SC No. 114/2013
State Vs. Ram Singh and another.
FIR No. 413/2012
P.S. : Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
13.09.2013(2.30PM)
Present : Shri Dayan Krishnan , Shri Rajeev Mohan &
Shri A.T.Ansari, Ld. Spl. Public Prosecutor for the
State, assisted by Sh.Madhav Khurana,Advocate.
Shri V.K.Anand Ld. Counsel for accused Mukesh.
Shri Vivek Sharma, Shri Manoj Tomar and
Shri Sada Shiv, Ld. Counsels for accused Pawan.
Shri A.P Singh, Shri V.P. Singh and Ms. Geeta Ld.
Counsels for accused Vinay Sharma & accused
Akshay @ Thakur.
Shri Rajeev Jain, Ld. Amicus Curie.
Proceedings against accused Ram Singh had already
been abated, since he expired.
Remaining convicts namely Mukesh, Pawan, Vinay
and Akshay Thakur are produced from custody in
court.
Vide my separate order on sentence of even date, all
the convicts have been sentenced.
Attested copy of the judgment, order on sentence,
copy of charge, evidence, statement under section 313 Cr.P.C,
exhibited documents be given to the convicts, free of cost.
The convicts are also informed that they can file an
appeal against the judgment and order on sentence within a
period of 30 days as per Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The exhibits be preserved till the confirmation of
death penalty by the Hon'ble High Court. The death penalty
reference is being sent to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the
confirmation of the same. The file be prepared as per Rule 34
of Chapter 24 Part B Vol. III of Delhi High Court Rules and be
sent to Hon'be High Court as per rules.
(Yogesh Khanna )
ASJ ( Special Fast Track Court),
Saket Courts, New Delhi
13-09-2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SPECIAL - FAST TRACK COURTS,
SAKET DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Unique ID No. 02406R0020522013
SC No. 114/2013
FIR No. 413/2012
P.S. : Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
U/s : 120B IPC & U/s 365 / 366 / 376(2)(g) / 377 /
307 / 302 and / or 396 /395 IPC read with
section 397 / 201 / 412 read with section
120B IPC.
State
( Government of NCT of Delhi)
...... Complainant.
Versus
1. Ram Singh, since deceased.
S/o Shri Mange Lal
R/o Jhuggi No. J-49,
Ravidass Camp, Sector-3,
R.K Puram, New Delhi.
(Proceedings abated against him on 12-03-2013.)
2. Mukesh
S/o Shri Mange Lal
Presently R/o Jhuggi No. J-49,
Ravidass Camp, Sector-3,
R.K Puram, New Delhi.
Permanent R/o Village Karoli,
District & P.S Karoli,
Rajasthan.
3. Akshay Kumar Singh
S/o Shri Saryu Singh
R/o Village Karmalaungh
P.S. Tandwa, District Aurangabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
4. Vinay Sharma
S/o Shri Hari Ram Sharma
R/o Jhuggi No. J-105,
Ravidass Camp, Sector-3,
R.K Puram, New Delhi.
5. Pawan Kumar @ Kaalu
S/o Shri Heera
R/o Jhuggi No. J-64,
Ravidass Camp, Sector-3,
R.K Puram, New Delhi.
...... Convicts.
Date of arguments on sentence concluded : 11-09-2013
Date of order : 13-09-2013
ORDER ON SENTENCE
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence
from both the sides. The prosecution has argued that looking at
the crime committed by the convicts they be awarded maximum
penalty - of death. However, the ld counsel for convict person
argued at length and raised the following issues to be
considered at the time of award of the sentence :
a. The young age of convict person viz., convict Pawan
Gupta @ Kaalu, aged 19 years ; convict Vinay Sharma,
aged 20 Years; convict Mukesh aged 26 years and
convict Akshay Kumar Singh @ Thakur aged 28 years.
b. socio-economic conditions of the convict person, they
being poor making two ends meat, having families to
support ;
c. clean antecedents and be given chance of reformation ;
d. the presumption of innocence being in their favour ;
e. life imprisonment being the rule and death being an
exception and there being no special reasons to award
death sentence ;
f. they being convicted only on the ground of conspiracy and
not of their individual acts ;
g. that convict Mukesh and convict Pawan were drunk at
the time of incident and that accused Mukesh was driving
the bus throughout.
These circumstances, broadly, are alleged to be the
mitigating circumstances put forth by the convict person and
hence, it is argued that the death sentence be not awarded to
them.
Various judgments were referred to by the ld counsels
from either sides. The crux of the judgments is - to award a
death penalty the court has to first weigh the aggravating
circumstances against the mitigating circumstances and if there
are no mitigating circumstances then the court need to apply
the Rarest of Rare test to find if the case falls within such
category.
The law on this aspect has been developed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments viz.,
In “Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab” (1980) 2
SCC 684, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that extreme
depravity constitute legitimate special reason for award of
death sentence. It has been held that ;
“In many cases, the extremely
cruel or beastly manner of the
commission of murder is itself a
demonstrated index of the
depraved character of the
perpetrator. That is why, it is not
desirable to consider the
circumstances of the crime and the
circumstances of the criminal in
two separate watertight
compartments.”
It was also held that :
“ if a murder involves exceptional
depravity, it shall be an
aggravating circumstance for
imposition of penalty of death.”
Further in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
3 SCC 470, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ;
“ In the first place, the very
humanistic edifice is constructed
on the foundation of “reverence for
life” principle. When a member of
the community violates this very
principle by killing another
member, the society may not feel
itself bound by the shackles of this
doctrine. Secondly, it has to be
realized that every member of the
community is able to live with
safety without his or her own life
being endangered because of the
protective arm of the community
and on account of the rule of law
enforced by it”.
It was further observed that ;
“ When the community feels that
for the sake of self preservation the
killer has to be killed, the
community may well withdraw the
protection by sanctioning the death
penalty. But the community will not
do so in every case. It may do so
( in rarest of rare cases) when its
collective conscience is so
shocked that it will expect the
holders of the judicial power centre
to inflict death penalty
irrespective of their personal
opinion as regards desirability or
otherwise of retaining death
penalty. The community may
entrain such a sentiment when the
crime is viewed from the platform
of the motive for, or the manner of
commission of the crime, or the
anti-social or abhorrent nature of
the crime, such as for instance :
(i) manner of commission of
Murder i.e., when the murder is
committed in an extremely brutal,
grotesque, diabolical, revolting,
or dastardly manner so as to
arouse intense and extreme
indignation of the community ;
(ii) whether the victim is subjected
to inhuman acts of torture of
cruelty in order to bring about his
or her death.
In Devender Pal Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2002) 5 SCC 234, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :
“ Principle culled out from the
judgments in Bachan Singh (supra)
and Machhi Singh (supra), is that
when the collective conscience
of the community is so shocked,
the court must award the death
sentence.”
In Ram Singh v. Sonia & Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 1, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court once again held that :
“It would be a failure of justice not
to award the death sentence in a
case where the crime was executed
in the most grotesque and
revolting manner”.
In C. Munniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010)
9 SCC 567, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held;
“Stressing upon the manner of
commission of offence, if extremely
brutal, the diabolical, grotesque
killing, shocking to the collective
conscience of the society, the death
sentence should be awarded.”
In Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral v. State of
Maharashtra (2011) 14 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court further held that ;
“ the distinction has to be drawn
between ordinary murders and
murders which are gruesome,
ghastly or horrendous. While life
sentence should be given in the
former, the latter belongs to the
category of the rarest of rare cases,
and hence death sentence should
be given.”
In Sunder v. State (2013) 3 SCC 215 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held ;
“Inter alia, the following factors to
be the aggravating circumstances :
a) The accused have been held
guilty of two heinous offences,
which independently of one
another, provide for the death
penalty ;
b) No previous enmity between
the parties, no grave and sudden
provocation which compelled the
accused to take the life of the
prosecutrix ;
c) Extreme mental perversion ;
d) The manner in which the victim
was murdered, and the approach
and method adopted by the
accused, disclose the traits of
outrageous criminality in the
behaviour of the accused ;
e)Well planned and consciously
motivated crime ;
f) Extreme misery caused to the
aggrieved party.
As observed earlier the ld counsels for the convicts
had referred to (a) their young age ; (b) their socio-economic
status ; (c) their clean antecedents and reformative
approach ; as the mitigating circumstances in favour of the
convicts. However, one need to add that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had repeatedly held that the young age of the accused is
not a determinative factor by itself against the award of the
death sentence. Rather all the circumstances need to be taken
together and proper weightage to be given to each
circumstance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rather has re-held
the death sentence in the following cases despite the young age
of the convict ;
(a) Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu
Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 ;
(b) Atbir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 9 SCC 1 ;
(c) Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 3 SCC 56 ;
(d) Shivu v. High Court of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 713 ;
(e) Jai Kumar v. State of M.P. (1999) 5 SCC 1 ;
(f) Dhananjoy Chatterjee v.State of WestBengal (1994) 2
SCC 220.
Similarly the socio-economic status of the convict ;
or the convict being under any intoxication cannot be the
determinative factors in sentencing as has been held in ;
a) Shimbhu v. State of Haryana 2013 (10) SCALE
595 ;
b) State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75.
I would like to refer to the contents of para 18 of
Krishnappa's case, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that ;
“The reasons that accused an
unsophisticated and illiterate
citizen belongs to the weaker
section of the society ; that he was
a chronic addict to drinking and
had committed rape of a girl where
in the state of “intoxication” and
that his family comprise of a old
mother, wife and children depends
upon him. These reasons are
neither special nor adequate.
The measure of punishment in the
wake of rape cannot depend upon
the social status of the convicts or
the accused. It must depend upon
the conduct of the accused, the
state and age of the sexually
assault female and the gravity of
the criminal act. The crimes of
violence upon women needs to be
severally dealt with. The social
economic status, religion, race,
caste or creed of the accused or the
victims are ir-relevant
consideration in sentencing
policy. The protection of society and
deterring the criminals is the
avowed object of law and that is
required to be achieved by
imposing an appropriate sentence.
The sentencing court are expected
to
consider all relevant facts into
consideration bearing on the
questions of sentence and proceed
to impose a sentence
commensurate with the gravity of
the sentence. Court must hear the
loud cry for justice by the society
in cases of the heinous crime of
rape on innocent helpless girls of
tender years, and respond by
imposition of proper sentence.
Public abhorrence of the crime
needs reflection through imposition
of appropriate sentence by the
court. To show mercy in the case of
such a heinous crime would be a
travesty of justice and the plea
of leniency would be wholly
misplaced.
The submission qua clean antecedents or a chance of
reformation, I may refer to the following judgments where the
accused were first offenders but were awarded death for the
acts they had committed viz., (a) Mohd Anis Kasab (Supra) and
(b) Dhananjay Chatterjee (Supra). Rather, I may refer to the
deposition of PW82 Shri Ram Adhar wherein he had deposed
about dacoity committed with him by the convict person along
with their associates in the same bus on the time just prior to
the incident belies the claim of the convicts that they had
clean antecedents. Qua the plea of reformation I may add that
in Sunder's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that the method adopted by the accused may disclose the
traits of outrageous criminality in the behaviour of accused.
Further, the plea of presumption of the innocence in
favour of the convicts is now not available to them since they
stand convicted. I may also put the record straight that convict
person are not convicted only on account of conspiracy but also
for their overt acts. Lastly, the plea of convict Mukesh that he
had helped the system by admitting that he was present inside
the bus, is probably to seek misplaced mercy as he took this
contradictory stand in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C to
save himself after he found the chain of circumstances being
proved against him too.
Lastly I would like to refer to “Gurvail Singh @ Gala
& Anr. vs. State of Punjab”, AIR 2013 SC 1177, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;
“to award the death sentence, the
aggravating circumstances ( crime
test) have to be fully satisfied
and there should be no mitigating
circumstance ( criminal test )
favouring the accused. Even if
both the tests are satisfied as
against the accused, then the Court
has to finally apply the Rarest of
Rare Cases test ( R-R Test ), which
depends on the perception of the
society and not “judge –
centric”,
this is whether the society will
approve the awarding of death
sentence to certain types of crime
or not. While applying this test, the
Court has to look into variety of
factors like society’s abhorrence,
extreme indignation and
antipathy to certain types of
crimes like rape and murder of
minor girls and the court award
death sentence, because situation
demands, due to constitutional
compulsion, reflected by the will of
the people”.
Thus, with the aid of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, let me now find the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances in the present case. The aggravating
circumstances are :
(a) Offence in the present case has been committed in a
extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and thus
dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme
indignation of society.
(b) Demonstration of exceptional depravity and extreme
brutality ;
(c) Extreme misery inflicted upon the prosecutrix before her
death :
(d) Grave impact of the crime on social order.
On the other hand, the mitigating circumstances, as
alleged, are (a) the young age of the convict ; (b) their socio
economic status as also the plea of the reformatory approach
and (c) their clean antecedents. These circumstances, as
alleged, have been dealt with by me in my earlier part of this
order. The aggravating circumstances thus outweigh the
mitigating circumstances. Now I need to move to R-R Test to
see if the case is covered under the bracket of rarest of rare
case.
R-R Test
The facts show that entire intestine of the prosecutrix
was perforated, splayed and cut open due to repeated insertions
of rods and hands. The convicts, in the most barbaric manner,
pulled out her internal organs with their bare hands as well as by
the rods and caused her irreparable injuries, thus exhibiting
extreme mental perversion not worthy of human condonation.
As convict in pursuance of their conspiracy lured the victims
into the bus Ex. P-1, brutally gang raped the prosecutrix,
inflicted inhuman torture and threw the defenceless victims out
of the moving bus in naked condition, profusely bleeding in a
cold winter night ; their unprovoked crime demonstrated
exceptional depravity of mind of the convicts.
In the postmortem report Ex. PW34/A, besides other
serious injuries, various bite marks were observed on her face,
lips, jaw, near ear, on the right and left breasts, left upper arm,
right lower limb, right upper inner thigh (groin) , right lower
thigh, left thigh lateral, left lower anterior , genital. It rather
show the beastly behaviour of convicts.
Further, the convicts did not stop after pulling out her
internal organs after the crime of gang rape / unnatural sex but
then had dragged the victims to the rear door of the bus Ex.P-1
to be thrown out and when the rear door was found jammed the
victims were dragged by their hairs to the front door and thrown
out of the moving bus. Her intestines were so severally
damaged and the suffering inflicted on the prosecutrix was
unparalleled. The brutality caused to her internal organs is
extreme as is evident from the medical evidence on record and
hence the act of convicts call for extreme penalty.
The Gurvail Singh's case (Supra) guides us that
the R-R test largely depends on the perception of the society as
to if it approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types
of crimes. The court has to look into the factors like society's
abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types
of cases viz., like the case in hand - of gang rape with brutal
murder of a helpless girl by six men.
These are the times when gruesome crimes against
women have become rampant and courts cannot turn a blind
eye to the need to send a strong deterrent message to the
perpetrators of such crimes. The increasing trend of crimes
against women can be arrested only once the society realize
that there will be no tolerance from any form of deviance
against women and more so in extreme cases of brutality such
as the present one and hence the criminal justice system must
instill confidence in the minds of people especially the women.
The crime of such nature against a helpless women, per se,
require exemplary punishment.
I may leave here while saying that the gravity of the
incident depicts the hair rising beastly and unparalleled
behaviour. The subjecting of the prosecutrix to inhuman acts of
torture before her death had not only shocked the collective
conscience but calls for the withdrawal of the protective arm of
the community around the convicts. This ghastly act of the
convicts definitely fits this case in the bracket of rarest of rare
cases. Hence, I award the following punishment to each of the
convict.
(a) The convicts, namely, convict Akshay Kumar Singh @
Thakur, convict Mukesh, convict Vinay Sharma and convict
Pawan Gupta @ Kaalu are sentenced to death for offence
punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly,
the convicts be hanged by neck till they are dead.
Fine of Rs.10,000/- to each of the convict is also
imposed and in default of payment of fine such convict shall
undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
(b) for the offence under section 120-B IPC I award the
punishment of life imprisonment to each of the convict and
fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(c) for the offence under section 365 IPC I award the
punishment of seven years to each of the convict and fine of
Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple
imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(d) for the offence under section 366 IPC I award the
punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and
fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(e) for the offence under section 376(2)(g) IPC I award the
punishment of life imprisonment to each of the convict person
with fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of
fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(f) for the offence under section 377 IPC I award the
punishment of ten years to each of the convict person and fine
of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(g) for the offence under section 307 IPC I award the
punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and
fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(h) for the offence under section 201 IPC I award the
punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and
fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(i) for the offence under section 395 read with section 397
IPC I award the punishment of ten years to each of the convict
person and fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of
payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such
convict ;
(j) for the offence under section 412 IPC I award the
punishment of ten years to each of the convict person and fine
of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
The sentences under section 120-B / 365 / 366 /
376(2)(g) / 377 / 307 /201 / 395 / 397 / 412 IPC to run
concurrently. Benefit under section 428 Cr.P.C to be given
wherever applicable.
I also recommend that appropriate compensation,
under section 357-A Cr.P.C be awarded to the legal heir's of the
prosecutrix and hence, a copy of this order be sent to the
Secretary, Delhi Legal Service Authority, New Delhi, for deciding
the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme
referred to in sub-section 1 of section 357-A Cr.P.C.
The convicts are also informed that they can file an
appeal against the judgment and order on sentence within a
period of 30 days as per Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Attested copy of the judgment, order on sentence,
copy of charge, evidence, statement under section 313 Cr.P.C,
exhibited documents be given to the convicts, free of cost.
The exhibits be preserved till the confirmation of
death penalty by the Hon'ble High Court. The death penalty
reference is being sent to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the
confirmation of the same. The file be prepared as per Rule 34
of Chapter 24 Part B Vol. III of Delhi High Court Rules and be sent
to Hon'be High Court as per rules.
Announced in the open
court today i.e. 13-09-2013. ( Yogesh Khanna )
Additional Sessions Judge
Special – Fast Track Court
Saket District Courts
Complex
New Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF SH. YOGESH KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE – SPL. FAST TRACK COURT : SAKET
DISTRICT COURTS : NEW DELHI
State Vs. Sanjay
FIR No. 103/2013
P.S Badarpur, New Delhi.
U/s. 354/376/506 IPC
C H A R G E
I, Yogesh Khanna, Additional Sessions Judge (Spl. FTC), Saket
Courts, New Delhi do hereby charge you Sanjay S/o Late Shri Hardev Singh as
follows :
That on 4.12.2012 at about 11PM at House No. 15, Gali No. 10,
Molar Band Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS :
Badarpur, you committed rape with the prosecutrix against her will and
without her consent and you, thus, thereby committed offence punishable U/s
376 IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, during the above date, time and place, you criminally
intimated the prosecutrix by threatening her to kill and you, thus, thereby
committed offence punishable U/s 506 IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, on 24.03.2013 at about 10PM, in the aforesaid house,
you assaulted the prosecutrix intending to outrage her modesty and hence
thereby committed offence punishable U/s 354 IPC and within my
cognizance.
I do hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the above
said offence.
( Yogesh Khanna )
ASJ / Spl. FTC SD, Saket, New Delhi
13.09.2013
Charge is read over and explained to the accused who is
questioned as follows :
Q. Do you plead guilty or claim trial?
A. I plead not guilty and claim trial.
RO & AC
( Yogesh Khanna )
ASJ / Spl. FTC SD, Saket, New Delhi
13.09.2013
State Vs. Balbir Singh
FIR No. 289/12
PS: Neb Sarai
U/s : 376 / 506 IPC
13.09.2013
Present : Shri A. T. Ansari Ld. Addl. P.P. for State
Ld counsel for accused.
Accused on bail and present in court.
Some documents has been filed by the ld counsel for
accused. Copy supplied to prosecution.
Put up for arguments on 09.10.2013.
(Yogesh Khanna)
ASJ(Spl. FTC)
Saket Court Complex
13.09.2013
State Vs. Anurag Pradhan
FIR No. 58/13
PS: C.R.Park
U/s : 376 IPC
13.09.2013
Present : Shri A. T. Ansari Ld. Addl. P.P. for State
Ld counsel for accused.
Accused on bail and present in court.
Today, I have to deliver order on sentence at 2.30PM,in
gang rape case dt. 16.12.2012. Even otherwise, no prosecution
witness is present today.
Matter is adjourned and shall be now taken up on 11th
and 12th of December 2013 for further prosecution evidence.
(Yogesh Khanna)
ASJ(Spl. FTC)
Saket Court Complex
13.09.2013
State Vs. Sanjay
FIR No. 103/2013
P.S Badarpur, New Delhi.
U/s. 354/376/506 IPC
13.09.2013
Present : Shri A. T. Ansari Ld. Addl. P.P. for State
Ld counsel for prosecutrix.
Ld counsel for accused.
Accused in JC and produced in court.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of accused. Be taken
on record.
I have heard the arguments on charge and gone
through the entire material available on record especially the
statement of prosecutrix, MLC of prosecutrix and statements of
police witnesses u/s. 161 CrPC.
Prima facie, accused is liable to be charged for the
offences u/s. 354/376/506 IPC. Hence charge be framed
accordingly.
Charge so framed , read over and explained to accused
to which he pleads not guilty and claims trial.
To come on 19th, 20th and 21st of November 2013, for
prosecution evidence. First of all, prosecutrix and other public
witnesses be summoned for these above dates.
Bail application of accused be taken up on 08.10.2013.
(Yogesh Khanna)
ASJ(Spl. FTC)
Saket Court Complex
13.09.2013
SC No. 193/13
State Vs. Raju @ Bhirwari Mandal
FIR No. 148/13
PS: Neb Sarai
13.09.2013
Present : Shri A. T. Ansari Ld. Addl. P.P. for State
Accused in JC and produced in court.
Today I have to deliver order on sentence at 2.30PM,in
gang rape case dt. 16.12.2012. Even otherwise, no prosecution
witness is present today.
Matter is adjourned and shall be taken up now on 24th of
September, 2013 for prosecution evidence.
(Yogesh Khanna)
ASJ(Spl. FTC)
Saket Court Complex
13.09.2013
State Vs. Ram Singh and another.
FIR No. 413/2012
P.S. : Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
13.09.2013(2.30PM)
Present : Shri Dayan Krishnan , Shri Rajeev Mohan &
Shri A.T.Ansari, Ld. Spl. Public Prosecutor for the
State, assisted by Sh.Madhav Khurana,Advocate.
Shri V.K.Anand Ld. Counsel for accused Mukesh.
Shri Vivek Sharma, Shri Manoj Tomar and
Shri Sada Shiv, Ld. Counsels for accused Pawan.
Shri A.P Singh, Shri V.P. Singh and Ms. Geeta Ld.
Counsels for accused Vinay Sharma & accused
Akshay @ Thakur.
Shri Rajeev Jain, Ld. Amicus Curie.
Proceedings against accused Ram Singh had already
been abated, since he expired.
Remaining convicts namely Mukesh, Pawan, Vinay
and Akshay Thakur are produced from custody in
court.
Vide my separate order on sentence of even date, all
the convicts have been sentenced.
Attested copy of the judgment, order on sentence,
copy of charge, evidence, statement under section 313 Cr.P.C,
exhibited documents be given to the convicts, free of cost.
The convicts are also informed that they can file an
appeal against the judgment and order on sentence within a
period of 30 days as per Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The exhibits be preserved till the confirmation of
death penalty by the Hon'ble High Court. The death penalty
reference is being sent to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the
confirmation of the same. The file be prepared as per Rule 34
of Chapter 24 Part B Vol. III of Delhi High Court Rules and be
sent to Hon'be High Court as per rules.
(Yogesh Khanna )
ASJ ( Special Fast Track Court),
Saket Courts, New Delhi
13-09-2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SPECIAL - FAST TRACK COURTS,
SAKET DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Unique ID No. 02406R0020522013
SC No. 114/2013
FIR No. 413/2012
P.S. : Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
U/s : 120B IPC & U/s 365 / 366 / 376(2)(g) / 377 /
307 / 302 and / or 396 /395 IPC read with
section 397 / 201 / 412 read with section
120B IPC.
State
( Government of NCT of Delhi)
...... Complainant.
Versus
1. Ram Singh, since deceased.
S/o Shri Mange Lal
R/o Jhuggi No. J-49,
Ravidass Camp, Sector-3,
R.K Puram, New Delhi.
(Proceedings abated against him on 12-03-2013.)
2. Mukesh
S/o Shri Mange Lal
Presently R/o Jhuggi No. J-49,
Ravidass Camp, Sector-3,
R.K Puram, New Delhi.
Permanent R/o Village Karoli,
District & P.S Karoli,
Rajasthan.
3. Akshay Kumar Singh
S/o Shri Saryu Singh
R/o Village Karmalaungh
P.S. Tandwa, District Aurangabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
4. Vinay Sharma
S/o Shri Hari Ram Sharma
R/o Jhuggi No. J-105,
Ravidass Camp, Sector-3,
R.K Puram, New Delhi.
5. Pawan Kumar @ Kaalu
S/o Shri Heera
R/o Jhuggi No. J-64,
Ravidass Camp, Sector-3,
R.K Puram, New Delhi.
...... Convicts.
Date of arguments on sentence concluded : 11-09-2013
Date of order : 13-09-2013
ORDER ON SENTENCE
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence
from both the sides. The prosecution has argued that looking at
the crime committed by the convicts they be awarded maximum
penalty - of death. However, the ld counsel for convict person
argued at length and raised the following issues to be
considered at the time of award of the sentence :
a. The young age of convict person viz., convict Pawan
Gupta @ Kaalu, aged 19 years ; convict Vinay Sharma,
aged 20 Years; convict Mukesh aged 26 years and
convict Akshay Kumar Singh @ Thakur aged 28 years.
b. socio-economic conditions of the convict person, they
being poor making two ends meat, having families to
support ;
c. clean antecedents and be given chance of reformation ;
d. the presumption of innocence being in their favour ;
e. life imprisonment being the rule and death being an
exception and there being no special reasons to award
death sentence ;
f. they being convicted only on the ground of conspiracy and
not of their individual acts ;
g. that convict Mukesh and convict Pawan were drunk at
the time of incident and that accused Mukesh was driving
the bus throughout.
These circumstances, broadly, are alleged to be the
mitigating circumstances put forth by the convict person and
hence, it is argued that the death sentence be not awarded to
them.
Various judgments were referred to by the ld counsels
from either sides. The crux of the judgments is - to award a
death penalty the court has to first weigh the aggravating
circumstances against the mitigating circumstances and if there
are no mitigating circumstances then the court need to apply
the Rarest of Rare test to find if the case falls within such
category.
The law on this aspect has been developed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments viz.,
In “Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab” (1980) 2
SCC 684, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that extreme
depravity constitute legitimate special reason for award of
death sentence. It has been held that ;
“In many cases, the extremely
cruel or beastly manner of the
commission of murder is itself a
demonstrated index of the
depraved character of the
perpetrator. That is why, it is not
desirable to consider the
circumstances of the crime and the
circumstances of the criminal in
two separate watertight
compartments.”
It was also held that :
“ if a murder involves exceptional
depravity, it shall be an
aggravating circumstance for
imposition of penalty of death.”
Further in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
3 SCC 470, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ;
“ In the first place, the very
humanistic edifice is constructed
on the foundation of “reverence for
life” principle. When a member of
the community violates this very
principle by killing another
member, the society may not feel
itself bound by the shackles of this
doctrine. Secondly, it has to be
realized that every member of the
community is able to live with
safety without his or her own life
being endangered because of the
protective arm of the community
and on account of the rule of law
enforced by it”.
It was further observed that ;
“ When the community feels that
for the sake of self preservation the
killer has to be killed, the
community may well withdraw the
protection by sanctioning the death
penalty. But the community will not
do so in every case. It may do so
( in rarest of rare cases) when its
collective conscience is so
shocked that it will expect the
holders of the judicial power centre
to inflict death penalty
irrespective of their personal
opinion as regards desirability or
otherwise of retaining death
penalty. The community may
entrain such a sentiment when the
crime is viewed from the platform
of the motive for, or the manner of
commission of the crime, or the
anti-social or abhorrent nature of
the crime, such as for instance :
(i) manner of commission of
Murder i.e., when the murder is
committed in an extremely brutal,
grotesque, diabolical, revolting,
or dastardly manner so as to
arouse intense and extreme
indignation of the community ;
(ii) whether the victim is subjected
to inhuman acts of torture of
cruelty in order to bring about his
or her death.
In Devender Pal Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2002) 5 SCC 234, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :
“ Principle culled out from the
judgments in Bachan Singh (supra)
and Machhi Singh (supra), is that
when the collective conscience
of the community is so shocked,
the court must award the death
sentence.”
In Ram Singh v. Sonia & Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 1, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court once again held that :
“It would be a failure of justice not
to award the death sentence in a
case where the crime was executed
in the most grotesque and
revolting manner”.
In C. Munniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010)
9 SCC 567, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held;
“Stressing upon the manner of
commission of offence, if extremely
brutal, the diabolical, grotesque
killing, shocking to the collective
conscience of the society, the death
sentence should be awarded.”
In Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral v. State of
Maharashtra (2011) 14 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court further held that ;
“ the distinction has to be drawn
between ordinary murders and
murders which are gruesome,
ghastly or horrendous. While life
sentence should be given in the
former, the latter belongs to the
category of the rarest of rare cases,
and hence death sentence should
be given.”
In Sunder v. State (2013) 3 SCC 215 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held ;
“Inter alia, the following factors to
be the aggravating circumstances :
a) The accused have been held
guilty of two heinous offences,
which independently of one
another, provide for the death
penalty ;
b) No previous enmity between
the parties, no grave and sudden
provocation which compelled the
accused to take the life of the
prosecutrix ;
c) Extreme mental perversion ;
d) The manner in which the victim
was murdered, and the approach
and method adopted by the
accused, disclose the traits of
outrageous criminality in the
behaviour of the accused ;
e)Well planned and consciously
motivated crime ;
f) Extreme misery caused to the
aggrieved party.
As observed earlier the ld counsels for the convicts
had referred to (a) their young age ; (b) their socio-economic
status ; (c) their clean antecedents and reformative
approach ; as the mitigating circumstances in favour of the
convicts. However, one need to add that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had repeatedly held that the young age of the accused is
not a determinative factor by itself against the award of the
death sentence. Rather all the circumstances need to be taken
together and proper weightage to be given to each
circumstance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rather has re-held
the death sentence in the following cases despite the young age
of the convict ;
(a) Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu
Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 ;
(b) Atbir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 9 SCC 1 ;
(c) Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 3 SCC 56 ;
(d) Shivu v. High Court of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 713 ;
(e) Jai Kumar v. State of M.P. (1999) 5 SCC 1 ;
(f) Dhananjoy Chatterjee v.State of WestBengal (1994) 2
SCC 220.
Similarly the socio-economic status of the convict ;
or the convict being under any intoxication cannot be the
determinative factors in sentencing as has been held in ;
a) Shimbhu v. State of Haryana 2013 (10) SCALE
595 ;
b) State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75.
I would like to refer to the contents of para 18 of
Krishnappa's case, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that ;
“The reasons that accused an
unsophisticated and illiterate
citizen belongs to the weaker
section of the society ; that he was
a chronic addict to drinking and
had committed rape of a girl where
in the state of “intoxication” and
that his family comprise of a old
mother, wife and children depends
upon him. These reasons are
neither special nor adequate.
The measure of punishment in the
wake of rape cannot depend upon
the social status of the convicts or
the accused. It must depend upon
the conduct of the accused, the
state and age of the sexually
assault female and the gravity of
the criminal act. The crimes of
violence upon women needs to be
severally dealt with. The social
economic status, religion, race,
caste or creed of the accused or the
victims are ir-relevant
consideration in sentencing
policy. The protection of society and
deterring the criminals is the
avowed object of law and that is
required to be achieved by
imposing an appropriate sentence.
The sentencing court are expected
to
consider all relevant facts into
consideration bearing on the
questions of sentence and proceed
to impose a sentence
commensurate with the gravity of
the sentence. Court must hear the
loud cry for justice by the society
in cases of the heinous crime of
rape on innocent helpless girls of
tender years, and respond by
imposition of proper sentence.
Public abhorrence of the crime
needs reflection through imposition
of appropriate sentence by the
court. To show mercy in the case of
such a heinous crime would be a
travesty of justice and the plea
of leniency would be wholly
misplaced.
The submission qua clean antecedents or a chance of
reformation, I may refer to the following judgments where the
accused were first offenders but were awarded death for the
acts they had committed viz., (a) Mohd Anis Kasab (Supra) and
(b) Dhananjay Chatterjee (Supra). Rather, I may refer to the
deposition of PW82 Shri Ram Adhar wherein he had deposed
about dacoity committed with him by the convict person along
with their associates in the same bus on the time just prior to
the incident belies the claim of the convicts that they had
clean antecedents. Qua the plea of reformation I may add that
in Sunder's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that the method adopted by the accused may disclose the
traits of outrageous criminality in the behaviour of accused.
Further, the plea of presumption of the innocence in
favour of the convicts is now not available to them since they
stand convicted. I may also put the record straight that convict
person are not convicted only on account of conspiracy but also
for their overt acts. Lastly, the plea of convict Mukesh that he
had helped the system by admitting that he was present inside
the bus, is probably to seek misplaced mercy as he took this
contradictory stand in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C to
save himself after he found the chain of circumstances being
proved against him too.
Lastly I would like to refer to “Gurvail Singh @ Gala
& Anr. vs. State of Punjab”, AIR 2013 SC 1177, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;
“to award the death sentence, the
aggravating circumstances ( crime
test) have to be fully satisfied
and there should be no mitigating
circumstance ( criminal test )
favouring the accused. Even if
both the tests are satisfied as
against the accused, then the Court
has to finally apply the Rarest of
Rare Cases test ( R-R Test ), which
depends on the perception of the
society and not “judge –
centric”,
this is whether the society will
approve the awarding of death
sentence to certain types of crime
or not. While applying this test, the
Court has to look into variety of
factors like society’s abhorrence,
extreme indignation and
antipathy to certain types of
crimes like rape and murder of
minor girls and the court award
death sentence, because situation
demands, due to constitutional
compulsion, reflected by the will of
the people”.
Thus, with the aid of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, let me now find the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances in the present case. The aggravating
circumstances are :
(a) Offence in the present case has been committed in a
extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and thus
dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme
indignation of society.
(b) Demonstration of exceptional depravity and extreme
brutality ;
(c) Extreme misery inflicted upon the prosecutrix before her
death :
(d) Grave impact of the crime on social order.
On the other hand, the mitigating circumstances, as
alleged, are (a) the young age of the convict ; (b) their socio
economic status as also the plea of the reformatory approach
and (c) their clean antecedents. These circumstances, as
alleged, have been dealt with by me in my earlier part of this
order. The aggravating circumstances thus outweigh the
mitigating circumstances. Now I need to move to R-R Test to
see if the case is covered under the bracket of rarest of rare
case.
R-R Test
The facts show that entire intestine of the prosecutrix
was perforated, splayed and cut open due to repeated insertions
of rods and hands. The convicts, in the most barbaric manner,
pulled out her internal organs with their bare hands as well as by
the rods and caused her irreparable injuries, thus exhibiting
extreme mental perversion not worthy of human condonation.
As convict in pursuance of their conspiracy lured the victims
into the bus Ex. P-1, brutally gang raped the prosecutrix,
inflicted inhuman torture and threw the defenceless victims out
of the moving bus in naked condition, profusely bleeding in a
cold winter night ; their unprovoked crime demonstrated
exceptional depravity of mind of the convicts.
In the postmortem report Ex. PW34/A, besides other
serious injuries, various bite marks were observed on her face,
lips, jaw, near ear, on the right and left breasts, left upper arm,
right lower limb, right upper inner thigh (groin) , right lower
thigh, left thigh lateral, left lower anterior , genital. It rather
show the beastly behaviour of convicts.
Further, the convicts did not stop after pulling out her
internal organs after the crime of gang rape / unnatural sex but
then had dragged the victims to the rear door of the bus Ex.P-1
to be thrown out and when the rear door was found jammed the
victims were dragged by their hairs to the front door and thrown
out of the moving bus. Her intestines were so severally
damaged and the suffering inflicted on the prosecutrix was
unparalleled. The brutality caused to her internal organs is
extreme as is evident from the medical evidence on record and
hence the act of convicts call for extreme penalty.
The Gurvail Singh's case (Supra) guides us that
the R-R test largely depends on the perception of the society as
to if it approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types
of crimes. The court has to look into the factors like society's
abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types
of cases viz., like the case in hand - of gang rape with brutal
murder of a helpless girl by six men.
These are the times when gruesome crimes against
women have become rampant and courts cannot turn a blind
eye to the need to send a strong deterrent message to the
perpetrators of such crimes. The increasing trend of crimes
against women can be arrested only once the society realize
that there will be no tolerance from any form of deviance
against women and more so in extreme cases of brutality such
as the present one and hence the criminal justice system must
instill confidence in the minds of people especially the women.
The crime of such nature against a helpless women, per se,
require exemplary punishment.
I may leave here while saying that the gravity of the
incident depicts the hair rising beastly and unparalleled
behaviour. The subjecting of the prosecutrix to inhuman acts of
torture before her death had not only shocked the collective
conscience but calls for the withdrawal of the protective arm of
the community around the convicts. This ghastly act of the
convicts definitely fits this case in the bracket of rarest of rare
cases. Hence, I award the following punishment to each of the
convict.
(a) The convicts, namely, convict Akshay Kumar Singh @
Thakur, convict Mukesh, convict Vinay Sharma and convict
Pawan Gupta @ Kaalu are sentenced to death for offence
punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly,
the convicts be hanged by neck till they are dead.
Fine of Rs.10,000/- to each of the convict is also
imposed and in default of payment of fine such convict shall
undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
(b) for the offence under section 120-B IPC I award the
punishment of life imprisonment to each of the convict and
fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(c) for the offence under section 365 IPC I award the
punishment of seven years to each of the convict and fine of
Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple
imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(d) for the offence under section 366 IPC I award the
punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and
fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(e) for the offence under section 376(2)(g) IPC I award the
punishment of life imprisonment to each of the convict person
with fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of
fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(f) for the offence under section 377 IPC I award the
punishment of ten years to each of the convict person and fine
of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(g) for the offence under section 307 IPC I award the
punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and
fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(h) for the offence under section 201 IPC I award the
punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and
fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
(i) for the offence under section 395 read with section 397
IPC I award the punishment of ten years to each of the convict
person and fine of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of
payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such
convict ;
(j) for the offence under section 412 IPC I award the
punishment of ten years to each of the convict person and fine
of Rs.5000/- to each of them. In default of payment of fine
simple imprisonment for one month to such convict ;
The sentences under section 120-B / 365 / 366 /
376(2)(g) / 377 / 307 /201 / 395 / 397 / 412 IPC to run
concurrently. Benefit under section 428 Cr.P.C to be given
wherever applicable.
I also recommend that appropriate compensation,
under section 357-A Cr.P.C be awarded to the legal heir's of the
prosecutrix and hence, a copy of this order be sent to the
Secretary, Delhi Legal Service Authority, New Delhi, for deciding
the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme
referred to in sub-section 1 of section 357-A Cr.P.C.
The convicts are also informed that they can file an
appeal against the judgment and order on sentence within a
period of 30 days as per Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Attested copy of the judgment, order on sentence,
copy of charge, evidence, statement under section 313 Cr.P.C,
exhibited documents be given to the convicts, free of cost.
The exhibits be preserved till the confirmation of
death penalty by the Hon'ble High Court. The death penalty
reference is being sent to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the
confirmation of the same. The file be prepared as per Rule 34
of Chapter 24 Part B Vol. III of Delhi High Court Rules and be sent
to Hon'be High Court as per rules.
Announced in the open
court today i.e. 13-09-2013. ( Yogesh Khanna )
Additional Sessions Judge
Special – Fast Track Court
Saket District Courts
Complex
New Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF SH. YOGESH KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE – SPL. FAST TRACK COURT : SAKET
DISTRICT COURTS : NEW DELHI
State Vs. Sanjay
FIR No. 103/2013
P.S Badarpur, New Delhi.
U/s. 354/376/506 IPC
C H A R G E
I, Yogesh Khanna, Additional Sessions Judge (Spl. FTC), Saket
Courts, New Delhi do hereby charge you Sanjay S/o Late Shri Hardev Singh as
follows :
That on 4.12.2012 at about 11PM at House No. 15, Gali No. 10,
Molar Band Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS :
Badarpur, you committed rape with the prosecutrix against her will and
without her consent and you, thus, thereby committed offence punishable U/s
376 IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, during the above date, time and place, you criminally
intimated the prosecutrix by threatening her to kill and you, thus, thereby
committed offence punishable U/s 506 IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, on 24.03.2013 at about 10PM, in the aforesaid house,
you assaulted the prosecutrix intending to outrage her modesty and hence
thereby committed offence punishable U/s 354 IPC and within my
cognizance.
I do hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the above
said offence.
( Yogesh Khanna )
ASJ / Spl. FTC SD, Saket, New Delhi
13.09.2013
Charge is read over and explained to the accused who is
questioned as follows :
Q. Do you plead guilty or claim trial?
A. I plead not guilty and claim trial.
RO & AC
( Yogesh Khanna )
ASJ / Spl. FTC SD, Saket, New Delhi
13.09.2013
State Vs. Balbir Singh
FIR No. 289/12
PS: Neb Sarai
U/s : 376 / 506 IPC
13.09.2013
Present : Shri A. T. Ansari Ld. Addl. P.P. for State
Ld counsel for accused.
Accused on bail and present in court.
Some documents has been filed by the ld counsel for
accused. Copy supplied to prosecution.
Put up for arguments on 09.10.2013.
(Yogesh Khanna)
ASJ(Spl. FTC)
Saket Court Complex
13.09.2013
State Vs. Anurag Pradhan
FIR No. 58/13
PS: C.R.Park
U/s : 376 IPC
13.09.2013
Present : Shri A. T. Ansari Ld. Addl. P.P. for State
Ld counsel for accused.
Accused on bail and present in court.
Today, I have to deliver order on sentence at 2.30PM,in
gang rape case dt. 16.12.2012. Even otherwise, no prosecution
witness is present today.
Matter is adjourned and shall be now taken up on 11th
and 12th of December 2013 for further prosecution evidence.
(Yogesh Khanna)
ASJ(Spl. FTC)
Saket Court Complex
13.09.2013
State Vs. Sanjay
FIR No. 103/2013
P.S Badarpur, New Delhi.
U/s. 354/376/506 IPC
13.09.2013
Present : Shri A. T. Ansari Ld. Addl. P.P. for State
Ld counsel for prosecutrix.
Ld counsel for accused.
Accused in JC and produced in court.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of accused. Be taken
on record.
I have heard the arguments on charge and gone
through the entire material available on record especially the
statement of prosecutrix, MLC of prosecutrix and statements of
police witnesses u/s. 161 CrPC.
Prima facie, accused is liable to be charged for the
offences u/s. 354/376/506 IPC. Hence charge be framed
accordingly.
Charge so framed , read over and explained to accused
to which he pleads not guilty and claims trial.
To come on 19th, 20th and 21st of November 2013, for
prosecution evidence. First of all, prosecutrix and other public
witnesses be summoned for these above dates.
Bail application of accused be taken up on 08.10.2013.
(Yogesh Khanna)
ASJ(Spl. FTC)
Saket Court Complex
13.09.2013
SC No. 193/13
State Vs. Raju @ Bhirwari Mandal
FIR No. 148/13
PS: Neb Sarai
13.09.2013
Present : Shri A. T. Ansari Ld. Addl. P.P. for State
Accused in JC and produced in court.
Today I have to deliver order on sentence at 2.30PM,in
gang rape case dt. 16.12.2012. Even otherwise, no prosecution
witness is present today.
Matter is adjourned and shall be taken up now on 24th of
September, 2013 for prosecution evidence.
(Yogesh Khanna)
ASJ(Spl. FTC)
Saket Court Complex
13.09.2013
