Rajeev @ Bunti v. State

G. S. SISTANI, J.

¶1All the presentappeals are set down for final hearing and disposal. The aforesaidfive appealswere heard together,as they arise out of a Crl.Appeals.970/2012, 1119/2012, 1118/2012,1303/2012 & 1304/2012 Page 2 of30 common judgment and hence, are being disposed of by a common judgment.

¶2Present appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and are directed against the judgment dated

13.01.2012 and order on sentence dated 28.01.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 62/2011, by virtue of which all the appellantshave been convictedunder Section 363 read with Section 366 and Section 342/376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencedto undergorigorQus-impris"onmentfor a period of seven vear and to pay^lfmil^'Ms! 2,000/-an#ih default:pfpaymentof fine to furtherundersoCimplri^ri^Sflfen^foraperiodoffifteendays for to furtherunderg§^simpkdm|j:i.sonttLint^^a periodoffifteendays the offencepuffishableuri'dfer'^Section363 readwitnlSection366of the IndianPenal Code. The ap|ellants')werefurthersentencedto undergo rigorousimprisonmentfor ine|y^4K|fo''the offencepunishableunder Section i^2 of the IndiaMenaltjGode.The appell^ts were also % , / sentencedtlxundergorigorous1mpp|'nrrientfoMjfeand to pay afine I of Rs. 25,0007-aridin dfefaijltof|3pm€ritof furtherundergo simple imprisormfenifor tSre^monlSl-for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of theindian Penal Code. Ail the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶3The facts of the case are as under: >s. "On 20.3.2011 one Shakeel Ahmed who is a resident of Tilak Bazar, Karkhane Wali Gali, Delhi had made a complaint that his daughter 'R' aged about I6V2 years who had come to Jahangir Puri to the house ofher mama (maternal uncle) on 14.3.2011along with her mother, was missing since 19.3.2011. On the basis of the complaint 1118/2012,1303/2012& 1304/2012 Page3 of30 iy\ made by Shakeel Ahmed, initially a case under Section 363 Indian Penal Code was registered. On 21.3.2011 an information was received in the Police Station Jahangir Puri vide DD No. 89B that the girl who was kidnapped on

19.3.2011 had been recovered. Pursuant to the said information ASl Ved Prakash reached at main road K Block, near Mother Dairy Booth, Jahangir Puri where the prosecutrix 'R' was present along with her relatives.Thereafteron 22.3.2011she was produced before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistratefor recordingherstatementunder-Section164 Cr.P.C.Inher standing inJM gali^pmr-^the 'hoi0^^^^rmaami (matema^cm^),ftj^^^oyscm^^fbota^f^ibletook hertith^hnggi^^tbp whos^amesl^\cameto know later all thefiv^hysJoSkfturnsin committedrape upon her. She hacf^rtlwriirifhrmedthe Ld. MM that duringthisperiodall^the'saidboys were addressingeach otlier by their names^ i}e. ^ittoq, Ramdesh, Bunti Raju they comniftedrdpe'%pon'three-fdu^^^ had also f statedin>jiM<sidtementunderSection'464/t^.C. thaton the eveningof^21.3.2OlfBitt0o^efther nearthe toiletand when she was standing'theinf^fwjKhala (Mausi) Naeem came there and took hefbad^^'" On the basis of the same, the provisions of Sections 376 \

(2) (g), 342/34 IPC were added On 22.3.2011 the accused Mukesh @ Bittoo was arrested and the other accused namely Prabhans Yadav @ Ramjane, Deepak @ Deepu and Ravinder Kumar @ Raju were also arrested whereas the accused Rajeev @ Bunti had himself surrendered on 2.4.2011. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against all the accused." 1118/2012,1303/2012 & 1304/2012 Page4of30

¶4After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 363/366/342/376(2)(g)/34of the Indian Penal Code was filed. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of 18 witnesses, besides the exhibits produced during the trial. The statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded wherein the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstancesappearingin evidenceagainstthem and claimedto be falsely implicated. CommonAr2ummisio£^)mhW%favvellants f ^ \.,f j «•

¶5Challenging|he findingsgfthe trial court, lelarnefCounselappearmg on behalfof the appelll%|ponUn1de^|tfiatthe'jU^i^^ntof the trial court is contraryto the faltsianjl'lawfandsame is^'^sedon surmises and conjectures.They havetfurther"contendedthatthe pi^osecutionhas >V {5'' ' ' f ^ I failed to grove its case b^j^qndreaspnabledoubt and (iverlookedthe basicnrinclDlesofcrirnintljurispiiidence..^ # •

¶6It is contended,blC'thec,q^nselfor the appellants;thatthe real identity of the accusedpefe^hsisTrtqtjestablished.andthe-prosecutionhasfailed to prove its case against«all the .appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. ^

¶7The counselappearingon behalfofall the appellantsstronglyopposed the inspectionof the spot carriedout by the learnedjudge withinthe ambit of Section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that such inspection cannot be done which would have benefitted the prosecutrix. Counsel for the appellants fiirther submitted that such an inspectioncannottake the placeof evidenceorproofbut is meantfor CrI. Appeals. 970/2012, 1119/2012, 1118/2012,1303/2012&1304/2012 Page5of30 appreciatingthe evidenceon record. Therefore,the above mentioned inspectionhas no evidentiaryvalue and can not be reliedupon. It is also contendedthat the learnedjudge neitheraffordedan opportunity to the appellantsto representtheir case on this aspect nor the same was carried out in presence of the appellants.To substantiatetheir arguments counsel have relied upon Keisam Kumar vs. State of Manipur reported mAIR 1985SC1664.

¶8The counsel for the appellantsfervently urged that there are serious contradictions, inconsistenciesand='imprdvementsm the testimony oi the prosecutriXj,aridd^s'^notin,§p^ireconfide^eand^createsagenume doubt aboutAr-^eTsion.iIt^wis'fijkhi&submi^^it%t her testimony "cy . has to be, appreciatedon, the princ^b of probabilitiesjust as the testimony"of any other witness-and the court may lookanto the other T n' i Ihich may lend assAance to her ,1 . evidencedirector substan^|^ testimony!:Counselfurth|^^^^^^ards.the contr^ictionsin the testimonyo|theJnvestiglt|on'^,Officefwho def)Osedjiiatthe place of occurrence was> first flooft^.

¶9On the aspect of niedical 'eyidenGe,"-the^coun|erappearingon behalf of the appellantsurgedthat injury is'a"sine qua non for decidingwhether gang rape has been committed. In the present case, even if the story of the prosecutrix is believed to be true, there would have been some injuries or bruises on the body of the prosecutrix, absence of which beliesthe case ofthe prosecutionthatthe prosecutrixwas held captive for three days and was raped multiple times by five persons. To substantiate their arguments learned counsel for the appellants have relied on the judgment of the Apex Court titled as Pratap Mishra vs. 1118/2012,1303/2012& 1304/2012 Page6 of30 State of Orissa reported in (1977) 3 SCC 41, Lalliram and Another vs. State ofMadhya Pradesh reportedin (2008)10 SCC 69.

¶10Learned counsel further contended that the area from where the prosecturixwas kidnappedwas densely populatedand it is hard to believe that nobody witnessed the kidnapping of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further argued that it is not humanly possible to carry a person forcefully on the staircase in question and further the staircase was not wide and strong enough to sustain the weight of two persons at one time.^ %

¶11Counselfor the-appellantscl)ntendedtliat\he\presentcase belongsto theyear201i-rth|Srose9uli^§^^p^ablyfaffedto^omplywiththe circulardated'iiMarch71pJ|^;l|afmMesDNA p^fllingmandatory for rape |ases. The coun^'.fu^rther'stressedthat there were serious lapses ini^he investigationwhicfemakesthe story oftlfe prosecution unbelievableThe counseLvfiiilHerMlegedthat in ordert^ implicateall the appellants, a false and ^mendacious-story wa# made by the « prosecution.

¶12Ms. Pooja Srivastava leameS^^couiisel^'appearingon behalf of the appellant Rajeev @ Bunti has relied upon Radhu Fs. State ofMadhya Pradesh reported in 2007 Crl. L.J. 4704, Abbas Ahmed Choudhury v. kJi, State ofAssam reported in (2010) 12 SCC 115, Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 133 and Md. Ali @ Guddu vs. State ofU.P. (Crl. Appeal No. 2238/2010)

¶13Per contra, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari learned APP for the State submits that the evidence produced on record establishes the guilt of the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and the trial court has rightly convicted 1118/2012, 1303/2012 & 1304/2012 the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 363 read with Section 366 and Section 342/376(2)(g)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and hence the findings warrant no interference, accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶14The counsel for the State, in support of the view expressed by the trial court, contends that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the scanning of the evidence by the learned trial Judge does not remotely indicate any contradiction or diserepancy.j=It is proponed by her that all the witnesses have-#em£ined absolutely urisliaken m, their version and nothing substantial has 'beeri^elicited-'^from them during the cross- // ^ r N examinationwhich could'create;\a dent in their'^iestimony.Learned Counsel would further contend thatMf the ocular and'.,.documentary \ evidence is appreciatedinfits Iptotoer perspective,there remains no scintillaof doubt that the-fa^en^tj|hadcommitted the brutal and heinous crime and'in sucli*a||i£ctoJtiance/when,Xhe/sbcietycries for justice, the Couftk"shouldfe^nptshow,-any leniericy'in acquitting the appellants. " ' ^ /

¶15The counsel for the State vehemently urged that the commissionof the alleged offence is supportedby the MLC of the prosecutrixand the FSL report available on record.

¶16We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and considered their rival submissions.The counselalso took us throughthe recordof the trial court and the testimonies of the witnesses. CrI. Appeals. 970/2012, 1119/2012, 1118/2012,1303/2012& 1304/2012 Page8of 30 7^

¶17Before proceeding with the evaluation of the aforementioned five appealson merits,it wouldbe necessaryto noticethe ambitof Section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 310: Local inspection

¶1Any Judge or Magistrate may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties, visit and inspectanyplace in which an offenceis alleged to have beencommitted,or any otherplace which it is in his opinion necessary to viewfor the purpose of ' properlyappreciatingJiieseyid^^iegiven at such inquiry or trial, and,shallwith00fmm^ recorda memorandum0%0y^^e^an§^^i^sgBs^iyed at such inspectpn.^^ % any^^^othirparty tohhe^ds^,fSodesires, dicbpy^cf the mefhorandumshallBe^furriished'tohimfree ofcosi fi . ' I fi fi, ii ' f

¶18To put the controversyat rest relating.tothe spot where the victimwas held captivefor three,days^fertrialju.dge-xisitedand'inspectedthe spot in view,of.the abovesaiiSfirbvisibn.'Therelevant'observationsof >C, .... ^ the trialcourtare^|xtractedhereundef^ ""House No. K-655-,where~thepf^secutrix was taken and kept for two to three days and allegedly raped was inspected and it was observed that the house/ jhuggi was constructed upto thefirst floor. This Court inspected both the ground and first floor. The way to the first floor was observed to be from the gali on the backside which was hardly about 30-35 steps away from the spot from where the prosecutrix was dragged and it took about one minute to reach the same from the place where the prosecutrix was dragged. The ground floor was divided into two portions. The room on the back portion was bearing no. K-655 whereas the room on thefront portion was bearing 1118/2012, 1303/2012 & 1304/2012 >0 no. K-647. Thefirst floor had two rooms and both were found to be havingthe No. K-655. The gali on thefront side was about 4-5feet wide whereas thegalifrom where the approach to the first floor room was possible was about threefeet and at the same time the roofs were not very high and there was aflxed wooden ladderfor going to thefirstfloor and it wasobservedthatone couldeasily move up the ladder without any difficultyas there was support of adjoiningwall. It was also observedby the Court that keepingin view the low height of the roof it was not difficultto lift or even drag a younggirl up the ladderwhen more thanjm&ipm§<^isinvolved. The groundflgprroomsft^^ffalso insp^edwith the due permission'r1$^gthjeyeMdm&. inside the Jhuggi.ifwas'^dindthatmkerewas a^kU^s^p^atingthe two rooms^withan ojyeninginthe^form -opa dq^r which appearedyhbe a%heh1^construcfion.Thhld^y.residing them infgrmedthatksfi'e'Was^s^ayingtherefor"l^ more thafji seven to eighf'^^ears.filpitfallyshe was residingin -only thefront room bfidripgjio. K-647 but receMythe tenantresidingin thejbdckportionbearingno. K-$55had vacMedandtherefq^^'sfm^had,takenthe saidportionalso on S^orddve. xpoms^'fiadnow beenj%j.ned^by:creatin§fdWf^openin^^ ^ the Coi$t>$li'Qt'thero,ofri^ wi'thJH^/ownerofthe backportionMnd^hBflce'tpet^um&er.of'ro3mson theflrst floor was also"K-655' (not•'6'47). 'This Court further observed a water outlet in the 'room on the backside (i.e. K-655) in the corner which was perhaps being used by the occupants for washing purposes. It was also observed —f that the entire ground floor and first floor structure was pucca construction. The rooms on the ground floor were slightly below the road level with not very high doors (but one could enter easily without bending/ stooping. It was also observed that the roof of the adjoiningjhuggi which was only constructed till ground floor was much lower to the roof to the Jhuggi No.K-655 and therefore, in case if any person is held captive on thefirst floor, it would not 11 18/2012,1303/2012 & 1304/2012 Page 10of 30 Xa-be possible to either call out or catch the attentionof person residingthere. Further, thejhuggi infront of the jhuggiwhere the incidentreportedlytookplace belonged to the accused Prabhans Yadav and perhaps it was for this reason that the prosecutrix could not catch the attention of any other person in the vicinity and none came to her rescue. Further, the public toilet where the prosecutrix was recovered was also inspectedand it wasfound to be at a distance of hardly three tofive minutesfrom the jhuggi where she had been held captive. This Court also observedthat there^j^er^est\m,Z^u^^sto reach the said public toilet,^gjni^f^Qughtjhe jpain-gqlivia main road andanother^fgrn^/^idli'sihsid&HjkfJhuggiduster. This Cq^^j^rt^ obse^^^thatthe4niirf\eawas an unautlSr^^^huhd^^ds \pfpeople residing^ere,of§^'krainage[ahdmany^ff'thegalis whi^h'^re hardly^ke to one^dndahalffeef^vide. Some of^e galiswere eve^ith)y^e,otifivefeetwide (as r'^flected in %e roughplan dr'^n byi^tlfe Court at the sp(^. The jhilggi's were mostlya^ca^omtructionandpopulation density M'as extrem^M^0ghl^iiha low and.suppressed voice/,sound qiiality^^on^fxcco^nt: Ma^y oj the house^ere .belowthe level-ofthe gdli and in,case if two or more,persons surrouride^a young'girlthey could easilydrag4ierdv'ayiMnfhou^mybqdyno'ticingthe same in view of the ndtuie~~pfeongestidn^Many ofthe Jhuggies were found with single'door"and no ventilation. The Jhuggi No. 655 (first floor) rooms were found to be having water outlets inside the rooms which waterflowed into the open drains outside through pipes. In one of the rooms on thefirst floor there also existed a water tap and a temporarypartition in the corner which was being used as a washroom though it cannot be stated whether it was an old feature or a recent addition. The windows (as indicated in the rough site plan prepared by the Court) were small with iron grills affixed on it. Distance between House No. 655 to main road was hardly observed to be 1118/2012,1303/2012& 13,04/2012 300-350steps. This Courtalsoprepared a roughsiteplan on the spots so visited which was made a part of the memorandumofrelevantfacts which nowforms a part of the Judicial Record (in terms of the provisions ofSection 310 Code ofCriminal Procedure). "

¶19PW18 SI Vineeta Prasad who was the Investigating Officer in the presentcaseinher crossexaminationstatedas under; "1 did not make any specific inquiry from the prosecutrixregardingthe descriptionand detailsofthe accused when -03.2011. It did not come to ipy^cmled^'ih&Jl^ggi^Nmi:A-655hadbeen sealed0tl^^^^dlyyj^in^that Jug^N&^A655 .there on 24 03 Ulfi..It ii^^Qfi^bi^g^esthat1^14^ inspect thejhuggi.1ha^^f^0f^staircase^0 impeded thefirstfloor. imi0[y^^mat firstfloor ro^ was $so locked. It is there is no grill/parapet ^^allon thefirstflob%^tt''^ilchrrecthatifapersondoes riot take the assisthnce.SfBhe-.wall while climbingon the staircc^cxhe^^pa^ifalkmown because thej^e is no supportpfi4^^^fi:iii^korIfiJcorrectJhqtth§passage \~j leadkig^tQ'ifiedoor on thefirstfloor4s'^aBg0t1/1.25ft.

¶20In Keisam Kumar vs. SiatetMf Manipur reported in AIR 1985 SC 1664, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the similar issue and held as under: "13. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the local inspection made by him. Here, the High Court rightly pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge had committed a serious error oflaw. Normally, a court is not entitled to make a local inspection and even if such an inspection is made, it can never take the place ofevidence or proof but is legally meantfor appreciating theposition 1118/2012, 1303/2012& 1304/2012 Page 12of 30 \ ->/

¶21at the spot The SessionsJudge, seems to have converted himselfinto a witnessinorderto drawfull supportto the defencecase by whathe may haveseen.

¶14This Court in Pritam Singh and Am. vs. State of Punjab 1956CriLJ 805 observedthus: A Magistrateis certainlynot entitledto allow his view or observation to take the place of evidence because such view or observation of his cannot be testedby cross-examinationand the accusedwould certainly not be in a position to furnish any explanationinreggiddoJiie^^ame. Court of fbllowin^observations: w. "15 It is arguedb^t^^^i^Isi^ride'that inffirkahv. Namdks^(^Ri^927'^'~-35l)lfit^wo^ if a Magistrate^akesuse^^^^hdge deriye^rfroma local inspectionwithout-^affoPdh^igrtk^ opportunity to cross-examine,or'^to explain-the^pointsagainst him, he acts with material irregularity sufficient to vitiate the trial. It was also held that a local inspection of the Magistrate is permitted for the purpose of properly appreciatingthe evidenceinthis case and cannottake the place of evidence itself In SheikhBadas AH v. Emperor (40 Cri.Law Journal (1939) 624) the Magistrate visited the spot on the eveningand came to the conclusionthat there was sufficient light to enable anybody to mark closely the features of a stranger. The High Court held that the learned Magistrate assumedthat the conditionof the lightand atmospherewere the same on the nightthat

¶15We ar^m^fdth^^ifithiJ^f^d^the learned Session^ud^lhsexceeded^hisjuris^twiWnmakinga localiisp^ion." In Re: Sr. ^bhaya'scase'rep|)rt^d4ri2006 Cri LJ 3843, the High " Kerala while de^aiing^with the similar issue made the ^ Crl. Appeals.970/2012, 1119/2012, 1118/2012,1303/2012& 1304/2012 Page 13 of30 he went to the spot as they were at the time of the occurrence. It was held that the Magistrate had gone beyond the scope of section 539(b) and result of such inspection could not be made the basis of conviction. In Dwaraka Prasad v. Ram Nath Modi & others AIR 1951 Vindhyapradesh 1, it was held that the only purpose of local inspection is to properly appreciate the evidence given at the trial. It was held asfollows: The only purpose of local inspection being to properly appreciate the evidence given at the trial and it is only reasonable that the local inspection should, as a rule, come after all the evidm^ed^xMcorded. Even that ^ should be resortedto^ve^^^paringly^^^heCourt taking specialpr^auUo^^^prh'^ntktself be^dminga witness unconsgpuslySbnsome'"-occasions%Jt^§%prfictically impossfble^fprthe-Courtto make a loc^^sj^tion, and not impo^ff-newmaterialscollectedby it. The momentthe Court egllects new matendlsji becomes a wiiness,\and as jj j V| it cannot cross-examineHtselj, ntbannot try the cas'e. k . v i ! j "r y1 Pritam Singhivl^State,''O^Punjab(AIR lp6 SC 415%^threeJudge-Bench'of^the^SupremeCourtl^eldthat a Aiqgistrqte p. ndt>-:i^ptitlek06dllow hi or observationsto take 'ihi^place'ofeyjdence^^b^tiusesuch view or observation^cann/ot^ve"^esw^ by cross-examination: . '

¶17In Deva Setty vT'^Se^'l^ysore: AIR 1959 Mys 1701 it was held asfollows: A local inspection may be made for the purpose of properlyappreciatingthe evidencegivenduringthe trial. The magistrateshouldnot, in makingthe local inspection, do any thingwhichwouldreducehim to thepositionofa witness. ADivisionBench of this Courthad occasionto consider the scope of section539 in State ofKerala v. Chandran (1974 Crl. LawJournal52). It was heldasfollows: Crl.Appeals.970/2012,1119/2012, 1118/2012,1303/2012&1304/2012 Page 14of30 But the Code provides for the Judge making a local inspectionhimself That inspection can be used by himfor properly appreciating the evidencein the case andfor no other purpose. It cannot be usedfor preparation of the backgroundfor appreciating the evidence ofthe witnesses because preparation of the background has to be made by the parties themselves by letting in evidence for that purpose and the Judge is not expected to supply that lacuna in evidence. Preparation of the background to appreciate the evidence ofwitnesses is not the same as "properly, appreciating the evidence' contempla^S bythe Section ... fT % >> U u ^ , ,,,'W '•) xjs It was fufther ff&ldas foimWS^ \ "AX If the impressions'.gained by Judge on ;controversial matterss,arejdllowed to getHn lwithout being tested by .cross-exhmination there .is the likelihood ofmiscarriage ofjustice resulting mom it. I ' -'i'l "'1^ I In S^e of Uttar]frhde;sh'*v\\'0letRam and oth^s,AIR 19T^kSC21T4^it',was-fi^jd^^^ -^ m}iat'/'i^^Section'539-B&'6htkmplate£;^is/^^he local ins^^ctii0i^ff^the[^topographyofithmjMcein which the offe^&e^^ds^'aii^edtpmdve-bee^committedor its locarp^mliqhiiek-forthe purpose ofproperly appreciating the" evidence which was already on record. XXX So, it is settledposition of law that though the Magistrate has power to conducta local inspectionthat can only be for the purpose of appreciating the evidence on record and that all shall not be done in a manner so as to reduce the Magistrate as a witness. " 1118/2012,1303/2012& 1304/2012 Page 15 of30

¶22In view of the above settled position of law and in light of the given facts and circumstancesof the present case, we find that the Sessions Judge relied upon the local inspection conducted by her and the appellantswere not afforded an opportunityto cross examine or to explain the incriminatingcircumstancesagainst them. In our view, perhapsthe localinspectionwas conductedbythetrialcourtto have a clearview and understandingof the spotwherethe offencetookplace. Undoubtedly,the object of such local inspectionis to appreciatethe evidence available onrfecord .andfcannot take the place of evidence itself On the ba'sis aboye,,it would be highly unsafe to rely --"nbtS-b'e'f -- --' ContradiciionMnthe testhnonvof^thWmosecutrix^^^, uponsuchinspectionand|j5|mQt'be''r^^|thebis|s'ofconviction. ft' ^ '1 . ,

¶23Before deciding the case inliahd, It ,Ay0uldbe necessary f| examine the testimony of relevant witnesses;'(Theprosecutrix in her statement EX.PW9/Arecordedbefor|j']Viagistrate^deposedthaton ®.03.2011she was standingin frorit^of-lhe^'house'-ofher mami.whenfive accused personslifted%er^forcefiflly"m tookherto thejhug^iofBitto,where she was kept in their,custodyiill 6]00-PM of 21.03.2011 and during thatperiodtheyhad done •Galafkadm" threefourtimes.

¶24The prosecutrixi.e. PW9 inher testimonybeforethe courtdeposedas under: "0« 19.03.2011,1had gone to the house ofmy mami at K Block, Jahangir Puri. On 19th March of this year at about 5pm I was standingin the gali near the house of my mami. 5 boys who were comingonfoot came in the gali outofwhichone ofthem caughtholdofme andtook me to a room situated in thenext gali. All these 5 boysdid galat kaam with me. These boys were addressingeach Crl.Appeals.970/2012, 1119/2012, 1118/2012,1303/2012&1304/2012 Page 16 of30 Other with names and that is how I came to know about their names i.e. Bittoo, Raju, Ramjane, Deepu andBunti. I was held by these boys and they have kept me captivating for about 3 days and on 21.03.2011 I had escaped from their clutches. During this period, all these boys did galat kaam with me on 2-3 occasions (sab ladko ne 2-3 baar mere saath galat kaam kiya tha). Court Ques: Galat Kaam se kya matlab hai? Ans. Theyhad removed my clothes and touched me on my private parts and after removing their clothes they committed rape (balgti^gar^rdipon^me. •J-Court Obsendtion rThew vicjm^^ds feeling very apprehensibleqnd'shytMd'^after^gr^fpersuasionsshe has come oiitf & Cou^ Ques: Who%Ufc0mrnitted^fapeon ^po'il kisne rapfUyatha) M0Z}:S ' ^ Ans. Sabhi ne 2-3 bdar'klva 'tha. I Ant Sabhine 2-3 | I cm identifyall the dccMse^ipersons. I • ."k I Coti^ Ques: fFTzo^^s^lfh^j^dyjwhohas lifted^ou and takek^youtoA^'roomt^i^^%'i ^ i Ans. Bittoo.-C \ • ' ^ The police \hadficome to the house iater aiid 1 showed them roonfhyhet^eT'rw^s^ept^capUvatirigand where the incident had taken"placerand-'thereafterI was medically examined. Next day my'^^dtementwas recorded by the police. I had also come to the Court. My statement is Ex. PW9/A, the arrest memo ofaccused Mukesh is Ex. PW9/B bearing my signatures at point A, the arrest memo of accused Prabhans Yadav @ Ramjane is already Ex. PW4/D bearing my signatures at point D, the arrest memo of accused Deepak is already Ex.PW4/E bearing my signatures at point C, the arrest memo of accused Ravinder @ Raju is already Ex.PW4/F bearing my signatures at point B. I was studying in 7th class at that time. 1118/2012,1303/2012 & 1304/2012 3^ ••V I had also gone to the Jail and I identified one of the accused as Bunti who was the person who had caught hold of me and dragged me to the room and committed rape upon mefirst:

¶25PW9 in her cross examination stated as under: " It is correct that the place where I was taken is situated in a thickly populated area. It is wrong to suggest that the room whereI was taken has a small door and only person can enter at a time and that too by bending the neck or by stooping over. The place where the said room is.0MdB'dis smgks^st^reyand is only on groundfloor Tlie^toiJejt'^s&ua^^^isi^theroom. It is correctthat noJgj^^in%frodm. wrong to sugge^hc^there}yas^•n6JJpurce ofwater.')^^.,there was p mWca insidejthelfoom^ Qn couft^(^e's^on,the witr^ss-h'asstatedthat the rbo'm^waslocke3^0ik\outside so I did'not go out "of %etrodm to attend the'\callof nature. ^ Zk ' ! . I • H I if I . Itis•krongjoxs^^gest-'thattl^^ropm^kerejwas kepthad adjoikingjhugg^with^commonw^lis^¥plnl,.'thereis no room/j'hussi-^aifoining<-MhereJwas Mken. There was no khidkiAvindm^^n$k^^id0mggi/rvom."" ^ '

¶26PW4 Shakeel Ahmad (father"of the prosecutrix/complainant) in his testimony deposed as under: "It is correct that my daughter had gone to the house of her mama at Jhuggi no. 333, behind ITI on 14.03.11 and got missing on 19.03.11. It is also correct that I had stated to the police in my statement Ex. PW4/A that my daughter was taken away by some unknownperson by alluring her. I had given the birth certificate of my daughter Rukhsar to the 10 which was taken by him into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/B bearing my 1118/2012,1303/2012 & 1304/2012 / /' signatures at point A. My daughter Rukhsar was recovered on 21.03.11 near Shauchalaya by one public personnamelyRizwanwho tookone ladyNaem who was wife of my borther in law, Israel. Naem and Rizwan brought my daughterfrom there. I was called in the PoliceStationand my statementwas recordedby the 10. The memo of recoveryof my daughterwas prepared by the10 videEx. PW4/C bearing my signatures at point A. Two accusedpersons who were brotherswere arrested from their jhuggi. Another accused was apprehended later on. I do not remember the name of either accused butI can identifythernJfsshQWMjQrne."

¶27PW 4 in his cross/ei "I hadtmai^alQffpumb^r^,callas sdhn as i came to know'that-rinydai^^ii]is^is:SingPThePCRofficialshad come to the house^^^y in-ldws. Vol. The locdl^police had also come. I didlnpthqnH'overthephotographof my dail^hterto them. My Hdugliterhas nevergone alpne to m-fim-laws'houseand,alwaysaccompaniedbysomebody eve|in thepast. It^wi^ng'tqsuggestthat my (^ughter ofteh.,travel.dlomBndMent^'tp\myJpzlaws'hoMse. It is i corretlthdtI;h^dgiven^ihei^descri0ionldf clo/hesworn by my haughte^M^er^descriptiorfgiyen'By the members of my in-ta$^Pis;^w^^^osu^^t'thatmy daughter hadgone to my in-laws'house iri%yabsence Vol. I had myselflefther there^... : -

¶28Afterreadingthe abovementionedtestimoniesitis apparentthatthere are improvements and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrixas to where she was held captive,how she was kept for three days, and how and why did she not avail an opportunityto inform the public that she had been kidnappedor that she had been rapedby the appellantsand foundher unworthyofreliance. Crl.Appeals.970/2012,1119/2012, 1118/2012,1303/2012&1304/2012 Page 19 of30

¶29In Radhu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 Crl L.J. 4704, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the courts should bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon and held as under: "5.... The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges ofrape are not uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge ofa rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liabilit)^^;;Mhetkm^herewas rape or not would depend.Mfimately=^pnftheS0dtsmndcircumstances

¶15The evidenceo^^^s_ecu^whemiie^dtigawhole, isfu^ ofdiscrepci^0^rid''dpes^'hotinspir^e^corifidence. Thei^apsin the evidence',Hheseveraldiscrepanciesin the evidence and other,'^circumstancesmake it%highly improbable that such anfinhident ever took place. The learned Counsel for^ 'ihe;\respondent submittq^ that de^me had faile^takprbve^HlyitMangilal, father of should%erejected.Attention^m^^mvited^t^^ denialby the mothermdfathen<^it]^prpse^^^^ suggestion made on behalfj)fjhe-defence,[tlmt-^^^^ father Mangilal was indebied~fo^^ father Nathu and because Nathu was demanding money, they had made the false chargeofrape, toavoidrepayment.Thefact that the defencehadfailed toprove the indebtednessofMangilal or any motivefor false implication,does not have much relevance, as the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges. We are satisfied that the evidencedoes not warrant a finding ofguilt at all, and the Trial Court and High Court erred in returning afinding ofguilt " 1118/2012,1303/2012& 1304/2012 Page20of30

¶30In Raju v. State ofMadhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC133, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that the testimony of a victim of rape has to be tested as if she is an injured witness but cannot be presumed to be gospel truth. Para 11 of the judgment is extracted hereunder: "10. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspect and should be believed, the more so as her statement has to be evaluated at par with that ofan injured witness and M^ the^ evidence is reliable, no corroborationis necessa^,,;JJnd6ubte^ly,the aforesaid observations-must iCdrty^'ihe gpepitesi^^^eightand we respectfjdly agree with^rtheijt, but at time they cannot'be. universgl][^lajf0n}echanicalljtapplied to the ;'6fJ^irvcas^«M:T^uaiidskaMtwhich^mmesbe) facts'ofe^erycas^0p^^^lt whichjs0riesbefore the Couitp ' ^ 11^tcannotbe lost^^&^trapecausesthe^eatest dis^kessandhumiliationUoWeivictimbutat thesa^etime a fklse allegation^^^^t^^cancause equal §istress, humiliationpnd doM^^ohh^accused as ^1//. The accusedmusrals&^espSMM^^^^stt%fusibilityof false impiicdtipn;'particularly^ a4dr0^'numberof accused '1)0$ornein mind that the broad'prin'ciplejsjhai^mninjuredwitness was presentat the time^hennhe^incidenthappenedand that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basisfor assuming that the statement ofsuch a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration."

¶31In the case of Abbas Ahmed Choudhury v. State ofAssam (2010) 12 SCC 115, while observing that a case of sexual assault has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as any other case and that there is no 1118/2012, 1303/2012 & 1304/2012 J presumptionthat a prosecutrixwould always tell the entire story truthfully,the Hon'ble SupremeCourtobservedas under: "11. We are consciousofthefactthatin a matterofrape, the statementofthe prosecutrixmust be givenprimary consideration,but, at the same time, the broadprinciple that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonabledoubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumptionthat a prosecutrixwould alwaystellthe entirestorytruthfully." V.'

¶32InRatSandeep@Deepuv£ State6fNGT^ofDe

(2012)8SCC21, ^ . V I .ps ^ ' the Hon'bk Supreme'Courf^commenteMBoutthe qualityofthe sole testimonyotth^pfisecutri^^tc^tild be mtll^tlgisto convictthe. accused.T|e,Hon'bleSupremfe^'eq^Jeldas undeq^ I? ^ m "Imour considered opiniomih^ 'sterling witness'hhouJd M 1^ ' I, I^ ^J be p/' a very high qualityland caliber whose ^ersion • shdMd, therefore,befu^^ssailableThe Courtcon$dering the '^rsion of'-sucH{\vitm^ apetitionto accep%itfoi' To test the witness, tl:ie'^status^€hmewitness would is the truthfulnessoftM^statement-Wad^ a witness. Whatwould be m^of^relevant w&W be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version ofsuch a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-Crl. Appeals.970/2012, 1119/2012, 1118/2012, 1303/2012& 1304/2012 j

¶33In a relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version ofsuch a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, itcan^be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling yyitnesslwhose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the precise qn be punished'~^o be more did witness • ori Jhe core •^^fmain intact while all oral, documentary and the said version in |9 enable the Court\trying hyersion to sieve tHk other the< versii spectruni.of the \ otherattendantmat^ material objects material particulars the offenceto rely o^||e|a' supporting materiaBWrmo charge allegi m vs. State of U.R (CM. Appea: f^the offendergui^ ofthe upjieme#€l)iirtMd. AH@ Guddu '761^, wherein the Apex Court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix can be accepted withoutany corroboration,but if on carefulexaminationif the court finds it difficultto acceptthe versionof the prosecutrix,the courtmay look for such direct or circumstantial evidence which corroborates her testimony and held as under: "It can be stated with certitude that the evidence of the prosecutrixis not of such quality which can be placed relianceupon. True it is, the grammaroflawpermitsthe Crl. Appeals.970/2012, 1119/2012, 1118/2012,1303/2012 & 1304/2012 h'f testimony of a prosecutrix can be accepted without any corroboration without material particulars, for she has to be placed on a higher pedestal than an injured witness, but, a pregnant one, when a Court, on studied scrutiny of the evidence finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix, because it is not unreproachable, there is requirement for search of such direct or circumstantial evidence which would lend assurance to her testimony. As the present case would show, her testimony does not inspire confidence, and the circumstantial evidence remotely do not lend any support to the same. In the absence of both, we, amss^mpelled to hold that the learned trial^^iidge..Jjasyerrpriedusl^convicted the accused-j^p'ell^rit^forJthedllegedjoffejjce^andthe High Court falkrfinto ep^MpiWithoiit4^gppn§ciatingthe materialon record/bygivingthe^s^tamp^appi^al to the same. ^ ^ >v > ^ ^ U / H. ^ ^ \l

¶34In the present case, the^^Mlttlrlfi^in her statemelt before the MetropolitanMagistrateEjf-^#-||^hasdeposedthat ^hen she was standing4itsidethehous^fife^^^ishe was fbrceflllypickedup by the five%ccused^pksoiis>^'JH[dw#er,-:myh'er-;statement before the court she maae improvement an^^^tated that^^she was dragged by accused Bunty. In her;ftestimony<£before|hf court the prosecutrix deposedthat the place of occurreric'e"wasthicky populatedand she has raised alarm when she was dragged by the five accused persons in the presence of public person. It is highly improbable that in such a thickly populated area a girl was dragged by the accused persons in full public view. It is further astonishing that to prove this fact neither the prosecution has produced any public witness nor the prosecutrix named any person who has witnessed the incident. The prosecutrix further deposed before the court that when she was dragged by the 1118/2012,1303/2012 & 1304/2012 Page24of30 . I accused persons she raised alarm and her sister and mami were present in the house. It is again hard to believe that despite raising alarm none of them came out of the house to save the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix further deposed that the place where she was lifted to the room is just half km and there was no jhuggi adjoining the jhuggi where she was kept. However, the version of the prosecution is falsified by the fact that it was a thickly populated area and the site plan prepared by SI Vineeta Prasad Ex.PX goes on to prove that the jhuggi in question border^ by jhuggis.from both the sides. The prosecutrixhas depos^"l;h'at"t^room\vhera?she'w^heldcaptivewas locked fromroutsiledue-'to'whicfili^'sonsheCdid riot go out ofthe room to a^fendithecallof^^^^^icndoes not appe^probable. In an attempito concealherc^^Sl^a'ndanswerto questiojnsrelatingto II "l ifilI 'i her personalhygieneshe im||r|#qmuponthe earlierinformationgiven ft i',' to the doctor that she had h'#pken1ahy. bath by deposingin the Court 'V 7<-^ U thatsheha^takena bath.'L^ltly;jprosecutioiihas,madea casethat she was raped on the first,floorjofthe j^yggi'howevk',''inthe staementof the prosecutrixittsuibtJfSr^hfe^^^^ being raped was a ground floor or first floor.

¶35To deal with the submission related to DNA profiling and the notification dated 07.03.2012 adduced by the counsel for the appellants,we find that as per Section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the examination of the prosecutrix by the Medical Officer is necessaryin all the cases of sexual assault.FurtherSection53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure also requires that the DNA test must be done in all the cases of sexual assault. It is to be noted that the Crl. Appeals.970/2012, 1119/2012, 1118/2012,1303/2012& 1304/2012 Page25of30 impugned judgment was passed on 13.01.2012 and the notification relied upon by the counsel for the appellants was issued subsequently i.e. on 07.03.2012. Hence, it is therefore clear that it was not possible for the trial court to comply with the notification before it being notified. Moreover, it is worth while to mention that this aspect has been raised by the counsel for the appellant for the first time.

¶36Having said so, it would be fruitful to mention the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State reported in (2011) 7 see 130, whereicis^it was-observed that after incorporation of Section53-A, iffiasbecomene|^e|saryfor th^prd^cutionto conduct DNAtestin allsuehcases.'^Therelevantpara44 is a^nder: <yty/^ ft #7^ 'I "'M'' -f' O \ • #7 44mNoi^afterthe'mcprpojfi^ipnofSectiom^3(^in the CriminalProcedureCpdef^lef23.06.2006, brd^ghtto oit^noticeby learnedCotinsekforthe Respondent-State, it Was become necessgi^'^or^tj^eprosecutionto gJ infor DNk test in suchj'^pS^^cases-,facilitating the prosecutionto pro^eiti(^cgie^ accus^.Prior to 200.6, even'withoutme~af0ism^p00ifi^^p^pvisionin the Cocie ofCriminalProcedure^pfds0fypS'^icouldhave stillresortedHg'this^procedure^bfjgetiingWe'DNA testor analysisandmateHing[ofWemi^^,of'the^^ with that found on the undefgarmeijts ofthe prosecutrix to make it a fool proof case, but they did not do so, thus they must face the consequences."

¶37Therefore, after a conjoint reading of the statute and the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we conclude that in view of the false rape cases filed in the present scenario, it becomes mandatory for the prosecution to conduct the same and to prove the allegations against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 1118/2012, 1303/2012 & 1304/2012 \7 Medical Examination:

¶38Dr. Mamta, Senior Gynae examined the prosecutrix and opined in MLC Ex. PW5/A that hymen was torn, no external injury over abdomen or breast were found, no bleeding, admitting 2 fmger test easily.

¶39As per the case of the prosecution the prosecutrix was raped three four times by the accused persons. In her cross examination, in response to the court question, the prosecutrix testified as under : Court Ques: WhosiKommittedfrapem (kis kisne rape kivatha) ^ kiya tha) Q' Ans. : Sabhi^ne^S-3baanfJ^^tha. 4canidenti^.'alljhejiccusedpersd^sf The fact of" this answer to^4lie^couft,tiuestionw^Md mean that five personsrapedthe prosecuir;lxi2-3'timers, but, the medical;examination s I ^' does not|show any external'injuryon the body of the prosecutrix which prdves that she waf^^ang/rapifiibythe accused%)ersonsthree four times for three dam

¶40In the case ofPratap^Mishf^jys.St0eofOf/|id^^eportedin (1977)3 see41, the Hon'ble5|Bp||!Wd%6uffMiie^^^^ observartions in this regard: ' "The medical evidence, therefore, clearly discloses that the prosecutrix does not appear to have put up any resistance to the alleged onslaught committed on her by the appellants. From this the only irresistible inference can be that the prosecutrix was a consenting party which would be reinforced by other circumstances to which we shall refer hereafter." 1118/2012,1303/2012 & 1304/2012 Page27of30 \^K V

¶41In Lalliram & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 see 69, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the similar view as taken in the case of Pratap Mishra (supra). The relevant para is as under: "It is true that injury is not a sine qua nan for deciding whether rape has been committed. But it has to be decided on the factual matrix of each case. As was observed by this Court in Pratap Misra and Ors. v. State of Orissa 1977 Cri LJ 817 where allegation is ofrape by manypersonsand se:ve^al=tim^~^tno injuryis noticed that certainlyjs an inj^^tcfnt^^cfof^^ the prosecutrix's version is crediblyAh nS cc^rJbp^rqtionJsnecessary. But ifthfprf>;^utrix's§m^siQnis not4^k^l^thenthere

¶42Keeping in view the obsei^atidnniade by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt !} I If we are of the opinionthat^her^(therehas been any real resistance I f there is bound to be locaf^:ii|^and rnarks ofviolen^on the body and the linibs of,the^victim!^^|mayalso'note.that^ilsumingout of fear, the victim di'd^not put^any_^resis1ence'even'thenthe medical evidencedoes notWppoii;Si'^^^se prosecutionin view ofthe number of people and th^nufiiiBerof times, the victim was raped during the period between 19"^ - 21®* March, 2011. The medical evidence, therefore, clearly discloses that the prosecutrix does not appear to have put up any resistance to the alleged onslaught committed on her by the appellants. From this the only irresistible inference can be that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. If the story of the prosecutrix was true, then there would be injuries or atleast bmise-mai'k on the breasts or chest or on the thighs or other 1118/2012, 1303/2012 & 1304/2012 Page28of30 hi V part of the body. The learnedSessionsJudge seems to have brushed aside this importantcircumstanceon the ground that the prosecutrix was suffering from Eplilepsy.

¶43From the above above discussion, it has emerged on record that there are several discrepanciesand gaps in the evidence and also other circumstancesmake it highly improbablethat such an incident ever tookplace.It is also inevidencethat onthedate ofexaminationofthe prosecutrixno physical injury was found on her person or on her privatepartswhichsuggested%at|;therewas no elementofforce upon her. The prosecutnx^jfiad^givei^amost improbableand unacceptable versionof|^ent^Jtlatthe.qijpellants^c^^^ her for about three day^f Irp^m the abbyeliiotedfcontradicti^^^we are of the considerelview that the'testimonyof the prosecutrixr^suffersfrom materialliscrepancieson vaiAra&pectsand not wortl^ofcredence and does hot inspireconfid^nce'jvs?;,- ' % j .

¶44"Summun ius summa iniuHa" is an ancient'legal maxim cited by Cicero, which mQms^Extremejustice is extremeinjustice.It implies that to apply the law ot the-^litterwilliouttakmg into account the extenuating circumstances''caff'otten eclipse the gospel truth. It becomes the largest form of injustice.

¶45For these reasons, therefore, we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home any of the charges against the appellants.The appealsare accordinglyallowed,the convictionsand sentencespassed on the appellantsare set aside and the appellantsare acquittedof all the charges framed againstthem. The appellantsare now directedto be released forthwith. Crl. Appeals.970/2012, 1119/2012, 1118/2012,1303/2012& 1304/2012 Page29of30

¶46Trial Court Record be returned.

¶47Copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent-Central Jail, Tihar for updating the jail record. CRL.M. (BAIL) 604/2016 and CRL.M. (BAIL) 530/2016

¶48In view of the judgment passed in the appeals, the present applications are rendered infructous. MAY,1^^6^ gr// Crl. Appeals. 970/2012,1119/2012, 1118/2012, 1303/2012 & 1304/2012 ^ilRT i. \ -V

G. S. SISTANI, J.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. A. 970/2012 % Judgmentreservedon: 1&'*May, 2016 Judgmentpronouncedon: i + + DEEPAK @ DEEPU •Appellant Through:.3,s«MfoAjax.y®^^ (DHCLSC) 'And MsrKlanjeetaKumari,Adv. STATE #' STATE i J'^rsus - '/v. r:'^rx, ^ ••••^^spondent jli^^^^^%paaTiwafeifpJ^forthe State l^^^j^^pector Aja^umar,P.S.- rPuri. I I . I CRL.AIIII8/2OI2&CRIM.(BAIL)604/2016 | RAJEEVi «*, , •> ^Versps^*'----'^''^ 44^^,s«^espondent Through: Ms. AashaaTiwari,APP for the State with InspectorAjay Kumar,P.S.- Jahangir Puri. CRL. A. 1119/2012 & CRL.M. (BAIL) 530/2016 PRABHANSYADAV@RAMJANE Appellant Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal Vani, Adv. (DHCLSC) Versus 1118/2012,1303/2012 & 1304/2012 + + STATE Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Inspector Ajay Kumar, P.S.- Jahangir Puri. CRL. A. 1303/2012 MUKESHKUMAR@ BITTOO Appellant Through: Mr. M. L. Yadav, Adv. (DHCLSC) Versus STATE |rou|HV'•Ms. AashfeTiwari,APP for the State - {-with Inspect(aE%3ayKumar, P.S.- 4/ CRL. A. 1301(72012 u RAVINEJERKUMAR@RAJU " Apfellant I Through:' Mr,^RaviChaturvedi,A(|^. f STATE •% .Versus , . i . Respondent M&rfa^aa^fiwari,APP-forthe State ' witfiffilpectorXjayKumar,P.S.- Jahingii^Piiri CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL