : 376/506 IPC
State Vs. : Mumtaz Ali S/o Sh. Bismilla R/o
House no. R52, Gali No. 9,
Karan Vihar, Part 6, Delhi
Date of committal : 25.05.2015
Charge framed on : 02.09.2015
Arguments advanced on : 12.02.2018
Judgment Pronounced on : 27.02.2018
Decision : Convicted
Appearance:
Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Sachin Garg, counsel for the accused Mumtaz Ali.
J U D G M E N T
1.Accused Mumtaz Ali S/o Sh. Bismilla is facing prosecution for offence u/s 376/506 IPC.
2. Factum matrix of the matter is that upon receipt of information vide DD No. 28A, SI Narsing went to the spot where he met with the victim A, who informed about the commission of rape upon her. Upon receipt of such information, WSI Sona alongwith Page No. 1/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 WCt. Pinki went to the spot in Karan Vihar, Part 6 where an NGO was also called upon and counseling of the victim was got conducted. Thereafter statement of prosecutrix/victim was recorded by the IO wherein she had stated that she resides with her family and does job in a shoe factory. Complainant states that her husband is also employed at a factory in Mubarakpur area. She states that accused Mumtaz Ali is running a cloth stitching shop near their house. Prosecutrix alleges that Mumtaz Ali (Mulla) has been having evil eye on her.
3. Complaint states that yesterday on 13.03.2015 when she was alone in her house, her husband had gone for duty and children had gone to the school. At about 09.30 AM, accused Mumtaz Ali came to her room through roof of the house and established forcibly physical relationship with her. Complainant further alleges that Mumtaz Ali threatened her that if she will tell about the incidence, then he will kidnap her children. She further states that she became very scared because of which she could not disclose the incidence to anybody. Complainant further states that today i.e 14.03.2015 at about 08.30 PM when she was alone in the house as her children and husband had gone out to shop to take some articles. Accused "Mulla" came and again established physical relationship with her forcibly. Complainant further states that in order to inform to her Page No. 2/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 husband, she made a call to his factory, owner of which was Girish Sharma who took that call and stated to have informed police in this regard. Complainant states that accused Mumtaz Ali had committed rape upon her, therefore, legal action may be taken.
4. Upon such statement of the prosecutrix, present case was registered. During investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted. Statement of prosecutrix U/s 164 Cr. P.C was also got recorded before Ld. MM. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Ld. MM.
5. Considering the material on record, Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 02.09.2015 framed charge for the offences U/s 376/506 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to substantiate charge against the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses.
PWs Name of the Nature of Documents proved
Witness the
witness
PW1 HC Ravinder Police Witness being duty officer has proved
Kumar witness DD entry no. 28A and registration of
FIR.
Page No. 3/20
(Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali
PS Aman Vihar
FIR no. 315/15
PW2 Prosecutrix "A" Public She is victim. Prosecutrix has testified
witness about the facts alleged by her in her
complaint Ex. PW2/A, statement
recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC and has also
proved site plan Ex. PW2/B, seizure
memo Ex. PW2/C, arrest of the
accused Ex. PW2/D.
PW3 Dr. Beena Doctor This witness has proved the MLC of
the accused and given opinion about
capacity of the accused in performing
act of sexual intercourse.
PW4 Dr. Urmila Doctor She has proved the MLC of the victim
Sunda "A" and the opinion given thereon.
PW5 M (husband of Public This witness testifies regarding giving
the prosecutrix) witness of call by prosecutrix to his employer Girish Sharma and then making a call to the police.
PW6 Girish Sharma Public This witness testifies regarding witness reaching at the house of the prosecutrix upon receipt of call regarding commission of rape upon her.
PW7 Ct. Ranbir Police This witness has accompanied SI witness Naar Singh, when he went to the spot upon receipt of information vide DD entry no. 28A.
PW8 HC Vijay Mohan Police This witness is MHC (M) and has Witness testifies regarding deposit of sealed box of sexual assault kit and sealed pullanda of blood gauze and sending of those pullandas to the FSL.
PW9 HC Manoj Police This witness joined the investigation Kumar witness with the IO SI Manisha Sharma, when prosecutrix gave the shaul in police possession and accused was arrested and thereafter got medically examined.
PW10 W/Ct. Pinki Police This witness has accompanied with Page No. 4/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 witness SI Sona when information was received regarding sexual assault on the prosecutrix and SI Sona recorded the statement of the prosecutrix.
PW11 Inspector Nar Police This witness has gone at the spot Singh witness upon receipt of information vide DD no. 28A.
PW12 Ms. Sushil Bala Ld. MM Witness has proved recording of
Dagar statement of prosecutrix u/s 164
Cr.PC
PW13 SI Manisha Police This witness has partly investigated
Sharma Witness the matter and deposed about the
facts taken in the investigation.
PW14 HC Vivek Kumar Police This witness has proved regarding
witness the receipt of information by PCR.
PW15 W/SI Sona Police This witness has partly investigated witness the matter and deposed about the facts taken in the investigation.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, whatever incriminating material has come on record was put up to the accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC wherein accused denied the evidence and has taken the plea of being innocent and falsely implicated. Accused has further stated that prosecutrix herself called him and said she is alone at home. She invited him for physical relations in lieu of money. Accused further states that physical relations were established between him and prosecutrix, with her own consent and free will and for this he had paid her. He further stated that prosecutrix had lodged a false complaint. He states that prosecutrix has filed a false case to extort money from Page No. 5/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 him. He states that prosecutrix was/is working as prostitute for money and this is her modes operandi that first to call the person at home, when she is alone, she makes physical relations with them and then demand money from them under the threat of false implication in a rape case.
8. Accused has examined three witnesses in defence. DW1 is Md.Aslam, who is brother of the accused and has deposed that wife of the accused had received a call from one Pushpa Upadyay wherein she offered for compromise on behalf of prosecutrix and wife of the accused had recorded such telephonic conversation. CD of such conversation is Ex.DW1/A and certificate U/s 65 B of Evidence Act is Ex DW1/B. DW1 further testifies regarding a video clip wherein colleague of the prosecutrix demanding money which is Ex.DW1/C. DW2 is Pushpa Upadyay, who has not supported the defence version regarding demand of any money on behalf of prosecutrix. DW3 is wife of accused namely Tarabun Nisha, who has testified that for the purpose of getting bail of her husband, she had paid sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs to the husband of the prosecutrix.
9. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Counsel for the accused. Before I discuss the evidence and different aspects of the matter, I find appropriate to precise the reproduce here the statement of prosecutrix recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C : Page No. 6/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 " I have been raped. This incident had taken place on 13.03.2015. Mumtaz Ali resides in neighbourhood of my house. He has been keeping a evil eye on me for many days. On 13.03.2015 in the morning at 09.30 am, when I was alone in the house as my children had gone to the school and my husband had gone for duty. I was having fever. I was lying. Children had closed the door of the house. Mumtaz opened the door and came inside. I was sleeping in the room upstairs. He came and spoke wrong with me and then committed rape upon me. He then threatened me. I was scared. He stated that you have only son, he will kidnap him. Next day, in the evening at about 08.30 pm my children had gone in the market in the neighbourhood for purchase of vegetable etc. Upon seeing me alone in the house, Mumtaz again came to my house and again committed rape upon me. After sometime, my daughter came. I was crying while lying on the bed. My daughter inquired from me as to what has happened. I did not tell her. Me and my daughter made a call in the factory, to my husband. My husband does not have mobile phone. The owner of the factory inquired as to what is the work. I told everything to him. He made a call at 100 number. I thought necessary to tell him everything because I thought Mumtaz should not make more advances as I have my daughter of 11 years of age. I have a fear that he may not do anything with her."
Evidence of Prosecutrix
10. In a rape case, most material witness is victim/prosecutrix. In the present case prosecutrix has appeared in witness box as PW2. ProsecutrixA (name withheld) testifies that accused Mumtaz Ali @ Mulla,(correctly identified) was running his factory adjacent to the room where she (PW2) was residing with her family. PW2 says that she was residing in a room at first floor. PW2 says when she used to Page No. 7/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 go for her work, she noticed 2/3 days prior to incident that accused was having illeyes on her. PW2 says on 13.03.2015 when her children left for school and her husband left for his work. At about 9.00am accused came to her room, at first floor at roof, as door of room was closed by her children, but it was not bolted. PW2 says accused forcibly committed rape upon her and threatened to kill and kidnap her children, if she disclose the incident to anyone. PW2 says that she did not disclose about incident due to fear from accused.
11. PW2 further testifies that next day i.e on 14.03.2015 at about 9.30pm, accused again came to her house when she was alone. Her husband and children had gone to purchase vegetables etc from market. PW2 says she was not well and having fever due to mental stress of incident on her mind. PW2 says she was wearing shawl. Accused pulled her shawl and spread on the floor and committed rape upon her. PW2 further says that after sometime her daughter came and inquired from her as to what happened. PW2 says she was crying while lying on the bed. She says she did not disclose anything to her daughter. PW2 says her husband was not having mobile phone with him. PW2 says she made call to factory owner namely Girish Sharma with whom her husband was employed. Said factory owner made a call at 100 number and he came to her house alongwith her husband.
Page No. 8/20(Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15
12. PW2 says that police came and she narrated the incidence to police. She lodged her complaint to police which is Ex.PW2/A. PW2 also refers to site plan of place of incidence Ex.PW2/B also about seizure memo Ex. PW2/C vide which 'shawl' of prosecutrix was taken into police possession. PW2 then says that she was medically examined in hospital. PW2 also testifies regarding arrest of accused in her presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D. PW2 then says that her statement u/s 164 CrPC was also recorded in court which is Ex. PW2/E. PW2 also identifies clothes i.e her petticoat and shawl Ex. P1 and Ex. P2.
13. So from above discussed examinationinchief of PW2 it is clear that prosecutrix has testified about to incidences of 13.03.2015 and 14.03.2015, when accused allegedly came to her house, when she was alone and committed rape upon. As per PW2 accused had also threatened her that he will kidnap her children and kill them. Now if I go through the crossexamination of prosecutrix recorded on 20.05.2016 as well as on 29.09.2016, it would be evident that nothing came in crossexamination of prosecutrix to disbelieve or cast any doubt on version as given by her in her crossexamination. Rather evidence of PW2 if read in totality, remains consistent and specific. There are not even minor contradictions. Most of crossexamination of PW2, was on those aspects which had no much bearing on the matter. Like PW2 was Page No. 9/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 crossexamined that in whose company, she came to court, to give evidence. She was suggested that she came to court with threefour persons. PW2 was also crossexamined as to who is landlord of accommodation, where she was residing at the time of incidence. PW2 was also asked in crossexamination as to whether Girish Sharma used to come to her house, regularly? I find most of cross examination of PW2 was on certain irrelevant facts.
14. In this context, it is submitted in written arguments filed on behalf of accused, that prosecutrix on one hand has testified in her examinationinchief that on 13.03.2015 accused come to her room/house at about 9am and on other PW2 says in her cross examination that she used to go for her work at 8.30am reaches at factory (where she works) at 9.00am and leave the factory at 7.00 p.m. in the evening and reaches home at 7.30pm. Thus PW2 failed to explain as to how she was staying at her home till 9am. It is submitted that this fact shows that she herself stayed at her home and called the accused as she want physical relations with accused, with her consent.
15. Such argument is on the face of it most unacceptable because PW2 has deposed about general timing of her going to factory where she works. PW2 was not asked at all as to how she was present at home at 09:00 a.m. on that particular day I.e 13.03.2015.
Page No. 10/20(Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 One can not draw any inference, to that extent. It can be possible that for any reason prosecutrix had not left her house by 9.00am on that day. Moreover, it is too far fetched that from her timing schedule of going to her work, as stated in crossexamination, it can be assumed that she herself stayed in her house by 9.00am and then called the accused to establish physical relations with him, with her consent. I find that there should have been some material evidence on record to take defence that prosecutrix had herself called accused for physical relations. In the absence of anything coming in her crossexamination and in the absence of any other cogent evidence, to support such defence, I am of the view sweeping allegations on prosecutrix, by setting up defence, that she called the accused for establishing physical relations with her consent, is not defence rather is mere allegations without evidence.
Defence of accused.
16. In this context, if we go through entire evidence of PW2 as well as statement of accused recorded u/s 313 CrPC, it would be evident that on behalf of accused different defence have been taken. No doubt accused can set up different defence or can take multiple pleas. But any of such defence, must be established even by preponderance of probabilities. In crossexamination of PW2/prosecutrix, recorded on 20.05.2016, it was suggested to her that prosecutrix has implicated the accused in this case, at the Page No. 11/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 instance of witness Girish Sharma. Suggestion is also given to PW2 that she had illicit relation with Girish Sharma and accused had objected unusual visits of Girish Sharma to her house, in absence of her husband. Therefore Girish Sharma being aggrieved by those objections of accused, falsely implicated him.
17. In same crossexamination, prosecutrix was also suggested on behalf of defence, prosecutrix has falsely implicated other persons in rape cases. In crossexamination of prosecutrix recorded on 29.09.2016, prosecutrix was suggested on behalf of accused, that no rape was committed by accused and he has been falsely implicated only to extort money. Then in statement of accused recorded u/s 313 CrPC , accused has taken defence that prosecutrix is a prostitute and it is her modus operandi that first to call a person at home, when she is alone and make physical relations with them and demand money under the threat of false implication in rape case.
18. So different defence has been taken by accused. I have no legal objection to this. However, it is important to note, none of those defence, as set up by way of suggestions given to PW2 have been proved even by preponderance. On one hand, it is suggested that prosecutrix had illicit relation with Girish Sharma, then accused says he did not commit rape. Then accused also use term "prostitute" for prosecutrix. On behalf of accused in most Page No. 12/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 irresponsible manner, teem "prostitute" has been used, without any legal basis. On one it is stated that prosecutrix have illicit relation with Girish Sharma, then defence is also set up that no rape was committed by accused. Thereafter plea is taken that prosecutrix has called the accused herself when she was alone. Accused had physical relations with prosecutrix with her consent. So apparently there is confusion regarding defence set up by accused. Most importantly none of the defence, so taken is established. Three witnesses have been examined in defence, those three witnesses have stated some new facts, which were not even suggested to prosecutrix. I would discuss defence evidence little later. Fact remains, except putting up suggestions of different facts, nothing substantiative came in cross examination of prosecutrix. Even if I take such defence, on face of it, offence of rape can not be committed to a woman of easy virtue. Therefore, one need to be realistic & senstive, while alleging such facts by way of defence in a rape case.
19. Coming back to evidence of prosecutrix, I have already noted that her evidence is consistent and specific. Nothing substantive came in her crossexamination to render her testimony, to be unbelievable. Accused in his statement of accused recorded u/s 313 CrPC has not disputed that he established physical relation with prosecutrix. FSL report Ex.PW13/A also corroborate the prosecution Page No. 13/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 version, as DNA profile generated from blood sample of accused was similar with DNA profile generated from cervical vaginal swab and petticoat of victim. In such circumstance onus was on accused, to prove that such physical relation were so made with consent of prosecutrix. On this crucial aspect of the matter, I find accused has miserably failed. I have already noted above that except putting different suggestions to prosecutrix, nothing substantive came to prove defence of accused.
Corroboration to prosecution version
20. Prosecution version is getting corroboration in this case by FSL report as noted above. Besides this evidence of prosecutrix also get corroboration from evidence of PW5M (husband of the prosecutrix) as well as evidence of PW6 Girish Sharma who is owner of the factory where husband of prosecutrix is employed. PW5M has testified that he alongwith his children had gone to the market , on the day of incidence, PW5 further says that his wife was not well and therefore she remained at the house . PW5 also testifies that since he was not having mobile phone with him , his wife though had mobile phone at home. In case of any emergency his wife used to call him at the factory of Girish Sharma. PW5 says that on that day also his wife made a call to Girish Sharma at his factory and informed about the incidence. PW5 says that Girish Sharma left the factory for coming to his home when he came to Page No. 14/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 know about the incidence. On the way Girish Sharma met with PW5 and then both of them reached home. When wife of the PW5 informed about the incidence. PW5 says that thereafter he made a call at 100 number. Such evidence of PW5 corroborates the version of the prosecutrix , when she has stated that after the incidence she made a call to the factory where her husband was employed and informed about the incidence to the owner of that factory Girish Sharma. Evidence of PW5 also corroborates that at the relevant time he was not having his mobile phone with him, therefore prosecutrix had to make a call at the factory. Similarly, evidence of PW6 Girish Sharma also corroborates the version of prosecutrix when he testifies that M(husband of prosecutrix is working in his factory and his wife had called at his factory on his mobile number.
21. No doubt certain contradiction have certainly come in the evidence of PW5 and PW6 regarding who dialed 100 number for calling the police and as to whether prosecutrix had informed about the incidence to Girish Sharma on phone or neighbours have informed to him (PW6) about the incidence. But I find that such contradictions are not material and does not have bearing on the core of the prosecution story. Issue for consideration in this case is not as to who called the police, but basic point of determination is as to whether prosecutrix has been victim of sexual assault or not. I have already noted above that evidence of prosecutrix is specific Page No. 15/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 and cogent enough to prove the charge. Though there is no necessity for corroboration of evidence of prosecutrix , but in this case even her evidence is getting corroboration from forensic evidence, oral testimony of PW5 and PW6. Certain contradictions in evidence of witnesses (PW2, PW5 and PW6) on some insignificant facts, do not affect, prosecution case.
22. In Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 Apex Court has referred to its observation given the authority in Inder Singh and Another v. State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 4 SCC 161 wherein it has been held thus:
"Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect."
23. In State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan & Another, AIR 2009 SC 152 Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering evidence of rape victim has observed as:
"..... it has been said time and again by this Court that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the Court to reject evidence in its entirety.... It is the Page No. 16/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 totality of the situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not prompt the Court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies."
Defence Evidence.
24. Earlier in the judgment I had discussed different defences taken by the accused by way of suggestions given to the prosecutrix as well as in statement of accused recorded u/s 313 CrPC. However, the evidence of DW1 to DW3 was led for proving all together different facts. DW1 is Mahmood Alam who is brother of accused. This witness testifies that wife of the accused had received a telephonic call from one Pushpa Upadhya, on behalf of prosecutrix for compromise of the matter. DW1 says that wife of the accused recorded such telephonic conversation, the CD of which is Ex DW1/A and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act is Ex. DW1/B. DW1 further says that he had sent one colleague of prosecutrix and made a video clipping through his mobile phone wherein she was demanding money from said colleague and that conversation is in the shape of CD and Ex. DW1/C. DW1 also testifies that husband of the prosecutrix came to his house and demanded Rs. 5 Lacs from him for settling the matter and wife of the accused had paid Rs. 2.5Lacs to the husband of the prosecutrix and he shoot the video at that time. The CD of which is Ex. DW1/C. Page No. 17/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15
25. Evidence of DW1 is liable to be rejected firstly on the ground that all those facts as stated by DW1 in his evidence were never put to the prosecutrix or to her husband in their cross examination when they appeared in the witness box. Secondly, DW1 is relied upon telephonic conversation between wife of the accused and one Pushpa Upadhya, the CD of which is Ex DW1/A. DW1 has admitted in his crossexamination that he was not present when the wife of the accused has received the call and money was demanded for alleged compromise. Therefore DW1 cannot prove this CD Ex.DW1/A. Beside this the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is not as required under the law and therefore such CD cannot be admitted in evidence. DW1 in his crossexamination has also admitted that he had never made any complaint tot he police regarding alleged demand of rs. 5 Lacs by the husband of the prosecutrix or giving of Rs. 2.5 lacs as claimed by him. Evidence of DW1 is otherwise vogue and devoid of necessary details as to when demand was made and when alleged payment of Rs. 2.5 lacs was made.
26. On behalf of accused said Pushpa Upadhya was summoned as witness and she appeared as DW2. Evidence of DW2 rather goes against the accused because DW2 says that she do not know any person by the name of accused Mumtaz Ali . DW2 though was aware about the incidence of rape committed upon the prosecutrix Page No. 18/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 but she denied that he had met with any one related with accused for compromise. Perusal of evidence of DW2 clearly shows that her evidence does not prove any defence of the accused rather corroborate the prosecution story. DW3 is Tarbun Nisha (wife of the accused). This witness says that on 23.11.2015 she received a call from one Pushpa on behalf of prosecutrix to settle the matter. Thereafter she received the call from same lady on 25.11.2015. DW3 says that she recorded the telephonic conversation of both those calls . DW1 says that her husband did not get bail from the court, thereafter husband of the prosecutrix came to her house and took Rs. 2.5 lacs with the assurance that he will get the matter settled and will ensure release of her husband from judicial custody.
27. Testimony of DW3 also liable to be rejected because even DW3 has failed to testify , when she had given Rs. 2.5 lacs to the husband of the prosecutrix. Moreover, she admits in cross examination that husband of the prosecutrix was neither in police department nor in a position to ensure the release of the accused from judicial custody. Most importantly evidence of DW1 and DW3 regarding alleged giving of money to husband of the prosecutrix is not proved at all and is otherwise an illegal activity. DW3 admits in her crossexamination that her husband was doing a small work of stitching clothes etc and his earning was only sufficient for their livelihood. DW3 further admits that she never made any complaint Page No. 19/20 (Judgment) State Vs Mumtaz Ali PS Aman Vihar FIR no. 315/15 against prosecutrix or against her husband to police or any where else. Thus to my mind , the testimony of DW1 to DW3 doest not establish the defence of the accused.
28. From the abovesaid discussions of the facts and evidence on the record, I find that prosecution has been able to establish the charge for offences u/s 376/506 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, I hold the accused Mumtaz Ali guilty for the abovesaid offence.
29. Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open Court on 27.02.2018 (SHAILENDER MALIK) ASJ(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT) NORTHWEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Page No. 20/20