Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ram Kumar on 4 February, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV AGGARWAL: ASJ-V: OUTER:
ROHINI: DELHI
SC NO. 58/08
FIR No. 454/06
P.S. Sultan Puri
U/s 302/34 IPC
State Vs. 1. Ram Kumar
S/o Lal Bihari
R/o A-34/6 Agar Nagar,
Prem Nagar-III, P.S Sultan Puri,
Delhi.
2. Rinki Devi
W/o Vijay Shanker
R/o Village Kutuwa Pur,
P.S. Outer Hardoi,
Distt. Hardoi, U.P.
Date of Institution in Sessions Court: 17.08.2006
Date of transfer to this court: 22.11.2008
Date of Judgment: 30.01.2010
JUDGMENT
In brief, the prosecution story is that on 27.3.06 a DD No. 5 was received at PP Prem Nagar, that in A Block Holi Chowk Prem Nagar-IIIrd, Sultan Puri, Mubarak Pur Road, one person had been murdered. Thereafter, the said DD was marked to SI Dinesh Kumar who alongwith ASI Krishan, constable Suresh and Constable Babu 2 Lal reached the spot. In the meanwhile SHO Sultan Puri Inspector Mohd. Iqbal alongwith constable Roshan Singh, Constable Satbir and constable Sunil Dutt also reached the spot i.e. H.No. 34/6, A Block, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar - III, where he found SI Dinesh Kumar alongwith the aforesaid staff and many public persons had also gathered around the spot. On entering the H.No. 34/6, in the rear room alongwith the kitchen one deadbody of a male person was found lying there. The said person was identified by one Kamla Devi that he was her son-in-law Vijay Shankar, at that time it was found that blood was oozing out from the head, mouth, nose and eyes of the said deadbody and lot of blood had also gathered below the deadbody. Many other injuries were also found on the body of the deceased.
The deceased was found wearing coca-cola colour pant and gray colour check shirt. Crime team was called to the spot. Photographs of the spot were taken. From the said circumstances, an offence U/s 302 IPC was found to be made out. Consequently, a rukka was written by the Inspector Mohd. Iqbal, and he got the FIR 3 U/s 302 IPC registered at P.S. Sultan Puri through constable Suresh.
All the relevant exhibits were seized from the spot. Siteplan of the spot was also prepared. The wife of the deceased Rinki Devi and his father in law Ram Kumar was arrested, who made separate disclosure statement(s), and in the said disclosure statement(s) they had admitted that they had caused the death of Vijay Shankar with Danda Blows. One of the accused Ram Kumar got recovered two dandas from the roof of the toilet of his house..
Thereafter, on 29.3.06 the postmortem on the deadbody of the deceased was got conducted in SGM Hospital, in the postmortem report, Autopsy Surgeon opined that "cause of death is due to Coma as a result of head injuries". After conducting the postmortem the deadbody of the deceased was handed over to his relatives for cremation. During investigation(s) the IO collected the complaints made by the accused Rinki Devi against her deceased husband Vijay Shanker with the Crime Against Women Cell. Lateron, the Forensic opinion qua the dandas recovered by the accused Ram Kumar were taken. All the relevant exhibits were sent to CFSL for 4 Forensic Evaluation.
2. After completion of investigation(s), a charge sheet U/s 302/34 IPC was filed in the court for trial.
3. Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions, a charge U/s 302/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons vide order dt. 10.10.06, to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, the prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined 20 witnesses.
PW1 is Ashok Kumar, the relative of the deceased Vijay Shanker, who has deposed regarding the motive part regarding the previous quarrel between the accused Rinki Devi and the deceased Vijay Shanker.
PW2 is Ram Parshad, he is also witness to the same facts and he has also stated that he had got settled the dispute between the deceased and the accused Rinki Devi.
PW3 is H.C. Babu Lal, who went to the spot alongwith initial IO SI Dinesh Kumar and had taken active part in the investigation(s). 5 PW4 is H.C. Ramesh Chand, duty officer, who had recorded the FIR in this case Ex.PW4/A. PW5 is Constable Sunil Dutt, who had taken the dandas to the Forensic Surgeon for his opinion on 25.4.06 in sealed condition. PW6 is Dr. Manoj Dhingra, the Autopsy Surgeon, who had proved his postmortem report Ex.PW6/A and who had also proved his subsequent report qua the weapon of offence(s) Ex.PW6/B. PW7 is Ct. Balraj, who had taken the copy of FIR to Senior Officers for delivery on 27.3.06.
PW8 is Mohd. Abid, the star witness of the prosecution, who had allegedly lastly seen the deceased alive in the company of accused Rinki Devi and Ram Kumar on 26.3.06 at about 7.30p.m, and who had also allegedly seen them quarreling with each other and had also allegedly seen accused persons pulling the deceased inside his house.
PW9 is Insp. Ravi Singh of the Crime Team, who has proved the crime team report as Ex.PW9/A. PW10 is Ct. Mahender Singh, who has proved the PCR form 6 Ex.PW10/A. PW11 is H.Ct. Satpal Singh, who was the MHC(M) during the relevant time, with whom various pullandas were deposited by the IO during the investigation(s) of this case.
PW12 is Ct. Dalbir Singh, who was the photographer attached with the crime team, who had visited the spot on 27.3.06 and had taken the photographs of the spot which are Ex.PW12/1 to Ex.PW12/12 and the negatives are Ex.PW12/13 to Ex.PW12/24. PW13 is Ct. Suresh Kumar, who also alongwith SI Dinesh Kumar had visited the spot and had taken active part in the investigation(s) and recovery.
PW14 is SI Manohar Lal, the draftsman, who had prepared the scaled siteplan of the spot on 10.4.06 at the instance of the IO, Ex.PW14/A. PW15 is Ct. Bhaskar, who was DD writer posted at P.S. Sultan Puri on 27.3.06. He has proved the DD No.5 Ex.PW15/A. PW16 is ASI Shiv Prasad of the PCR, who on receipt of information regarding the murder of one person at H.No. 34/6, A 7 Block, Prem Nagar-III, had reached there.
PW17 is ASI Krishan Kumar, who had also accompanied the initial IO SI Dinesh Kumar to the spot.
PW18 is SI Dinesh Dahiya, who is the initial IO of this case, and who is also the recovery witness.
PW19 is Insp. Mohd. Iqbal, the IO of this case, who has deposed regarding the investigation(s) as was carried out by him during the course of the present case.
PW20 is Inspector Anuradha Chhabra from CAW Cell Nanak Pura, who has proved the previous complaints lodged by accused Rinky Devi against her deceased husband, which are Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW20/B and the proceedings conducted by her in relation to the said complaints Ex.PW20/C.
5. Thereafter, separate statements of the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, in which the defence of the accused persons was that though it was correct that certain complaints were filed by the accused Rinki Devi before the CAW Cell, but she never quarreled with her husband, rather she was tortured and 8 mercilessly beaten by him because of the said reason she had to file those complaints. However, all the rest of the incriminating facts put to both the accused persons were denied in toto, and the defence of both the accused persons was that they had been falsely implicated in this case, and the entire case was fabricated. However, they chose not to lead any defence evidence.
6. I have heard the Ld. Amicus Curiae Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj as well as Shri G.S. Guraya. Ld. Additional PP for the State.
7. Ld. Amicus Curiae Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj for the accused persons has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to make out a case U/s 302/34 IPC against the accused persons, as firstly PW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar and PW2 Sh. Ram Parshad, who were the witnesses of motive part of the prosecution, have not supported the prosecution story, that the accused Rinki Devi used to quarrel with the deceased Vijay Shanker, as neither of them which fact they have admitted in their evidence had seen them quarreling with each other. He has further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of PW8 Mohd. 9 Abid, who has been cited as the last seen witness who had allegedly seen the deceased Vijay Shanker alive in the company of both the accused persons a night before, and who had allegedly seen both the accused persons pulling the deceased Vijay Shanker inside their house. He has argued that the said witness was planted witness, as his evidence does not inspire any confidence, as his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C was admittedly recorded after two months of the incident, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the IO or by the prosecution, if he was the eye witness to the incident or the last scene witness then why his statement was recorded almost after two months of the incident, which shows that he was planted lateron in order to solve this case somehow.
8. He has further argued, that perusal of the PCR form Ex.PW10/A reveals that the said PCR form had been filled upon the information supplied by one 'Amit' from Mob. No. 9871008385 on 27.3.06, whereas, the name of PW8 is Mohd. Abid and it does not matches with the information recorded in the PCR form. Neither the address of the said witness has been mentioned therein, nor 10 the prosecution has been able to prove that the mobile number mentioned in the said PCR form belonged to the said Mohd. Abid, he has further argued that IO Inspector Mohd. Iqbal PW19 has admitted in his cross-examination, that he had recorded the statement of one public person namely Mohd. Abid at the spot itself, whereas, he states that admittedly the statement of said Mohd. Abid had been recorded in this case almost after the expiry of two months for which no plausible explanation has been furnished, he has further argued that the accused persons were lateron arrested in this case and a false case was foisted upon them and the recovery in this case was also planted one, as at the time of recovery no public person was joined in the investigation(s), and even otherwise the said dandas/Seru are free available in the market, and there were two more dandas recovered by the police team when they had earlier visited the spot. He has further argued that PW3 H.Ct. Babu Lal has admitted in his examination in chief that when he went to the spot alongwith initial IO SI Dinesh Dahiya, at that time deadbody of the deceased was identified by accused 11 Ram Kumar. Whereas, PW13 Constable Suresh Kumar has stated in his examination in chief that the deadbody was identified by mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Kamla Devi, which is also the testimony of PW18 SI Dinesh Dahiya, initial IO.
9. Ld. Amicus Curiae has also argued that as per the admitted case of the IO and initial IO many public persons had gathered at the spot, yet no public person was joined either at the time of recovery or at the time of lifting the relevant exhibits from the spot. He has further argued that no efforts were also made to lift the chance prints from the spot, therefore, he has argued that prosecution case is highly doubtful and accused persons deserves to be acquitted.
10. In alternative, he has argued that even if it is presumed that for the sake of arguments that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons, even then no offence U/s 302 IPC is made out against the accused persons and at the most offence U/s 304 IPC is attracted in the present case, as PW6 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, who had conducted the autopsy on the body of 12 deceased has proved his postmortem report Ex.PW6/A, and he has no where mentioned in his report that the injuries found on the body of deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, he has argued that at the maximum accused persons can be attributed with the knowledge that by inflicting such injuries there was likely to cause death of the deceased, therefore, their case would fall U/s 304(II) IPC.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State Sh. G.S. Guraya, has argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as PW8 Mohd. Abid is a reliable witness, and merely because wrong word 'Amit' has been recorded in place of Abid in the PCR form Ex.PW10/A does not mean that the entire case of the prosecution was false. He has argued that there was lot of phonetic similarity between the word 'Amit' and 'Abid'. He has further argued that it is not disputed by the defence that PW8 Mohd. Abid was residing across the road where the accused persons were residing either in their cross- examination or during the arguments. He has further argued that no 13 cross-examination had been conducted by the defence on these aspects that the said mobile number mentioned in the PCR form Ex.PW10/A did not belong to the said PW8. He has further argued that it is settled law, that merely because IO had conducted faulty investigation(s) does not mean that the entire case of the prosecution has to be thrown out. He has further argued that case of the prosecution has to be seen dehors such faulty investigations and if it is found that the case is otherwise credible and trustworthy then the conviction of the accused persons can be based upon the same.
12. Consequently, he has argued that PW8 Mohd. Abid was a reliable witness, who had last seen the deceased alive in the company of both the accused persons while the accused persons, were abusing him and had also seen them pulling in their house, and he had also heard loud cries from inside their house and in the next morning the deceased was found dead. Consequently, he has argued that the onus shifted upon the accused persons to give an explanation that under what circumstances the deceased was 14 found dead in their house. The accused persons must furnish some sort of explanation as to how and under what circumstances the deceased Vijay Shanker was found dead from their house, especially when there was already litigation between the accused Rinki Devi and deceased Ram Kumar which was pending before the CAW Cell, which shows that both the accused persons had a motive to commit the said murder. He has further argued that no offence U/s 304(II) IPC is attracted in the present case as per the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel.
13. I have gone through the rival contentions of the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons and Ld. Addl. PP for the State and has perused the record.
14. Admittedly in the present case, there is no direct evidence in favour of the prosecution and the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence. In the case of Mohmood Vs. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 542, it has been held that "in a case dependent wholly on circumstantial evidence the court must be satisfied-
15
(a) that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt:-
(b) that the circumstances are of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and
(c) that the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save t hat of the guilt sought to be proved against him".
However, in case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Supreme; Court referred to and relied upon Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 1091- AIR 11952 SC 343 and stated the five golden principles constituting the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence as follows:
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that ....... the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and knot 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between may be proved' arid 'must be or should be proved'.....
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with 16 the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(iii)the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(iv)they; should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to the proved, and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
15. The following circumstances were pressed into service by the prosecution:
1) Both the accused persons namely Ram Kumar and Rinki Devi (hereinafter Ram Kumar is referred as R1 and Rinki Devi as R2) had a motive to eliminate deceased Vijay Shankar, due to previous complaints filed by the accused R2 before CAW Cell.
2) The deceased was last seen alive in the company of both 17 the accused persons R1 and R2 in the house in possession of both the accused persons (which was the house of in-laws of the deceased) while deceased was being pulled inside by R1 and R2 by PW8 Mohd. Abid in the night before.
3) On the next morning deceased was found dead in the house of his in-laws and police was informed regarding the same.
4) PW8 Mohd. Abid informed the police from his mobile number.
5) Both the accused persons were found missing from their house, when the police reached the spot.
6) Both the accused persons were arrested lateron and accused Ram Kumar made a disclosure statement and pursuant to said disclosure statement he got recovered one Seru(the leg of the cot) and danda from the toilet of his house.
7) The postmortem report and FSL report corroborates the prosecution story.
Circumstance No.1
16. Regarding the circumstance no.1 the prosecution has 18 examined PW1 Ashok Kumar, PW2 Ram Parshad and PW20 Inspector Anuradha Chhabra.
PW1 is Ashok Kumar, the brother of the deceased Vijay Shankar, who had reached Delhi on 29.3.06 and had identified the dead body of the deceased in mortuary. His evidence is of hearsay nature, as he in his examination in chief has stated that after marriage of his brother with the accused R2 they did not go along well and she made a complaint to women cell and his Chacha Sambley had got the dispute resolved at that time and they had started living together, and thereafter they again fought and R2 made a complaint to women cell. However, in his cross- examination he admitted that his deceased brother informed/told him about his strained relations with his wife Rinki Devi. PW2 is Ram Prashad, another witness who had stated that deceased was his nephew and that in the year 2002 there was some dispute between the deceased and R2 and in this regard R2 had lodged a complaint against him at CAW Cell and when he was called to attend before CAW Cell, he got the matter settled with the 19 help of Ram Kumar father of Rinki Devi and Surender Singh. This testimony of PW2 that he got the matter settled earlier between the accused R2 and deceased, is also corroborated by the testimony of PW1 who also says that his Chacha Sambley had got the matter settled earlier, and PW2 also states in his examination in chief that he was the uncle of deceased and no suggestion has been given in the cross-examination of PW2 that he was not related to the deceased being uncle and nephew. It seems that PW1 has stated wrong name of PW2 as Sambley, whereas PW2 was son of Sambley and PW2 himself was 87 years of age at the time of recording of his statement. Therefore, this assertion of PW2 that he got the matter settled earlier between the accused R2 and deceased, which was pending before the CAW Cell stands established by the prosecution.
Further the prosecution has examined PW20 Inspector Anuradha Chhabra of CAW Cell. She has also deposed that she was posted as Sub Inspector in the year 2006 at CAW Cell Pitam Pura, and one complaint No. 18AG dt. 14.2.06 in reference to her 20 previous complaint no. R-95 dt. 5.10.02 was re-opened and inquiry was conducted by her, and the complainant Rinki Devi joined the inquiry proceedings and the notices were also sent to the opposite party. She has proved the copy of the complaint No. 18AG as Ex.PW20/A, and the copy of the complaint R 95 as Ex.PW20/B, and the inquiry proceedings as Ex.PW20/C.
17. The said complaints have been duly proved by the prosecution as the documents of the accused R2, as no suggestion has been put in the cross-examination of PW20 that the said complaints were not lodged by accused R2. The perusal of the complaint dt. 13.2.06 (received on 14.2.06 in the CAW Cell) which states that on 24.12.05 her deceased husband Vijay Shanker after beating her up and abusing her had turned her out of the house and told her to get Rs. 2 lacs from her parents, so that he was able to do some business, and she due to the said demands had thought of committing suicide and in order to save her children she had taken them to the house of her parents situated at A-34/6 Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III, Sultan Puri. After counselling by her parents she 21 changed her intentions and started living there and after that her husband frequently used to come to the house of her parents and used to threaten her and on 10.2.06 at around 8 p.m her deceased husband had come to the house of her mother/father at Agar Nagar and started abusing them and also started beating them and also took out a knife in order to kill them and also took out a match stick to burn them but she snatched the same from him and he also kicked one of his son and his father could not tolerate this and many neighbours had also gathered and on seeing their condition they also became excited and somebody rang up at 100 number and her husband started running but he was caught hold by the public persons and was handed over to the police and in the said complaint she had prayed that her earlier complaint dt. 17.10.02 be revived. In the complaint dt. 17.10.02 which is Ex.PW20/B, same is a complaint made to the CAW Cell regarding the general demands of dowry alleging that accused was demanding Rs. 50,000/- on one occasion alongwith motorcycle and other articles. The aforesaid complaints proved by the prosecution lodged by the accused R2 22 stands unrebutted. The complaint dt. 13.2.06 clearly proves as per the admission of accused R2, that some days before the incident, the deceased had visited the house of accused persons, where he had abused them and had also threatened them as per the averments of the accused R2 and due to said acts of the deceased accused R1 (though said facts do not amount to admission on part of R1) also got excited as he could not tolerate the same and public persons also got excited and they caught hold of the deceased and handed over to the police. These facts clearly provided a motive for the accused persons that they were already distraught with the conduct of the deceased. Therefore, it provided a motive for both the accused persons R1 and R2 to teach him a lesson, and to eliminate him when he visited their house on 26.3.06. Hence, circumstance no.1 is decided in favour of the prosecution. Circumstance(s) No.2,3 & 4
18. The circumstance no.2 & 4 are taken up together, as they are inter connected with each other. In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW8 Mohd. Abid, who has stated he was a resident of 23 H.No. 34 B Block Angad Nagar, Prem Nagar, Delhi. He has deposedthat on 26.3.06 at about 7.30p.m when he returned home after days work he saw that one Vijay Shanker who was the son-in- law of his neighbour Ram Kumar had come to his house. He was carrying a polythene bag containing fruits, on seeing Vijay Shanker accused Ram Kumar started abusing him and pulled him inside his house. Daughter of Ram Kumar Rinki Devi also joined her father in pulling Vijay Shanker inside. He also correctly identified both the accused persons in the court. He further stated that after Vijay Shanker was pulled inside, he heard the noise from inside the house. He went of to sleep. Thereafter, he did not interfere in their personal affairs. In the morning he saw a crowed outside their house and heard that Vijay Shanker had been murdered. Therefore, he intimated the police in the morning at about 7.20a.m by calling at 100 number from his mobile no. 9861008385. The Ld. Defence counsel has assailed the testimony of PW8 on the ground that his testimony was not trustworthy. Firstly, his statement was recorded by the IO after a lapse of almost 2 months 24 on 5.5.06, and he has argued that this shows that PW8 was introduced by the IO lateron in order to solve this case somehow, as he was not present at the spot at the time of incident, nor he had lastly seen the deceased in the company of both the accused persons, if that was so, then the said PW8 could have recorded his statement immediately after the incident.
19. He has further argued that the perusal of the PCR form reveals the falsity in the statement of PW8, as in the PCR form Ex.PW10/A, the name of the informant has been mentioned as Amit, whereas the name of PW8 was Mohd. Abid which does not match with his name. He has further argued that the IO PW19 Insp. Mohd. Iqbal in his cross-examination has admitted that he had recorded the statement of Mohd. Abid immediately after visiting the spot on 27.3.06. Consequently, he has argued that there was no occasion for PW8 to be present at the spot on the date of incident or could have lastly seen the accused persons in the company of deceased or having allegedly seen them pulling inside their house and he has argued that the said PW8 was a stock witness of the prosecution. 25
20. I have considered the said contentions, it is not the case of the defence that PW8 had any previous enmity with the accused persons, as no suggestion have been given in this regard in his cross-examination nor any record has been produced before the court to show that he was stock witness of the police, having deposed for them earlier in many other cases. Further, it has not been disputed by the defence in his cross-examination that PW8 was not a neighbour residing in the neighbourhood of the accused persons nor it has been disputed by the defence that the mobile no. 9871009385 did not belong to him, hence his presence at the spot appears to be natural and probable.
Further from perusal of case diaries, it appears that IO PW19 Mohd. Iqbal came to know about PW8 Mohd. Abid when he obtained the PCR form on 5.5.06. Thereafter, he immediately recorded the statement of PW8 without wasting any time. Merely because IO had stated same wrong fact in his cross-examination or has made certain blemishes in his investigation(s) does not mean that the entire case of the prosecution becomes doubtful, the case 26 of the prosecution in these circumstances has to be seen dehors such blemishes and faults committed by the IO. In this case, the statement of the complainant was recorded on 5.5.06 after obtaining the PCR form, and consequently the IO had no occasion to record the statement of PW8 on 27.3.06.
21. No doubt in the present case, the IO in his over zeal to strengthen the case of the prosecution has made certain embellishments in the story of the prosecution, but even dehors such embellishments, the case of the prosecution is otherwise cogent and trust worthy.
22. It has been held in judgment Paras Yadav Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1999 SC 644 that:
"It is true that there is negligence on the part of investigating Officer. On occasions, such negligence or omission may give rise to reasonable doubt which would obviously go in favour of the accused. But, in the present case, the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the 27 deceased was conscious and he was removed to the hospital by bus. All the witnesses deposed that the deceased was in a fit state of health to make the statements on the date of incident. He expired only after more than 24 hours. No justifiable reason is pointed out to disbelieve the evidence of number of witnesses who rushed to the scene of offence at Ghogha Chowk. Their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity which would render the dying declarations as doubtful or unworthy of the evidence. In such a situation, the lapse on the part of the Investigating officer should not be taken in favour of the accused, may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to quote the following observations of this court from the case of Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1998(2)RCR(Crl.)403: J.T.1998(3) SC 290:
"In such cases, the story of the prosecution 28 will have to be examined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice".
Further it has been held in judgment Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1998 that:
"Before parting with this case we consider it appropriate to observe that though the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused in the manner stated by it and that any act or omission on the part of the prosecution giving rise to any reasonable doubt would go in favour of the accused, yet in a case like the present one where the record shows that investigating officers created a mess by brining on record Ex. 5/4 and GD entry 517 and have exhibited remiss and/or deliberately omitted to do what they ought to have done to bail out the 29 appellant who was a member of the police force or for any extraneous reason, the interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the appellant. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
23. It has also been held in judgment AIR 1988 SC 1998 State of U.P Vs. Anil Singh that:
"Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by 30 independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject that prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. The privy Council had an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Chander Vs. Matangini,
24 C.W.N 626 PC, the Privy Council had this to say:
31
"That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be false if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue, since there is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence".
"In Abdul Gani Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 31 Mahajan, J., speaking for this court deprecated the tendency of courts to take an easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the whole case as untrue. The learned Judge said that the Court should make an effort to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff.
Further in Para 15 it has been held that:
"It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the 32 other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform."
24. In view of the aforesaid preposition(s) of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in above referred Judgments, it is clear that the lapses and omissions on the part of the investigating officer in this case are not fatal to the entire case of the prosecution, as the prosecution evidence is required to be evaluated and examined dehors such omissions and embellishments to find out, whether such evidence is reliable or not and it is an important duty of a judge who presides over the trial that a guilty man does not escape, as it is his duty to see that no innocent man is punished.
25.In view of the afore settled law and aforesaid discussion, the evidence produced on the record by the prosecution has been found to be trustworthy, reliable and cogent for the reasons given above and there is no reason to discard the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, merely because the IO has made certain embellishments/omissions in the prosecution case, in order to 33 strengthen it and, therefore the said lapses and omissions on the part of the IO does not effect the case of the prosecution as they are not very material in nature and does not go to the root of the prosecution case.
26. As discussed above, it is not the case of defence, that PW8 had any previous enmity with the accused persons. Further, there is lot of phonetic similarity between the word Amit and Abid. Even otherwise, judicial notice can be taken of this fact that in India people some time do not give their correct name while calling the PCR at 100 number for various reasons, that they do not want to be entangled in any legal affair.
27. PW8 has categorically stated that he had lastly seen deceased alive in the company of R1 and R2, while both of them were pulling him inside and thereafter he had also heard noises from inside the house and he went of to sleep and thereafter did not interfere in their personal affairs and in the morning he saw crowd outside their house and heard that Vijay Shanker had been murdered and thereafter he intimated the police. The said version 34 of PW8 in his examination in chief has remained unshaken in his cross-examination. In his cross-examination he has also stated that he had only met the police officials once when his statement was recorded and the house of accused Ram Kumar was opposite to his house after leaving one house and the gali in between was 15 ft. wide. No suggestion has been given in the cross-examination that his house was not opposite to the house of accused Ram Kumar or that the gali was not 15 ft. wide. He denied the suggestion that he was the stock witness of the police. I has been held in judgment 2007(2) RCR(Crl.) page 458, State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Anr., more specifically in para 30 of the said judgment that:
"From the principle laid down by this court, the circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found 35 together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the 36 accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstance to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case.37
28. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the facts of the present case, in view of the clear cut testimony of PW8, the prosecution has been able to establish in the present case, that there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of crime, other than the accused persons R1 and R2 in the intervening period, as the said house belonged to his in-
laws, and he had been lastly seen alive by PW8 in the company of R1 and R2, while both of them were pulling him inside while R1 was abusing him. In these circumstances, the proof of last seen together evidence is relevant one.
29. In the present case, even though the time gap between the point of time when the accused persons and the deceased were found together alive and the deceased had been found dead is a wider time gave, yet there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place where both the accused persons were residing, which was the house belonging to them which was in their exclusive possession, and the incident had taken place where they were last 38 seen together in the company of the deceased. In these circumstances, there was no possibility of any third person being involved in the commission of the crime.
30. From the testimony of PW3 H.C. Babu Lal, PW8 Mohd. Abid, PW9 Inspector Ravi Singh, PW13 Constable Suresh Kumar, PW17 ASI Krishan Kumar, PW18 SI Dinesh Dahiya and PW19 IO Inspector Mohd. Iqbal, it has been established by the prosecution beyond any doubt that the deadbody of the deceased was found from the house which was also in possession of accused R1 and R2 i.e. H.No. 34/6, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III, Delhi and nobody else had any opportunity to kill the deceased.
31. Further, it has been held in judgment Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 Crl.L.J.20, wherein it has been held that:
"Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling 39 home where the husband also normally resided. It has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime."
In view of the aforesaid judgment, the burden shifted upon the accused persons especially the accused R2, to explain, as per Section 106 of the evidence Act, as to how the deceased was found killed in their house, as both R1 and R2 were admittedly residing in the same house at that time as R1 was the father in law of the deceased and R2 was the wife of the deceased and the said house was in possession of both of them, and this fact has also been proved by complaint Ex.PW20/A that on 13.2.06 R2 was residing separately in the said house alongwith her children, therefore, in these circumstances both R1 and R2 owed an explanation or that they should furnish some sort of explanation, as to how and under what circumstances the deceased was found 40 dead in the house which was in their joint possession alongwith the other members and the same coupled with the fact that only an evening before both the accused persons were seen in the company of deceased while he was alive by PW8. These circumstances cumulatively prove, that it was only the R1 and R2 who had an opportunity to kill the deceased as they have offered no explanation whatsoever regarding the circumstances in which he was found dead in the house occupied by them. Accordingly, the circumstance No.2,3&4 are decided in favour of the prosecution and against the defence.
Circumstance No. 5&6
32.Regarding the circumstance no. 5&6, they are also taken up together as they are inter connected with each other. PW13 constable Suresh Kumar has deposed that when on 27.3.06 after receiving the information they reached the spot i.e. H.No. A-34/6, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III, there they found one deadbody of male person lying in a room and one lady namely Kamla met them there and identified the deceased as her son-in-law and the 41 accused persons were not there and they tried to search for them. Similar is the testimony of PW18 SI Dinesh Dahiya and that of IO Inspector Mohd. Iqbal PW19. Only PW3 H.C. Babu Lal has stated in his examination in chief that, when they reached the spot, the deadbody of the deceased was identified by accused Ram Kumar which is in variance with the testimony of the aforesaid police officials, basing his arguments on the testimony of PW3 Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the IO had concocted the prosecution story by giving it a different colour and by saying that the accused persons were arrested lateron, though they were immediately arrested from the spot. Even if, the said argument of the Ld. Defence counsel is considered as correct even then it does not make any difference to the case of the prosecution, as it is not the case of the defence that accused persons were not arrested in this case, and consequently the manner and time of the arrest of the accused persons is not relevant for the decision of the present controversy, as it is not the case of the accused persons that they were not at all present in their house of 26.3.06 and when the 42 alleged occurrence took place. In this regard not a single word has been stated by them in their statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C barring a bald denial, in any case if the accused persons would have been found at the spot at that time, then the public persons present around the spot would have definitely immediately handed over to the accused persons to the police.
33. PW13 Constable Suresh Kumar, PW18 SI Dinesh Dahiya and PW19 Inspector Mohd. Iqbal have all deposed that both the accused persons were lateron arrested on the same day at around 5p.m and their disclosure statements were also recorded and the disclosure statement of accused Ram Kumar was Exhibited as Ex.PW13/A wherein he disclosed that he could get recovered the weapon(s) which was used in the crime. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, accused Ram Kumar lead the police party to the roof of the said house and got recovered one blood stained danda and wooden Seroo of Charpai from the roof of the latrine, which was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/F. Though, from the cross-examination of PW18 and PW19, it is apparent that 43 the IO in this case had made no attempt to join the public persons in the neighbourhood at the time of recording the disclosure statement of the accused persons or at the time of affecting the recovery of weapon of offence(s) danda and Seroo.
34. However, judicial notice can be taken of this fact that these days public persons are most reluctant to join any police investigation(s) for various assorted reasons, as they do not want to come to the court lateron, and the recovery in this case had been affected from the place, which could only have been in the exclusive knowledge of accused R1 and therefore non-joining of the public persons during the said recovery is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and the said recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused Ram Kumar is clearly admissible U/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Accordingly, the circumstance no. 5 & 6 are also decided in favour of the prosecution and against the defence. Circumstance no. 7
35.Regarding the circumstance no. 7, the FSL report has been 44 proved in the testimony of the IO as Ex.PW19/J and Ex.PW19/K. In the said FSL report, the blood was detected on the wooden danda(Seroo) and the said blood has been found to be of human being and having the same blood group "B" as that of the deceased. Consequently, the said FSL report also corroborates the story of the prosecution that the deceased Vijay Shankar was assaulted with the said wooden Seroo before his death.
36. Regarding the postmortem report, the said postmortem report has been proved by Dr. Manoj Dhingra while appearing as PW6, who has deposed that on the examination of the deadbody he found the following injuries:
1. "Bruise over the right elbow joint.
2. Abrasion present on right shoulder.
3. Abrasion present on right side of the neck with nail marks present over neck.
4. Nazal deformity present.
5. Nail marks present over left side of the neck.
Head:
Subdural haemotoma present right and left parietal region. Sub aronoied present over left fronto parieto occipital 45 region.
Opinion: The cause of death is due to coma as a result to head injuries. Time since death is 62 hours.
37.He has also deposed that lateron on 22.4.06 an application was moved by SHO Sultan Puri for giving opinion regarding the recovered weapon of offence with regard to the injuries and after examining the aforesaid lathi, he was of the opinion that injury no.1,2&4 could be caused by either of the weapon(s) shown to him or similar weapon(s) and his report in this regard is Ex.PW6/B. The testimony of the aforesaid witness PW6 has gone unchallenged and unrebutted, PW6 Dr. Manoj Dhingra had also found the following injury on the head of the deceased which has been mentioned in his postmortem report Ex.PW6/A as subdural haemotoma present right and left parietal region. Sub aronoied present over left fronto parieto occipital region but he had given no opinion qua the weapon of offence lathi and Seroo vis-a-vis said injury, but at the same time he has given the cause of death in his postmortem report, as that due to coma as a result 46 to head injuries. From the conjoint reading of the report given by Dr. Manoj Dhingra, qua the weapon of offence(s) and postmortem report, it appears that Dr. Manoj Dhingra has opined that though the injury no. 1,2&4 described in his postmortem report had been caused by the weapons sent to him for examination or by similar weapons, but the other injury i.e. the injury found on the head stated above was not caused by those weapons meaning thereby that the said injury could have been caused otherwise, other than the assault by those weapons.
38. As per postmortem report Ex.PW6/A, few nail marks were also found present over the right side of neck and similarly few nail marks were also present on the left side of the neck. The presence of the nail marks over the neck are clearly suggestive of struggle which took place between the accused persons and the deceased before his death, and those nail marks could not be self inflicted and they are self explanatory, and consequently they rule out any self infliction and as per the subsequent opinion of PW6 abrasions were also found on the right shoulder and right elbow joint and 47 Nazal deformity which could have been caused by danda/seroo weapon of offence(s) in this case. Consequently, they clearly reflect that the said injury marks had been caused by blunt force impact of danda/seroo.
39. As no external injury was noticed by the autopsy surgeon on the head of the deceased and from his report there was subdural haemotoma present right and left parietal region. Sub anonoied present over left fronto parieto occipital region, the judicial notice can be taken of this fact that such kind of injury inside the head can not be caused by any disease process and can only be caused by some force blunt impact or trauma and the said head injury could have been sustained by the deceased either during the scuffle or if the head of the deceased had banged against some hard surface with great force or after he had been thrown on the ground with great force, since as discussed above, the nail marks present over the neck of the deceased are clearly suggestive of the scuffle before the death. Consequently, the said head injury could only be attrituable to the acts of the accused 48 persons for which they are accountable as the same could not have been sustained otherwise.
40. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no eye witness to the crime in question and the crime has been committed in the four corners of house of accused R1 and R2, and both of them were lastly in the company of the deceased alive by PW8 in the night before, therefore, both the accused persons owe an explanation, how, the deceased Vijay Shankar sustained head injury, as the post mortem report is clearly suggestive of scuffle before the death, and it also suggests that certain abrasions were found on the body of the deceased on his right elbow, right shoulder and nose which were caused by the dandas/seroo weapon of offence(s). As the accused persons have not furnished any explanation how and in what manner the deceased Vijay Shankar had received the said head injury before his death, therefore, the same can only be attrituable to the criminal acts of the accused persons R1 and R2, and the cause of death in the postmortem report has been opined to be Coma as a result of 49 head injury, consequently there is a direct nexus between the acts of the accused and the death of the deceased Vijay Shanker.
41. Further, as per the postmortem report, the time of death at the time of conducting the postmortem has been opined as 62 hours and the postmortem in this case was carried out on 29.3.06 at 2.00p.m, the said time of death also matches with the version of PW8, as he had lastly seen the deceased active in the company of accused persons on 26.3.06 around 7.30p.m and the time of death in this case has been estimated as per postmortem report to be around 12.p.m shortly after the deceased present was last seen alive in the company of both the accused persons, after PW8 saw them pulling the deceased inside their house. Consequently, the estimation regarding the time of death as per postmortem report also supports the prosecution story. Consequently, the circumstance no.7 is also decided in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
42. Applying the principle laid down in the judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 50 1622(Supra), and also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 1091=AIR 1952 SC 343(Supra), I am of the considered view, that it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the prosecution, by unimpeachable evidence by aforesaid chain of circumstances as discussed above, which is so complete, which only leads to the conclusion, that it was only the accused persons who had committed the murder of deceased Vijay Shankar and no one else and the circumstantial evidence lead on the record, is absolutely inconsistent and incompatible with the innocence of the accused and there is no circumstance brought on record by the accused suggesting his innocence or the possibility that any one else might have committed the aforesaid ghastly act. Therefore, the circumstance(s) proved by the prosecution form a chain so complete which leads only to the conclusion, regarding the culpability of the accused persons having caused the death of deceased Vijay Shankar.
43. Now, the next question which arises for consideration is 51 whether in this case, the prosecution has been able to make out a case U/s 300 IPC or U/s 299 IPC, admittedly, in the present case the autopsy surgeon who had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased has no where, opined that the head injury due to which the death took place was caused by dandas/seroo, which were the weapon(s) of offence used in this case, nor he has opined that the said injury sustained on the head was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of deceased Vijay Shankar, he has only opined in his postmortem report that the cause of death was due to Coma as a result of head injury, and in his subsequent opinion qua the weapon of offence(s), he has no where opined that the injury sustained on head which was responsible for causing the death of deceased Vijay Shanker had been caused by weapon of offence used by the accused persons in this case i.e. Danda and Seroo as per his subsequent opinion Ex.PW6/B.
44. Consequently, in the present case though, both the accused persons can clearly be said to be responsible for the death of the 52 deceased, as there were sure signs of scuffle before the death, therefore, the death of the deceased can be attrituable to the criminal acts of the accused persons, as the autopsy surgeon has also opined that certain injuries caused on the body of deceased as mentioned in the postmortem report were also sustained by the said weapon of offence(s), but it can not be said in these circumstances that the accused persons had an intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause the death of the deceased Vijay Shanker nor it can be said that both the accused persons had an intention to cause such bodily injuries upon the deceased as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. It has been held in judgment AIR 1985 SC 386 Mer Dhana Sida that:
" Where the accused gave blows on the head of the deceased with sticks and they intended or knew themselves to be likely to smash their victim's skull, it was held that they must be taken to have known that they were likely to cause the death of the victim, and were, therefore, guilty of 53 culpable homicide not amounting to murder".
I am of the considered opinion that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The very fact that the injuries sustained on head of the deceased was clearly attrituable to the acts of the accused persons as discussed above, therefore, accused persons can be fastened with the knowledge that by doing such an act of causing head injury on the body of the deceased Vijay Shankar, which was ultimately responsible for his death, they were likely to cause his death, as no doubt causing such a serious head injury on the body of any man, would in most of the cases result into death. Consequently, both the accused persons can be said to have knowledge that by such an act of causing injury on the head of the deceased they were likely to cause his death. The common intention of both the accused persons is also discernible from the acts of the accused persons in pulling the deceased inside their house on 26.3.06 at around 7.30p.m as witnessed by PW8 Mohd. Abid, which shows prior meeting of minds.
54
45. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that, both the accused persons Ram Kumar(R1) and Rinki Devi(R2) stand convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder U/s 304(II) IPC. Now, to come up for hearing on the point of sentence on 4.2.2010.
Announced in the open court on dt. 30.1.2010.
(Sanjeev Aggarwal) Addl. Sessions Judge:
Rohini Courts: Delhi.55
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV AGGARWAL: ASJ-V: OUTER:
ROHINI: DELHI SC NO. 58/08 FIR No. 454/06 P.S. Sultan Puri U/s 304(II) IPC State Vs. 1. Ram Kumar S/o Lal Bihari R/o A-34/6 Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III, P.S Sultan Puri, Delhi.
2. Rinki Devi W/o Vijay Shanker R/o Village Kutuwa Pur, P.S. Outer Hardoi, Distt. Hardoi, U.P. ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE:
4.2.2010 Present: Sh. G.S. Guraya, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Both the Convict(s) produced from J.C. with ld. Amicus Curiae Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj.
I have heard both the convict(s) as well as Ld. Amicus on the point of sentence and also the Ld. Addl. PP for State.
It is submitted by ld. Amicus Curiae Sh. Aseem 56 Bhardwaj, that both convict(s) are not hardened criminals and they have no previous history of involvement in any crime and that the said crime was committed in the heat of passion, as convict Rinki was subjected to extreme cruelty by her husband deceased Vijay Shankar and due to this reason her life had become miserable and this was also the reason, why the other convict Ram Kumar was also disturbed. It is further submitted that two sons, aged around 4 and 5 years are also with the convict Rinki Devi in the jail and one daughter, aged around 7 years, who is eldest one is with her old and ailing mother, aged around 60 years and it is further stated that convict Ram Kumar is aged around 65 years and he is also ailing and is suffering from various diseases and both the convicts are in J.C since 28.03.2006. Therefore, it is prayed that lenient view may be taken against them.
On the other hand it is submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP , on behalf of the State, that both the convict(s) deserve appropriate punishment for the ghastly act, as they had committed the murder of their close relative ( son-in-law of convict Ram Kumar and husband of 57 convict Rinki) by pulling him in their own house and as such they do not deserve any leniency and moreover the punishment in such cases should be a lesson for the society at large. He further submits that by awarding appropriate punishment, the cry of the society for justice should also be met. Therefore, it is prayed that strict punishment should be awarded to both the convict(s).
I have gone through the rival contentions. In the present case, convict Ram Kumar and Rinki Devi had killed the deceased Vijay Shankar, related to them as above, by pulling him inside their house, when he had come to their house on the fateful day without even thinking about the consequences of the same and without any remorse. There these type of crimes cannot be allowed to unpunished lightly.
In these circumstances, the interest of justice shall be met, if both the convicts Ram Kumar and Rinki Devi are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each U/s 304-II IPC and by imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, and in case of default of payment of fine, convicts shall further undergo SI for one month 58 each. The benefit of the period already undergone by the them during the trial shall be extended to each of them U/s 428 Cr.P.C.
Copy of the judgment and that of sentence be given to the convicts free of cost. The Ld. Amicus Curiae Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj is discharged from case with the words of appreciation for the effort put in by him. It is ordered accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Aggarwal) On 4.2.2010. Addl. Sessions Judge Rohini Courts: Delhi.
59