Delhi District Court
State vs Sh. Mahender Kumar on 9 December, 2022
CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021
State v. Mahender etc.
SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas
Judgment dated 09.12.2022
DLNE010016402021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
INDEX
Sl. No. HEADINGS Page Nos.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2
2 The case set up by the Prosecution 2-4
3 Charges 4-5
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 5-11
5 Plea of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 11
6 Arguments of Defence & Prosecution 11-12
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE
7 Unlawful Assembly and Riots 12
8 Identification of accused 13-15
9 Conclusion and Decision 15
Page 1 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021
State v. Mahender etc.
SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas
Judgment dated 09.12.2022
Sessions Case No. : 210/2021
Under Section : 147/148/149/188/454/395/380/436/34
IPC
Police Station : Khajuri Khas
FIR No. : 228/2020
CNR No. : DLNE01-001640-2021
In the matter of: -
STATE
VERSUS
1. SH. MAHENDER KUMAR,
S/o Shri Bhim Singh,
R/o H. No. 189, Gali No.2,
Chauhan Pur, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
2. SH. DHARMENDER,
S/o Shri Mukut Lal,
R/o H. No. B-131, Gali No.4,
Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
.....Accused Persons
Complainant : SH. SALIM KHAN
S/o. Late Sh. Syed Ahmed,
R/o. H.No.A-13, 14, Gali No.A1,
Village Sadatpur, Delhi
Date of Institution : 30.01.2021
Date of reserving order : 30.11.2022
Date of pronouncement : 09.12.2022
Decision : Acquitted of all the charges.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with by accused)
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: -
1. The above named accused persons have been charge-sheeted by the police for having committed offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/188/454/395/380/436/34 IPC.Page 2 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022
2. Briefly stated, in this case FIR was registered at PS Khajuri Khas on 04.03.2020, on the basis of a written complaint dated 02.03.2020 (registered as DD No.80-B) given by complainant Sh. Saleem Khan, s/o. Late Shri Saeed Ahmed, R/o. H.No.A- 13,14, Gali No.A-1, Village Sadatpur, Delhi-94, for offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/454/380/436/34 IPC. In his complaint, Sh. Saleem Khan alleged that on 24.02.2020, the riotous mob committed robbery into his saloon and auto spare parts shops, both situated in village Sadatpur, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi, and thereafter, they set both the aforesaid shops on fire. He further alleged that all his articles kept inside his aforesaid shops, were burnt, as a result of which he suffered financial loss of Rs.90,000/- from shop of saloon and Rs.5-6 lacs from the shop of auto spare parts. This FIR was assigned for investigation to ASI Surender.
3. During investigation, ASI Surender inspected the place of incident and prepared rough site plan at the instance of complainant. Subsequently, crime team also inspected that shop. During investigation, accused Mahender was identified as a part of that mob, by Ct. Sandeep, Ct. Satender and one eyewitness namely Sh. Zakir, in a video of riot dated 24.02.2020, which was obtained in FIR No.178/20, PS Khajuri Khas. Subsequently, IO arrested accused Mahender in FIR No.178/20 of same PS. Thereafter, he was arrested in the present case also on 22.06.2020. During further investigation, accused Dharmender was also formally arrested in the present case on 25.11.2020. IO obtained CDR of the accused persons.
Page 3 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022
4. After conclusion of the investigation, main chargesheet was filed on 30.01.2021, by ASI Jamshed Ali, before CMM (North East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, against both accused persons. On the same day, ld. CMM (N/E), took cognizance of offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/380/395/436/ 454/34 IPC. However, ld. CMM (N/E) declined to take cognizance of offence under Section 188 IPC, for want of complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. On 18.03.2021, case was committed to the sessions court. Thereafter, on 02.08.2022, a supplementary chargesheet was filed before this court along with one complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., one statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and one site plan.
CHARGES :-
5. On 04.08.2021, charges were framed against accused Mahender Kumar and Dharmender for offences punishable under Section 143/147/148/395/435 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charges were framed in following terms: -
"That on 24.02.2020 at about 2.45 PM at House No.A- 13-14, Gali No.A-1, Village Sadatpur, Delhi-94, within the jurisdiction of PS Khajuri Khas, both of you alongwith your other associates (unidentified) from a particular community formed an unlawful assembly, the object whereof was to commit robbery and arson in the shops, houses and other properties of the persons from other community by the use of force or violence in prosecution of the common object of such assembly and thereby committed offences punishable under Section(s) 143/147/148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you both being members of unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed dacoity in the saloon as well as auto-spare parts shop, both belonging to complainant Saleem Khan, S/o Late Shri Saeed Ahmed and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section Page 4 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 395 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you both being members of the unlawful assembly in furtherance of your common object alongwith your other associates (unidentified) committed mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy the articles lying in the said saloon and auto-spare parts shop of aforesaid complainant, as a result of which he suffered financial loss to the tune of around Rs.90,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 435 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance."
6. Thereafter, on 15.09.2022, additional charge was framed against aforesaid both accused for offence punishable under Section 188 IPC, to which also they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge was framed in following terms: -
"That, on 24.02.2020, at about 02:45 PM, in and around the area of House No. A-13-14, Gali No. A-1, Village Sadatpur, Delhi-94, within the jurisdiction of PS Khajuri Khas, you both accused persons being member of an unlawful assembly alongwith your other associates (unidentified) were present at aforesaid place, in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly and in violation of the proclamation issued u/s 144 Cr.PC by the competent authority/DCP, North East vide order dated 24.02.2020 bearing no.10094-170 X-1, North East, Delhi dt. 24.02.2020, which was duly announced in all the localities of District North East including area of PS Khajuri Khas, thereby you both committed offence punishable under Section 188 IPC and within my cognizance."
DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
7. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions: -
Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW1/Ms. She was resident of Gali No.3, Sadatpur, Delhi. On Garima 24.02.2020, she made a call to PCR from her Jain mobile no. 9599810806. She did not identify any rioter.Page 5 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties PW2/ Sh. He was the complainant in the Ex.PW2/A Salim present case. On 24.02.2020, PW2 (complaint of Khan made a call at 100 number. On PW2) 02.03.2020, PW2 made his complaint at PS and he identified his signature at point A on the same.
On the point of identification of accused, he did not support the case of prosecution, stating that he did not see any one.
PW3/SI On 04.03.2020, he was posted as Ex.PW3/A Bhishm Duty Officer from 8 AM till 4 PM. (rukka);
Rana On that day, at about 03:08 PM, Ex.PW3/B
PW3 received rukka from ASI (copy of
Surender Singh and registered FIR FIR) &
in the present case.
Ex.PW3/C
PW3 identified his signature at (certificate point A on rukka and copy of FIR. u/s. 65-B of PW3 also identified his signature at I.E. Act) point A on his certificate under Section 65-B of I.E. Act, in support of aforesaid FIR.
PW4/ ASI They proved prohibitory order Ex. PW4/A Satinder under Section 144 Cr.P.C., which & Pal & was issued by the then DCP, North- Ex.PW6/A PW6/Ct. East District, Delhi, on 24.02.2020. (copy of Neeraj order under Kumar Section 144 Cr.P.C. dated 24.02.2020) PW5/Sh. He was alternate Nodal Officer, Ex.PW5/A Ajeet Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. (CAF of Singh Mahendra);
PW5 proved attested copy of CAF Ex.PW5/B Page 6 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties and CDR of mobile no.8512000331 (CDR of of Mahendra Kumar for the period mobile no. from 24.02.2020 to 26.02.2020. 8512000331) PW5 also proved attested copy of Ex.PW5/C CAF and CDR of mobile no. (CAF of 9911718175 of Dharmendra Kumar Dharmendra) for the period from 20.02.2020 to Ex.PW5/D 04.03.2020. (CDR of PW5 also proved his certificate u/s. mobile no. 65-B of I.E. Act and copy of Cell 9911718175) ID Chart of his aforesaid company. Ex.PW5/E (certificate PW5 identified his seal and u/s. 65-B of signature at point A, on aforesaid I.E. Act) & documents.
Ex.PW5/F (Cell ID chart) PW7/ASI On 03.03.2020, he had made endorsement from Surender points X to X, on the complaint of Saleem Khan. Singh PW7 also identified his signature at point A on the same. He got registered the FIR.
PW8/Ct. On 24.02.2020, at about 3 pm, they Ex.PW8/B Sandeep were present at Karawal Nagar (arrest memo & Road, in Sadatpur Extension. PW8 of accused PW10/Ct. & PW10 were trying to control the Dharmender) Satender mob. PW8 & PW10 had seen faces of some persons in that mob, who were carrying weapons like lathi, iron rod etc. In the month of June, 2020, while PW8 & PW10 were posted at PS Khajuri Khas, they saw IO/ASI Jamshed Ali interrogating accused Page 7 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties Mahender in police station and PW8 & PW10 identified Mahender as part of that mob.
On 25.11.2020, also PW10 identified accused Dharmender before ASI Jamshed, in the police station.
PW8 was witness to arrest of accused Dharmender and identified his signature at point A, on the arrest memo.
PW8 & PW10 identified both accused before the court.
PW9/Sh. On 24.02.2020, between 5 PM to 6 PM, when he Zakir was present at his godown situated B-103, Main Malik Karawal Nagar Road, Shadat Pur, Opposite PNB ATM, Delhi-110094, a mob of rioters came there and vandalized, looted and set on fire his godown and other shops. PW9 had made a call at 100 number.
PW9 was given beatings by accused Mahender and Dharmender, who were present in that mob. PW9 identified both accused before the court. PW11/HC In February 2020, he was posted at PS Khajuri Devender Khas, as reader to SHO.
On 24.02.2020, he received copy of order under Section 144 Cr.P.C., issued by DCP, through rider. On the direction of SHO, PW11 announced proclamation under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the area of A-Block Sonia Vihar; PTS Wazirabad; Dayalpur; Biharipur Colony; E-Block Khajuri Khas; Sherpur Chowk, A,B,C,D and F-Block of Khajuri Khas;
Page 8 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties West Karawal Nagar; Bhajanpura Chowk; Khajuri Chowk and Shriram Colony and announced aforesaid order through loud hailer on an E- rickshaw.
A complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C was made by the DCP/NE against all rioters for violation of aforesaid order, which is Ex.A-10 (Admitted document).
PW12/ On 07.03.2020, he was posted as ASI in PS Khajuri ASI Khas. On that day, PW12 received file of this case Jamshed from MHC(R), for investigation as directed by Ali SHO.
PW12 recorded statement of complainant Salim Khan on 15.03.2020 and of PCR callers Akil Malik, Tushar and Ms. Garima Jain on 15.06.2020. On 19.06.2020, PW12 had arrested accused Mahender in FIR No.178/20 on the complaint of one PCR caller namely Jakir, in the present case. Sh. Jakir was an eyewitness of the incidents reported in FIR No.178/20 as well as in the present case. On 21.06.2020, PW12 recorded statement of this PCR caller.
On 22.06.2020, PW12 formally arrested accused Mahender in the present case on the identification of complainant Salim Khan, Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Satender. PW12 identified his signature at circle X on arrest memo of Mahender, which is Ex.A-5 (admitted document). On 25.06.2020, PW12 sent request letter to obtain CDR of mobile phone being used by accused Mahender.
On 08.08.2020, after discussion with senior officers, PW12 added Section 188/395 IPC in this case. On 03.09.2020, PW12 called crime team for Page 9 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties inspection of Salon and auto spare parts shop of complainant Saleem Khan. Accordingly, SI Manish, ASI Akshay Kumar and Ct. Vikas visited the place of incidents. Ct. Vikas took 7 photographs, which are Ex.A-13/P-1 to Ex.A-13/P-7 (admitted documents) and also issued the certificate under section 65-B of IE Act which is Ex.A-14 (admitted document). SI Manish had prepared the SOC No.791/20 dated 03.09.20, which is Ex.A-6 (admitted documents).
On 10.09.2020, PW12 also collected the PCR forms in respect of calls made by the PCR callers, which are Ex.A-1 (12 pages colly. admitted documents) On 25.11.2020, PW12 formally arrested accused Dharmender in this case, on the identification of Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Satender. PW12 identified his signature at circle X on arrest memo of Dharmender, which is Ex.PW8/B. On 30.11.2020, PW12 sent request letter to obtain CDR of mobile phone being used by accused Mahender. PW12 concluded investigation in this case and prepared chargesheet, which was filed before the court on 06.01.2021.
PW12 identified accused Mahender and Dharmender before the court.
PW13/SI On 25.11.2021, on the instructions of SHO, he K.P. recorded statement of PW-11/Ct. Devender and Singh obtained complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C from the DCP, North East as well as prepared one site plan without scale. He filed complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C, which is Ex.A-10 (admitted document) and site plan, which is Ex. A-11 Page 10 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 Sl. No. & Role of witness & Description of Proved Name of documents documents/ Witness case properties (admitted document).
PW13 had again prepared the consolidated site plan dated 11.08.2022 at the instance of PW-2/ Salim Ahmed, which is Ex.A-12 (admitted document) bearing his signature at circle X. PLEA OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.
8. Accused Mahender and Dharmender denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. Both accused took plea that they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the investigating agency in connivance with Zakir. They opted not to lead any evidence in their defence. Thereafter, DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I heard ld. Special PP and ld. defence counsel for accused and I have perused the entire material on the record.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE & PROSECUTION
10. Sh. Ashish Goswami, ld. defence counsel for both accused argued that PW12/ASI Jamshed Ali testified that PW2/Salim Khan identified accused and PW2 told PW12 about his identification. He further argued that this is in contradiction to testimony of PW2, wherein PW2 testified that he did not see any rioter. He further argued that PW12 did not make any DD entry. Ld. counsel further argued that PW8/Ct. Sandeep testified that both accused persons were not having anything in their hands and PW8 identified them in video footage. Ld. counsel further Page 11 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 argued that PW9/Zakir testified that he was beaten by 8-9 persons, still he did not receive any injury. He further argued that PW11/HC Devender testified that he did not find any riot in the area. Ld. counsel further argued that CDR of Mahender shows that he was in GTB Enclave, rather than Karawal Nagar.
11. Per contra, Ms. Simran Chawla, appearing on behalf of ld. Special PP for the State argued that PW2/complainant proved incident of riot. She further argued that PW8 and PW10 identified accused, being duty constables at the spot. She further argued that PW9 also identified accused persons. She further argued that PW11 visited that area in day time and incident took place in the evening.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY & RIOTS
12. The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW8, PW9 and PW10 refer to assembly of mob in that area. PW2 deposed that he heard noise of riotous mob and he closed his shops and went upstairs. After some time, he came to know that his shops were vandalized. PW8, PW9 and PW10 also claimed that a mob vandalized a number shops in that area at the given time period of 5-6 PM, on 24.02.2020. There had not been much challenge to the fact that an unlawful assembly had indulged into riot at that place. Photographs of the shops were taken much later in time, hence, they do not show the condition of the shops after riot/incident. However, testimony of PW2 and police officials leave no doubt that two shops of PW2 were vandalized.
Page 12 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala)ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED
13. The foremost question is that whether both accused were also involved in the aforesaid incident i.e. vandalism in the two shops of PW2/Mohd. Salim Khan, as member of above-mentioned unlawful assembly? To establish identity of both accused persons as member of above-mentioned mob, prosecution relied upon testimony of PW8, PW9 and PW10. PW8 and PW10 deposed that they were beat officers of beat no.10, covering area of Sadatpur Extension, Karawal Nagar. PW8 deposed that he recognized some faces in the mob, but he did not know their names. Both of these witnesses claimed that in June 2020, they saw IO/ASI Jamshed Ali interrogating a person and they informed IO that said person was present in the mob on 24.02.2020 in their beat area. This person was introduced as Mahender and subsequently accused Dharmender surrendered in the police station in November 2020. PW10 had identified Dharmender also as part of above-mentioned mob.
14. IO/PW12 also deposed that he had arrested Mahender in another case FIR178/20 and accused disclosed his involvement in this case also. Thus, accused Mahender was already arrested prior to this case. PW8, PW9 and PW10 were witnesses of identification of accused at that time as well. But, on that day i.e. they did not mention that Mahender was also involved in the incident of this case as well. Ideally, if Mahender was seen by these witnesses in the incident in question, they could have mentioned his involvement in all the incidents on same day. The identification in this case on 22.06.2020 becomes thus, doubtful. Moreover, IO Page 13 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 said that even PW2 had identified Mahender, but PW2 did not support such claim of IO in his testimony. A reference to a video also was made by PW8, but no such video was proved on the record. None of PW8 or PW10 even referred to identification of Mahender by PW2 also. Therefore, I do not find it safe to rely upon identification of accused by these two witnesses in such circumstances.
15. As far as PW9 is concerned, he deposed in this case that both these accused were known to him and they gave beatings to him and started looting his godown situated at B-103, Sadatpur, Main Karawal Nagar Road. They were part of a mob, which set his godown on fire and accordingly he made a call at 100 number from his mobile nos. 9354232166 and 8587037569. IO had placed on the record certain PCR forms and GD no.97-A & 79-A dated 24.02.2020, pertaining to information received from PW9 regarding incident at his godown. GD No.97-A/Ex.A-4 mentions that shop of the caller was looted and family of the caller was stuck. This call was made from mobile no.8587037569 at about 07:17 PM. Name of the victim is also mentioned as Mr. Zakir Malik in PCR form part of Ex.A-1 (colly.22 pages), which relates to above mentioned call. Thus, in this call, which was made after sufficient gap from the incident allegedly taken place between 5- 6 PM, there was no reference to any of the accused persons by their name, as indulging into vandalism in the shop/godown of PW9 or about beating of PW9 by both the accused persons.
16. PW9 though claimed that he was present there when this mob reached there and that he was beaten by both the accused persons Page 14 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CNR No. DLNE01-001640-2021 State v. Mahender etc. SC No. 210/2021, FIR No. 228/2020, PS Khajuri Khas Judgment dated 09.12.2022 also. But, his this claim appears to be exaggerated version because had it been so, then PW9 must have mentioned the factum of his beating and the factum of identifying some persons from this mob by their name. In his cross examination, PW9 went on to say that he had identified some other persons also and he had mentioned their names before police. But on being confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., he admitted that he did not mention any other name. The information recorded at police control room was not something, which could have been changed by any police official subsequently. The call was also made after sufficient gap by PW9, therefore, it also cannot be assumed that due to panic he could not mention these basic allegations. PW9 otherwise did not say anything about witnessing the incident at the shops of PW2. In these circumstances, I find that evidence of PW9 is not reliable enough, to presume presence of both the accused persons in the mob, which was behind the incident at the shops of PW2.
CONCLUSION & DECISION
17. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that charges levelled against both the accused persons in this case are not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Mahender and Dharmender are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in this case. Digitally signed by PULASTYA PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2022.12.09 13:07:48 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 09.12.2022 ASJ-03 (North- East) (This order contains 15 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Page 15 of 15 (Pulastya Pramachala) ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi