State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Mayank Kardam on 22 October, 2019
35. It is seen that the testimony of the witness is duly corroborated by his
report, a part of which is the statement of the mother of the accused, Ex
PW22/B. The same bears the left hand impressions of the mother of the
State vs. Rajeev Kardam
FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 29 of 32
accused and is accompanied by a copy of her ID proof. From the perusal of
the same, it stands duly proved that the witness had gone to the house of the
accused for due execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC. It is stated in the said
statement that the proclamation was made in the presence of the residents of
the area, and that a copy of the proclamation has also been affixed on the
main gate of the house of the accused. Now, nowhere in the cross
examination of the witness was it suggested to him that the said statement is
not that of his mother, or that the statement does not bear the thumb
impressions of the mother of the accused. The witness categorically
specified the address of the accused in his cross examination. While he
admitted that he did not either do any photography or videography of the
execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC, nor did he join any independent
witnesses to the process, the due execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC
cannot be doubted in view of the statement of the mother of the accused
that is accompanied with the report of the process server and which has not
been impeached by the accused in any manner. The said statement is also
duly accompanied by the DD entry Ex PW22/C by which the witness had
gone to the house of the accused. All of these circumstances reflect the due
execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC against the accused. It is seen that
even in a statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, the accused never really denied
the due execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC. He even admitted that the
process was executed at his correct address. He merely stated that he was
not informed of the proceedings u/s 82 CrPC by his mother. The said
submission also constitutes an admission of the fact by the accused that the
process was duly executed against him.