Arjun Sharma v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

JUDGMENT ; SUNITA GUPTA, J. For orders see Crl.A.No. 886/2012. MARCH 03, 2015 mb (SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE Crl.A.No.995/2012 Page1of1 * , IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofDecisionr 3'"''March, 2015 + CrLA.No. 886/2012 SUNILKUMAR ' _ , .....Appellant • Through; Mr.Imran Khan, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr.O.P.Saxena, APP and Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP alongwith SI Bijender Singh, Police Station Karol Bagh. + ARJUbTSHARMA ' Appellant Through: ' Mr.Pradeep Kumar Arya with ' Mr.Narender Coudhary, Advocates ' Versus. STATE(GOVT^ OF NCT) OF DELHI . - .' .....Respondent Through: Mr.O.P.Saxena, APP and Ms.Jasbir , Kaur, APP alongwith SI Bijender Singh, Police Station Karol Bagh % . , , : . ^- CORAM: . • • HON'BLEMS/JUSTIGESUNITAGUPTA ' , . JUDGMENT

¶1By the present appeals, the appellants Sunil Kumar_ and Arjun Sharmalay the challengetothe judgmentdated 12.04.2012passedby the learned AdditionalSessionsJudge convictingthe appellantSunil Kumar CrI.A. Nos.886Sc 995/2012 Pagg ^ 7? ^ under Section392 read with Section 120-B IPG and Section 120-B IPC and Arjun Shaima under' Section392/397IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and Section347IPC and orderon sentence.dated 12.04.2012,whereby tlie appellant ,Sunil Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor 10 yearsand Rs. 25,000/-in defaultto undergorigorous imprisonmentfor six months each for separateoffenc6swhileappellant Arjun Sharmawas sentencedto undergoRI for 10 years and Rs.25,000/- eachfor all theseparateoffences. The substantivesentenceswereordered to nin concurrently. • '

¶2Prosecutioncasein nutshellis as under: SmtDayawatiused to"reside alone at House No.3377/1 Christian Colony, First Floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi,andused to ran ashop at DBG road. On 19.05.2009at about 7.15 pm she returaed back to her house.As she was about to enterher house,two boys camc and took her msidethe house,blindfoldedher andtookherto the bathroomandlocked her. She was robbedof her wearingornaments,Rs.70,000/,two gold sets kept in the almifahand mobilephone. While the boys were stillrobbing herin herhouse,hersonDeepakAggarwalcameand rangthe hell. Oneof . the boys responded by saying that she was not inside tire house. Apprehending something wrong, Deepak Aggarwal rushed out after boltingthe door from outsideand raisedan alarm. The boysjumpedfrom the balcony.Whilehe triedto catchholdofone boy, he wasshownalorife andthereafterboththe boysmanagedto escape.

¶3It IS further the case of prosecution that pursuant to the supplementarystatement made by Deepak Aggarwal on the next day raisingsuspicionon Sunil Kumar, notice was issued to him and he was arrested.Pursuantto the disclosuremade by him he got accusedAijun Sharma a^ested.Mobile phone of Sunil Kumar and Arjun Sharmawere-seized.Boththe accusedwereproducedbeforeMetropolitanMagistratefor Crl.A. l\!os.886a 995/2012 conductingtheir Test IdentificationParade (TIP) proceedingshowever they-refusedto participatein the same. Searchwas made for arrestofco-accused Ravi however he could not be arrested. Chargesheetwas filed against Sunil Kumar and Arjun Sharma for offences under Section 392/397/342/120-B/34IPG. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the chargesframedagainstthem. Prosecutionin all examined12.witnessesto substantiateits case. Boththe accusedallegedtheirfalse impHcationin the case and pleadedinnocence. Accused Sunil Kumar examinedhimselfas DW-1 and also examined his wife as DW-2.

¶4After hearing learned counsels for the parties and meticulous e)taminationofprosecutionwitnessesand the stand taken by the accused, theywere convictedand sentenced,asmentionedabove.

¶5Feeling aggrieved, separate appeals have been preferred by the appellants.

¶6It was submitted,by learnedcounsel for the appellantSunil Kumar thatno rolehas beenassignedto this accusedby the materialwitnesses.No recoveryhas been effectedfrom him. The onlyrole assignedto him is that he was standingdownstairsin the building.This accusedused to go to the second floor for the purposeofphysiotherapyin the house of one Sardar AmarjeetSingh, however,on the fatefulday since his daughterwas lying sick, therefore,he did not go to attend his dudes. In order to prove the chargeofconspiracynothinghas beenbroughton recordto showthatthere was. any meeting of mind as such, it was submittedthat the accused is liableto be acquitted.

¶7LearnedcounselrepresentingaccusedArjun Sharma.submittedthat as per the prosecution Smt. Dayawati was robbed of several articles, however,no recoveryhas been effected.Even weaponofoffencehas not beenrecovered.The incidentis allegedto have takenplacein aresidential area however no neighbourhas been examined to prove that any such cn-A-Mea995/2012' Page3of14 incidenthad takenplace. The appellanthas refusedto joinTIP becausehe was shownto the witnessesin the policestationand this fact is admittedby PW-1 Smt.Dayawatithat in the policestationshe came to loiowthe name of accused as Amit. However, the prosecutionhas failed to prove this theoryofAmit. No admissibleevidencehas come to connecthim with the crime. The factum of any conspiracybetween Sunil Kumar and Arjun Sharma has not been proved. Under the circumstances,the impugned judgmentcannotbe sustainedand as such,the same be set aside.

¶8On the contrary,learnedAdditionalPublic Prosecutorfor the State submittedthat both Smt.Dayawatias well as DeepakAggarwalhave stood the testofcross-examinationand nothingcouldbe elicitedto discredittheir testimony.They were not inimicalto any ofthe accusedfor which reason they wouldfalselyimplicatethem in this case. Moreover,boththe accused refusedto joinTIP as such, adverseinferenceis to be drawnagainstthem. It was fiirther submitted that even no suggestion was given to PW-1 Smt.Dayawatithat accused,was shownto her in the police station.Under the circumstances,it was submittedthat the impugnedjudgmentdoes not sufferfrom any infirmitywhich calls for interferenceas such, appealsare liable to be dismissed.

¶9Ihave givenmy considerablethoughtsto the respectivesubmissions oflearnedcounselfor thepartiesand haveperusedthe record.

¶10Prosecution machinery was set in motion on receipt of an informationregardingdacoityat HouseNo. 3377/1 ChristianColony,first floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on which DD No.27A Ex.PW4/A was recordedand was assignedto SI MahipalSingh,PW-10.SI MahipalSingh alongwithconstableShankerreachedHouseNo. 3377/1 ChristianColony, First Floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi where Deepak Aggarwal gave his •statementEx.PW2/A inter alia that his mother Smt. Dayawati aged 70 years used to reside alone at 3377/1 ChristianColony, first -floor, Karol CrI.A. l\los.886 995/2012

¶1New Delhi and used to run ashop at DBG Road. On 19.05.2009at about 8.00 pm he went to meet his mother as per the daily routine. He rang the bell and calledhis motherhoweverhe heard the noise ofamale personfrom insidethatMatajiis not inside. He suspectedsome foul play . and after bolting the door from outside went in the streetand raised an alarm CherChor".In themeantimetwo boysjumpedfrom the balconyin the street. He triedto catchholdofone ofthose boys but he showedhim ™ 'hoseboys by raisingalam,"ChorGhor"but they managed to escape. The person who had showed him knife was strongbuiltand was ofwheatishcomplexionwhiletlie otherboy was slim and was having fair complexion.Both the boys were between the age group of 30-32 years. He rang police on 100 number and went to his mother.On enquiryhis motherinformedhim thatwhenshereturnedto her houseafterclosingthe shop at about7.30pm, two boys aged about30 -32 yearscame from behmdand enquiredaboutAmmaji.Whenshe askedas to . whom they were enquiring,then the strong built boy caughthold ofher handwhrletheotherboytiedherhandsand legswithchunniand askedher not to raise alarm failingwhich,they will kill her witha knife. Both the boys removedher ornamentswhich she was wearingand they also took away Rs.70,000/-cashand twogoldsets from the ahnirahandonemobile. This statementof Deepak Aggarwal culminated in registrationof FIR Ex.PW4/B.

¶11The star witness of the prosecutionare PW-1 and PW-2 PW 1 Smt.Dayawatiunfoldedthat on the fateful day at about 7.15 pm after returning from her shop when she was about to enter her house after unlocking,two boys came to the stairs from behind. One boy asked her •'VohUataJiKahanHain-:.She enquired thereafterthe boy who had asked her about MataJi,put acloth over her mouthand both the boys caughtholdofher and tookherinsidethe house. : CrI.A. Nos.886&995/2012 u identifiedaccusedArjunShannaas one ofthe boys whosenameshe cametotaowatthepolicestationas Amit.Boththeboysthenblindfolded her mher house. They took her to the bathroomand locked her tiiere. Insidethebathroomtheyremovedherdiamondearrings,two goldKarasof SIX tolas, one gold finger ring and one three tola gold chain. The duo enquiredaboutthe cash andthreatenedto kill her in case she failedto tell them aboutthe same. She told them thatRs.70,000/-cash was kept in the almtrah.Thereafter,those;boys took out the cash and two gold sets from fte aim,rah. While they were stilfrobbing her house, her son Deepak Aggarwalcameand rangthe bell and calledher by nameto whichshe did not respond.One ofthe boys then respondedsayingthat "MataJiAndar Nah, Hain". On hearingthe unknownmale voice from insidethe house herson boltedthe doorfromoutside,rusheddown and raisedalarmsaying ChorChor".On hearingthe alarmboththe boysjumpedfromthe balcony alongwth the money and jewelletyand ran away. She also identified accusedSuntlKumarby sayingthathe usedto workwithresidentoffloor • above her house.

¶12PW-2DeepakAggarwalreiteratedtheavermentsmadebyhim in his imttalcomplaint.,Ex.PW2/Aandco^boratedthe testimonyofPW-1 in all matenal particulars.He iurther deposed that he infonnedPGR on 100 Thereafterpoliceofficialscame and his statementand thatofhis motherwere recorded.He ftrtherdeposedthatafterreachingthe houseof 'S motherwhen he parkedhis motorcycle,he saw accusedSunil Kumar s.andmgdownstairsnearthe door.He enquiredfrom him as to whyhe was nmg. mtiailyhe kept mum and then he replied that he had come to meet Amarjeet Singh. Sardar Amarjeet Singh was residing on the first or mtesame building.He identifiedaccused Arjun Shanna as the samepersonwhojumpedfromfhebalconyandshowedhimtheknife. . CrI.A. Nos.886&995/2012 •4;

¶13As regards the incident of robbeiy at the house of PW-I SmtDayawati both these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examinationby learneddefencecounselshowevernothingmaterialcould be ehcted to discredittheir testimony.The same are cogent, coherent, reliableand trustworthyand even there is no challengethat an incidentof robbeo-had tal^enplacein thehouseofSmt.Dayawatiwhichstandsproved not only from the testimony of complainant Deepalc Aggarwal and Smt.Dayawatibut also from the surroundingcirctmtstanceswhichreflects that immediatelyafter the incident informationwas given by Deepalc Aggarwalon telephoneto PGRwhichresultedinrecordingofDD No. 27A and thereafterthepolicemachinerywassetin motionon theveo'sameday withoutany loss of thne. The statementof Deepalc Aggarwal was also recordedby SI MahipalSinghwhichculminatedin registrationofFIR.

¶14Crucial questionfor considerationis regardingthe perpetratorsof the cnme. As regardsaccusedSunilKumaris concerned,it is the case of prosecutionthathe was employedat thehouseof PW3 SmLSurinderKaur who used.toreside on the secondfloorofthe same propertywhere PWl was residing. Smt.SurinderKaur has stated that in the year 2008 her husbandsufferedparalyticattackand they engagedaccusedSunil Kumar and his brotherin law to help her husbandin Physiotherapyand to look afterhim. For three monthsSunil Kumar lookedafterher husbandat the house ofher daughterin Vikaspuri.Thereaftershe retimedback to her housealongwithher husbandandaccusedSnnilKumarand his brotherin law continuedto take care ofher husbandat the said house. She further deposedthat SunilKumarused to visit her house at about 10.00 am and used to remaintheretil,6.00pm. On 19'^May. 2009 SunilKumardid not come to performhis du^ and he did not even come on the next day She contactedhmi telephonicallyand he informedthat his child was ill On ^:i.05.2009Sunil Kumar told her telephonicallythat his daughter was Cii.A. Nos.886&995/2012 •' • f 4 unwell. She then told that policewas makingenquiryabouthim and Sunil Kumartold her that he would come. Besidesthe fact that the testimonyof this witness has gone unchallengedfor want of cross-examination,even accused Sunil Kumar in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C has admittedthe factum of his employmentat the house of PW-3 to look after her husbandand that he did not visither house on 19.05.2009as his child was ill. SunilKumarexaminedhimselfas DW-1 and his wife as DW-2 and ^ both of them have deposed to the same fact. Smt.Dayawatihas also identifiedaccused Sunil Kumar to be the boy who used to work oh the upper floor of her house.

¶15Deepak Aggarwal however on 20.05.2009made a supplementary. statement stating that while he was ascending the stairs he met Sunil Kumardownstairsand enquiredabouthis presence.Initially,he keptmum and thereafterhe saidthathe usedto workat the houseofone Mr.Amarjeet Singh, the resident of second floor.

¶16Much emphasiswas laid by learnedcounselfor the appellantSunil Kumar by submitting that no such statement was made by Deepak Aggarwalin the initialcomplaintEx.PW2/Amade by him to the police.It was rightly observed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,that after committingsuch a gruesome crime both the culpritsmanaged to escape from the spot as such,the sequenceofeventswas boundto get replayedin the mind of DeepakAggarwaland althoughwhen he made the statement initiallyto the policemeetingofSunilKumarat downstairsmightnot have occurred to him but on the very next day he gave the supplementary statementon the basis of whichthe whole case was solved.It has come on recordthatpursuantto the informationgiven'byDeepakAggarwalaccused Sunil Kumar was called after serving a notice in the police station. He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW6/E and pursuant to the disclosure statement,name of Arjun Sharma and one Ravi figured for the first time Crl.A.Nos.886a995/2012 Page8of 14 -n-and thereafter it was at the instance of accused Sunil Kumar that accused Arjun Sharmawas arrested from his house on the same day. Mobile phone of Arjun Sharma make" NOKIA .6610 IMEI No.35154000003920 with Airtel SIM No,8991-1006121.02068429and mobile phone No.9971200612 of Sunil Kumar was seized. Factum of seizure of mobile phone of Arjun. Sharma. is even admitted by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, as regards mobile of Sunil Kumar, it was submitted by learned counsel ,for .the appellant that as per the customer application forai EX.PW9/A it was in the name of Chand Ram. Chand Ram however deposed that he never applied for obtaining a mobile phone cormection. He also displayed ignorance about accused Sunil Kumar. From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses it stands. established that the mobile connection was applied in the name of Chand Ram and the mobile phone was recovered from accused Sunil Kumar on 29.05.2009. Although accused Sunil Kumar tried to show that this mobile was not recovered from his possession, however, firstly there is no reason;to disbelieve the .; testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of this mobile from the possession of this accused. Moreover, Sunil Kumar stepped into the witness box as DW-1. Even at that time he did not even utter a word about non-seizure,of mobile phone from his possession or that he was not using this phone number during those days. DW-2 Promila his wife also nowhere deposed about the mobile phone. PW-9 Israr Babu, Nodal Officer, Vodafone proved the call detail record Ex.PW9/C according to which mobile phone connection no.09971200612 was having IMEI 35154000003921 which tallied with the IMEI No. of mobile phone, recovered from accused Arjun Shanna. The call detail record further revealed that on 19.05.2009 at 20:12:25 outgoing call was made from mobile phone no. 9953620388. at the mobile phone connection no. 9971200612 of Arjun Sharma. The call detail record further reveals that on CrI.A. Nos.886&995/2012 Page 9of14

20.05.2009 at 15:18:37 and 17:21:09 two outgoing calls were recorded in additionto sendingof one SMS at 15:09:10.The mobile phone,of Sunil Kumarwas bearingIMEI No.352938025339590upto 19.05.2009however on 20.05.2009 IMEI number as against the above referred two outgoing calls and outgoing SMS find mention as 351540000803920those of handset of Arjun Sharma and recovered from him.

¶17Criminal conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and direct ^ evidence is hardly available.In the instant case although accused Sunil Kumar tried to take a plea that he had not even come for his duty at the house of SardarAmarjeetSingh on 19.05.2009and 20.05.2009.However his duty hours were from 10.00 am to 6.00 pm. At about 7.30 pm Deepak Aggarwal met this accused downstairswhen he was going to meet his mother upstairs. Besides the fact that accused was unknown tP Deepak Aggarwaland had absolutelyno rhyme or reasonto falselyimplicatehim, itwas onlya suspicionraisedby him on the nextday whenhe informedthe police about the fact that he met Sunil Kumar downstairs and the conversation which had taken place between them. The police was completely in dark regarding the identity of the accused. It was only pursuantto the disclosurestatementofaccusedSunilKumarthatthe name of accusedArjun Sharma and Ravi were revealedand it was only at the instance of accused Sunil Kumar that Aijun Sharma was subsequently arrested.The call detailsamplyprovedthe conspiracybetweenthe two and it was for the accusedto prove as to how they were having conversation with each other if they were not connected with each other. However, nothinghas beenbroughton recordby any ofthe accusedinthis regardso much so that despitethe fact that Sunil Kumar appearedas DW-1 he did nottry to e}cplainthe call details.Subsequentto the arrestof accusedSunil Kumar and Arjun Sharma both these accused were producedbefore the learned MetropolitanMagistrate for the purpose of getting their Test CrI.A. Nos.886a 995/2012 Page 10of14 A f IdentificationProceedingsconductedhoweveras per the proceedingsEx. PW-12/B and Ex.PW-12/C conducted by Sh Sidharth Mathur, Metropolitan Magistrate both the accused refused to join Test IdentificationParade. Needless to say, the refusal to join TIP leads to an adverseinferenceagainstthe accusedthat had theyjoinedthe proceedings, they would have been identifiedby the witnesses. The plea taken by accused Sunil Kumar is that he refused to join as he was not informed aboutthe consequencesofthe same. However,this plea is devoidofmerit as a perusal of TIP proceedings conducted by Sh Sidharth Mathur, MetropolitanMagistrate Ex.PW12/C goes to show that when accused refusedto participatein the proceedingshe was dulywarnedby the learned MetropolitanMagistratethat an adverseinferencecan be drawnduringthe courseof trial on his refusalto participatein the proceedingsbut accused still refusedto participatein the TIP. At that time the reason assignedby him fcr not joiningthe proceedingswas that he was workingon the floor just above the residenceof the witnesses and, therefore,witnesseswere Imownto him. So far as Smt.Dayawatiis concerned,shewas knowingthis accused from before as he was working at the house of Sardar Amarjeet Singh for substantialperiodbut so far as DeepakAggarwalis concerned, he was not.Imown to him from before and precisely for this reason the TIP was requiredto be conductedwhich was refusedby this accused. He was duly identifiednot only by Smt.Dayawatibut by DeepakAggarwalalso in the Court to be the same person with whom he had a conversationon the ground floor when he came to visit his mother on the fateful day. Under the circumstances,conspiracyto committhe crime between Sunil Kumar, Arjun Sharmaand one other person who could not be arrestedstands duly proved and the accuse'dwas rightlyconvictedby the learnedTrial,Court.

¶18As regards Arjun Sharma is concerned, this accused was duly, identifiedby Smt.Dayawatiwho alongwithone other boy blind foldedher, CrI.A. IMos.886a 995/2012 took her to the bathroomand locked her inside where she was robbed of her wearing ornamentsand then on the threat of killing her Rs.70,000/- cash, two gold sets and mobile were also taken away by them. PW-2 DeepakAggarwalalso identifiedthis accused as the person who showed him the loiifewhen he triedto catchhold ofhim in the street.The accused is not alleging any enmity, ill will or grudge against any of these two Mdtnesses for which reason they would wrongly identify him as the assailant. •

¶19This accusedhas also refiisedto joinTIP on the groundthat he was shown to the witnesses in the police station. Learned counsel for the appellant fried to take benefit from the testimony of Dayawati who deposedthat at the police stationshe came to laiow the name of accused Arjuiias Amithoweverno inferencecan be drawnthatpriorto conducting his TIP proceedingsthe witness had gone to the police station or that accused was shown to her. Even no suggestionhas been given to this witnessthat accusedwas shown to her in the policestation.Similaris the case with PW-2 Deepak Aggarwal. As regards Deepak Aggarwal is concerned,it was triedto be submittedby learnedcounselfor the appellant that while giving descriptionof the accused he stated that one of the accusedwas strongbuiltand wheatishcomplexionwhereasaccusedArjun Sharmawas haying fair complexion. Howeveraccuseddoes not get any benefit from thj? slight variationin as much as the witness has clarified that it was dark at the time of incidentand thereforehe believedthat his complexionis-wheatish. The mere factthatavariationhas comeregarding the complexionof the accused as to whetherit was wheatishor fair does no't mean that he was not the accusedwhom the witnesshad seenjumping from the balconyand whom he had tried to catch hold and who showed him the laiife. Sufficienttime was availablefor bofh the witnessesto see the accusedand to describehis featuresso as to subsequentlyidentifyhim. Crl.A.Nos.886&995/2012 In view of the identification of the accused by both the witnesses there is nothing to suspect the involvement of the accused in the crime.

¶20The robbed articles and the weapon of offence could not be recovered but it is a matter of record that one of the co-accused is still at large and as per the disclosure statement made by accused Aijun Sharma which although is inadmissible in evidence the looted articles were taken by the co-accused, as such, non-recovery does not adversely affect the case of prosecution.'

¶21As regards non joining of any independent witnesses, it is common experience that for variety of reasons the public persons do not want to join the police proceedings. It has come in the statement of PW-2 Deepak Aggarwal that persons from the neighbourhood though were preserit.in the balcony of their respective houses but did not come down. Moreover, the mere fact that there is no independent witness is absolutely no ground to discardthe testimonyof the victimherselfwho had absolutelyno rhyme or reason to make a police complaint regarding the incident of robbery and then to face the turmoil of visiting the police station and Court umpteen number of times and then to identify the accused. Under the circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly convicted both the accused for the offences referred above and the impugned judgment dated

12.04.2012 does not call for any interference.

¶22Coming to the quantum of sentence, it was submitted that the appellantsare the onlybreadearnersin theirfamiliesandas such, leriiency be shown. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the victim in the instant case is a senior citizen aged about 70 years. Despite the fact she was having four sons she was living alone and was earningher livelihoodby runninga shop near her house. AppellantArjun Sharmaand.his associate with the help of accused Sunil Kumar who was worldng in the house of SardarAmarjeetSingh above the house ofSmt.Dayawatimust be keeping CrI.A. NOS.88&&995/2012 Page 13 of14 a watch on her daily routine. One can visualise the tunnoil faced by Smt.Dayawatiwho was blind folded, confinedin the bathroomanS then robbed of her wearingornaments,cash,jewellery and mobile.Such crimes have now become a daily routine. Day and night senior citizens are being targeted by criminals. Under the circumstances,the gravity and seriousness of the offence cannot be lost sight of However imposition of sentence of 10 years and Rs.25,000/- for each of the offences seems to be on a higher side. As such, the substantive sentence of the appellants is modified from 10 years to 7 years each while maintaining the sentence of fine and the defaultsentence.In case of realisationof fine, thie entire amountbe paid as compensation to victim Smt. Dayawati.

¶23With this modification,the appealsstand disposedof Copy of the judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back. Appellantsbe infonnedthroughthe Jail Superintendent. (SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE MARCH 03, 2015 mb Crl.A. Nos.886 &995/2012

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 3"^^ March, 2015 + Crl.A.No. 995/2012 ARJUN SHARMA Appellant Through: Mr.Pradeep Kumar Arya with Mr.Narender Coudhary, Advocates versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI Respondent Through: Mr.O.P.Saxena, APP and Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP alongwith SI Bijender Singh, Police Station Karol Bagh % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA