SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State (Gnct Of Delhi) vs Vipin Alias Lalla on 28 February, 2019

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 11th February, 2019
Judgment pronounced on:_28th February, 2019

+ CRL. L. P. 445/2018
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) …. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State with
Inspector Vijay Kumar, PS New Usman Pur
and W/SI Santosh, IO (PM Cell), Security PS
New Usmanpur.

Versus
VIPIN @ LALLA …….Respondent
Through: Mr. Piyush Phuja, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. By this petition under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as ‘Cr.P.C’), the State seeks leave to
appeal against the judgment dated 28.03.2018 passed by the learned
Special Court (POCSO ACT), ASJ-01, North East District,
Karkardooma Courts Delhi in Session Case No. 44631/2015 in FIR No.
889/2014 registered at Police Station, New Usmanpur whereby the
respondent Vipin @ Lalla was acquitted of the charges registered under
Sections 363/366/342/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter as ‘IPC’) and in the alternative under Section 4 of the
POCSO Act.

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 1 of 18

2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Trial Court are as under:

“(1) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on
18.09.2014, on receipt of DD No.28A, SI Santosh went at
the informed place i.e. X-125, Gali no.6, Brahampuri, New
Usmanpur, Delhi. There she met ASI Mahender and Ct.
Patil. Victim and her mother were also present. Victim
alleged that she along with her family was residing as
tenant on the ground floor of H.No.X-125, Gali no.6,
Brahampuri, Delhi. On 16.09.2014 at about 12.30 p.m.,
she was returning home from her school. When she
reached in Gali No. 8, Brahampuri, Vipin, who was
residing on the first floor of her house, met her and asked
her to accompany him. He also threatened her that if she
did not follow his instructions, he would stab her. He
caught hold of her hand. When she tried to resist, Vipin
threatened her to kill her brother. Thereafter, Vipin took
her to a room where he kissed her, removed her clothes
and against her wishes, he established physical relations
with her. On these allegations, the present FIR under
Sections 363/376/342/506 IPC and under Section 4
POCSO Act was registered.

(2) During the investigation, victim was medically
examined. On 10.10.2014, accused surrendered before the
court and he was arrested…”

3. After investigation was over, charge-sheet against the accused was filed
before the Court for the offences punishable under Sections
363/376/342/506 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and
charges were framed against the respondent under Sections
363/366/376/342/506 IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. To

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 2 of 18
substantiate its accusation, prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all to
prove its case. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was
recorded wherein he reiterated his innocence and examined one witness
in his defence.

4. The learned Trial Court, upon analysis, examination and evaluation of
the prosecution evidence and after considering the rival submissions
recorded acquittal in favour of the accused for the charged offences.

5. Learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Nayak, for the State, opened his submissions
by contending that the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2018 is based
on conjectures and surmises and has disregarded the cogent evidences,
and needs to be set aside. Learned APP further stated that conviction
can be held on the sole testimony of PW-4 (Prosecutrix) even if there
are minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony; that the
testimony of PW-4, (the prosecutrix) and PW-10, (the mother of the
prosecutrix) remain consistent and corroborative and have deposed
regarding the key material facts in the case indicating the committal of
the offence.

6. Mr. Ravi Nayak further contented that the factum of rape on the
prosecutrix has been established by the medical examination of the
prosecutrix wherein there is clear evidence of penetrative sexual assault.
Learned counsel further contended that any person having sexual
intercourse with a girl child below 18 years of age would be statutorily
guilty of rape irrespective of the consent of the girl, and for the same
the offence should fall within the purview of POCSO Act.

7. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the Trial Court placed
reliance on the statement of PW-11, (Investigating Officer) but

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 3 of 18
misconstrued the dimensions of the cartons, which were lying in the
store room, as the dimension of the store room and that PW-11 had
nowhere stated that the room was 2 ft x 2 ft, rather he suggested that the
cartons, which were kept in the room, were of that dimension. The
learned APP to support his contentions relied upon the case of
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat: 1983 (3) SCC

217.

8. Per contra, Mr. Piyush Phuja learned counsel for the Respondent,
contended that there are major variations and improvements in the
testimony of the prosecutrix and other key witnesses and that the
Respondent cannot be held guilty on the basis of wavering statements.
He further stated that neither any blood or semen samples (of the
prosecutrix and the accused) were taken for examination nor
incriminating evidence was revealed from the clothes of the accused to
connect him with the alleged incident.

9. The learned counsel further contended that learned Trial Court failed to
take into consideration that there was inordinate delay in registering the
FIR which shows that the present case has been fabricated after due
deliberations to falsely implicate the Respondent and thus, the
prosecution case should be discarded.

10. Lastly, Mr. Piyush Phuja contended that the room where the alleged
incident took place is fictional as the prosecutrix did not mention in her
statement about any shop, where the room is situated. Moreover, the
dimensions and logistics of this room kept changing. Lastly, Mr. Piyush
Phuja stated that there is no infirmity with the Trial Court decision and
the same should not be altered. The learned counsel placed reliance on

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 4 of 18
the case of Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State of (NCT) of Delhi:
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) SCR 80.

11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
entire material available on record.

12. It is a settled law that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient
to implicate the accused if it inspires confidence. Reliance for the same
is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay v.
State of Madhya Pradesh: (2010) 8 SCC 191. Relevant para of the
judgment reads as under:

14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect
that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy
of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The
court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix.

13. It is also vital to note that if the statement of the prosecutrix is not
inspiring confidence or not worthy of credence then the same should not
be the sole basis for conviction. The same was reiterated in Sadashiv
Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra: (2006) 10 SCC 92, where the
Supreme Court held the following:

9. It is true that in a rape case the Accused could be
convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is
capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If
the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any
medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances
are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the
prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence
of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in
accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the
entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen.

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 5 of 18

14. As is also evident from the observations above, such reliance may be
placed only if the testimony of the prosecutrix appears to be worthy of
credence. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the following
observations of the Apex Court in the case of Raju v. State of Madhya
Pradesh: (2008) 15 SCC 133 which read thus:

10. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle
that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be
suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement
has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness
and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is
necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must
carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with
them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and
mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual
assault which comes before the court.

11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest
distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time
a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress,
humiliation and damage to the Accused as well. The
Accused must also be protected against the possibility of
false implication, particularly where a large number of
Accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind
that the broad principle is that an injured witness was
present at the time when the incident happened and that
ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the
actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis
for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always
correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.

15. At this stage, it would be essential to examine the testimony of the
PW-4 (Prosecutrix) and PW-10 (mother of the prosecutrix). The PW-4
(Prosecutrix) in her examination in chief deposed that:

On 16.09.2014 it was about 02.30/3.00 pm, I was returning
to my home after my school, Vipin @ Lalla was standing

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 6 of 18
in the Gali No. 06; he called me and I went to him. He
caught hold of my hand and put a knife on my back and
thereafter he took me to Mangal Bazaar area. Thereafter
he took me in a room where he kissed me and thereafter he
took off my Salwar and committed sexual intercourse with
me forcibly. I also slapped him and I hit him with a Danda
on his legs and thereafter I rescued myself and ran away
from there towards my house. He also followed me. I
reached my home.

At the time of incident, Vipin @ Lalla had threatened me
that if I disclosed the incident to anyone, he will kidnapped
my brother and kill him. He also threatened me to kill my
father.

After reaching my house, I could not disclose anything to
my family member on 16 and 17 September due to the
threats of the Vipin @ Lalla. On 18.09.2014 I was feeling
pain on my stomach and legs and due to continuous asking
of my Bhabhi and sister, I told the incident to them. They
disclosed it to my mother. Thereafter, my mother asked me
about the incident and I told her all the facts to her also
and my mother told it to my father. Thereafter, my parents
called the police. Police came to my house; made
enquiries from me and I told all the facts to the police.
Police recorded my statement which is Ex.PW4/A bearing
my signature at point A. Thereafter, police took me to a
hospital at Shastri Park, Delhi. I was medically examined
there by the doctors. My inner clothes were taken by the
doctors.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 7 of 18
Vipin @ Lalla was residing on the first floor and we were
residing on ground floor as tenants in the same house. He
is not married.

During the cross examination, PW-4 (Prosecutrix), deposed that:

My school timings are from 07.00am to 12.30 pm. I return
home from school on foot and it takes about 15 minutes in
reaching home. There are about 20 other children of my
locality who attend the same school. We all go together to
the school and also return together. It is correct that about
100 children go from Gautam Puri road to Brahampuri
after the school is over. It is correct that there is complete
market from Gautam Puri water tank to Brahampuri Shiv
Mandir.

At the time of incident, when the accused met me in Gali
No.06, since it was afternoon, the Gali was all isolated. It
took me about 4-5 minutes in reaching the said Gali from
my school. …. The family of the accused used to reside in
the building prior to our residing there. Our families were
never in talking terms with each other. We have been
residing in the said house since quite long as my brothers
and sisters were born in this house. There had been no
dispute of any kind between my family members and that
of the accused ever since we started residing there till
16.09.2014. It is correct that a weekly market is organized
in Mangal Bazaar on every Tuesday.

Accused had placed some pointed object at my back which
I could not see. It takes about 20-25 minutes in reaching
Mangal Bazzar from Gali No. 06. Accused had taken me
on foot to Mangal Bazaar. Accused had taken me through
some streets which I do not remember and not from the
proper way. It took about 20-25 minutes in reaching

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 8 of 18
Mangal Bazaar. There was no coffee shop or restaurant
at Mangal Bazaar. He had taken me to a room which was
inside a grocery shop. One shopkeeper was sitting on the
shop. In the room inside the shop, waste material was
lying such as broken wood pieces and empty beer bottles
and it was quite filthy. There were other shops near the
said shop but at that time they were lying closed. I
returned to my house at about 03.00pm. In ordinary
course, I reach back my house by 12.45om. I cannot say if
the shopkeeper remained sitting in the shop till I was inside
the room as the gate between the room and the shop was
closed.

When I reached back home, my mother, my sister and my
sister-in-law (Bhabhi) were present at the house. There
were some public persons in the way from Mangal Bazaar
to my house but shops were closed as it was noon time. It
is correct that the entrance to the room was from the shop
only where I was taken by the accused. When I left the
room, the shutter of the shop was partly open. It is wrong
to suggest that the weekly market had already begun when
I managed to come out of the shop. My school bag
remained with me till I returned back home.

When I returned home, my mother asked me the reason for
coming late and I told her that I was detained for extra
class. I was having injury on my leg when I reached home.
I had not told about the said injury to my mother but she
came to know. My school bag had got soiled as also my
clothes. I had not taken a bath nor I washed my clothes or
my school bag immediately on reaching my house. I had
not attended my school on the next day. I had felt the
requirement for medical treatment on reaching my house
on that day but I did not ask for it from anyone.

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 9 of 18

When I was taken inside the room by the accused, I had
raised a shout. At that time, the shopkeeper had gone away
somewhere. I had seen the shop vacant when the accused
had come outside to fetch water. The accused brought the
water within 5 minutes. (Vol. He had closed the door of
the room from outside while leaving). The accused had
brought an open Bisllery bottle. I do not know from where
he had brought the bottle. I could see the shutter partly
open when the accused had opened the door to go out to
bring water. I had not demanded the water. I had become
unconscious as the accused was not letting me to go out of
the room and then he had gone to bring water. My eyes
were open when the accused went to bring water but I was
unable to stand up.

16. To elucidate this case, it is imperative to verify the testimony of PW-10
(mother of the prosecutrix). PW-10 (mother of the prosecutrix) in her
examination in chief deposed as under: –

“On 16.09.2014, when the victim returned from her
school, she was crying and remained crying even at the
night. On our asking, she just told us that a person would
kill her brother and father but did not reveal his name. Her
condition continued to remain same till 18.09.2014 when
on our insistence, she revealed that on 16.09.2014, when
she was returning home from her school accused Vipin @
Lalla met her near Gali No. 8, called her near him and
asked her to accompany him wherever he takes her and
threatened to kill her with a knife which he was having with
him if she did not obey his commands. He took her to a
shop in Mangal Bazaar and inside the shop, there was an
almirah which he opened and inside it there was a room
and he took her there. The victim told me that she tried to
run but the accused threatened that he would kill her

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 10 of 18
brother and father. There, the accused gave beatings to the
victim and committed wrong acts with her i.e. he raped
her. The victim further told me that the accused even after
that did not permit her to go and then, she picked up a
danda lying there and hit the accused on his legs with it
and managed to run away and returned home

In her cross examination PW-10 (mother of the prosecutrix), deposed
as under:-

“…..The victim used to go to her school alone and her
father used to drop her at the school and I used to take her
back from school. (Vol. on 16.09.2014, I had not gone to
pick her up from the school as I went unwell). None of her
classmates used to accompany her to the school or back
home as they reside in different areas. It never happened
earlier that I had not gone to pick her up from the school.
In case, I could not go, my eldest daughter used to go to
pick her up.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

When she returned, I was present in the house alognwith
my two daughters and my daughter-in-law. My son is
working at Gandhi Nagar. When victim returned back, her
face was red and her hairs were open and she was crying
and did not respond to my queries. She did not take food
and slept while crying. She was also saying that some
would kill her father and brother. When my husband and
son returned in the evening, I apprised them about the
condition of the victim. She did not attend the school on
17.09.2014. (vol. she is not attending the school even
now.)”

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 11 of 18

17. From the testimony of the PW-4 (Prosecutrix) and PW-10 (mother of the
prosecutrix), it is evident that there are innumerable discrepancies in their
version. At one point PW-4 (Prosecutrix) stated that the accused
“…….caught hold of my hand and put a knife on my back” and in her
cross examination she stated that “accused had placed some pointed
object at my back which I could not see”. It is evident that she did not
know whether it was a knife or something else. The Prosecutrix also
stated that “there are about 20 other children of my locality who attend
the same school. We all go together to the school and return together. It
is correct that about 100 children go from Gautam Puri road to
Brahampuri after school is over”. Later the prosecutrix contradicted her
own statement wherein she stated that “at the time of the incident, when
the accused met me in Gali No. 06, since it was afternoon, the said Gali
was all isolated”.

18. PW-10 (mother of the prosecutrix) in her statement said “when she was
returning home from her school accused Vipin @ Lalla met her near
Gali No. 8, called her near him and asked her to accompany him
wherever he takes her and threatened to kill her with a knife” but
PW-4 (the prosecutrix) referred to Gali no. 6 and deposed that “Vipin
@ Lalla was standing in the Gali No. 06”. Further, nowhere she stated
that the accused had threatened her to kill her at any occasion. In another
instance, the PW-10 (mother of the prosecutrix) stated that ‘he took her
to a shop in Mangal Bazaar and inside the shop, there was an almirah
which he opened and inside it there was a room and he took her there.’.
On the contrary, the prosecutrix did not mention about any almirah in
her examination in chief nor in her cross examination. Another disparity

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 12 of 18
in their testimony is the presence of the family members on the day of
the incident. According to PW-10 (mother of the prosecutrix) father of
the victim used to drop her at the school, she further stated that “in case,
I could not go, my eldest daughter used to go to pick her up” on the
contrary PW-4 (the prosecutrix) deposed that “there are about 20 other
children of my locality who attend the same school. We all go together
to the school and return together. It is correct that about 100 children
go from Gautam Puri road to Brahampuri after school is over”. It
remained unexplained by the prosecution, as on the day of the incident
did anybody from the family had gone to pick up the prosecutrix from
school or she on the day of alleged incident has travelled alone.
Moreover, nowhere in her examination-in-chief had she stated about
being unconscious during the incident, but later she deposed that “I had
become unconscious as the accused was not letting me to go out of the
room and then he had gone to bring water my eyes were open when he
had gone to bring water but I was unable to stand.”

19. The attention of this court has been drawn to the leg injury sustained by
the prosecutrix, whereas she has given different explanations to her
mother and to the NGO official who counselled her regarding the injury.
However, it is essential to note that the doctor (PW-6) who had
examined the victim had not seen any leg injury.

20. In our considered opinion, as pointed above, that the testimonies of PW-

4 (Prosecutrix) and PW-10 (mother of the prosecutrix) are not
corroborative and there are many inconsistencies and discrepancies in
their statements.

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 13 of 18

21. As per the case of the prosecution, PW-4 (the Prosecutrix) was
threatened by the accused person and on knife point she was taken in a
room, inside a shop in Brahmpuri, where the alleged incident happened.
As per the prosecution, the shopkeeper, Shantanu Mishra, was present
at the spot at the time of commission of crime. Strangely, such a key
witness has not been arrayed by the prosecution as witness nor he was
arrayed as an accused, instead he entered the witness box as DW-1 on
behalf of the Respondent. DW-1 (the shopkeeper) during his
examination in chief deposed as under:-

“The owner of the shop is Sh. Shantnu Mishra. I had taken
the shop on rent in the year 2012. I do not know Vipin @
Lalla. On 18.09.2014, police had come to my shop. It is
wrong to suggest that in my shop, at the instance of the
victim, police had prepared the site plan. It is wrong to
suggest that I am deposing at the instance of the accused.”

22. As per the case of the prosecution, when the Respondent has taken PW4
(the Prosecutrix) inside the grocery shop ‘one shopkeeper was sitting
on the shop’. However, DW-1 (the shopkeeper) deposed that ‘I do not
know Vipin @ Lalla. On 18.09.2014, police had come to my shop. It is
wrong to suggest that in my shop, at the instance of the victim, police
had prepared the site plan.’ As per Ex. PW-11/B (Site Plan) which
was prepared by PW-11 (SI, Santosh) at the instance of PW-4 (the
Prosecutrix) there was no identification of a separate room inside the
alleged shop. However, PW-11, (SI, Santosh) deposed that ‘The said
shop, i.e. at the place of incident, is having its entrance through shutter
and there were some racks installed on the right side of the entrance

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 14 of 18
but I do not remember the no. of steps at the entrance of the shop. There
was a hidden sotre behind the racks which were used a door to the
entrance of the said store.’ In this context, PW-4 (the Prosecutrix) in
her examination in chief has deposed that ‘Thereafter he took me in a
room’. PW-4 (the Prosecutrix) did not specify anything about entering
the room from the shop. However, in the cross examination she
modified her stand and deposed that ‘he had taken me to a room which
was inside a grocery shop. One shopkeeper was sitting’. She further
deposed in her cross examination that ‘I cannot say if the shopkeeper
remained sitting in the shop till I was inside the room as the gate
between the room and the shop was closed.’ There was no whisper of
any shopkeeper either in her examination-in-chief or in her statement
which was recorded under Section 161/164 of Cr.P.C. From the
aforesaid summary of statements, it can be safely inferred that the
prosecution has failed to prove the alleged place where the incident has
occurred.

23. Another aspect which appears implausible is the fact that the dimension
of the room, where the alleged incident took place, is 2ft x 2ft. The same
stands established through the statement of PW-11, SI Santosh.
Relevant portion is quoted below:

“…it is correct that there are 4-5 shops adjacent to the
place of incident and at that time, they were opened. It is
correct that the said shop was situated at Mangal Bazaar
Road and weekly market is held every Tuesday and it is
thickly crowded area…”

Xxxx Xxxx Xxxx Xxxx

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 15 of 18
“…there was a hidden store behind the racks which were
used as a door to the entrance of the said store. Some
empty cartons were stored there and it was measuring
about 2’X2′.”

After perusing his statement as a whole it is evident that he was
referring to the store room only. Moreoever, elucidating the dimensions
of the cartons is highly immaterial to the present case when the focal
issue is the store room. The act of rape seems impossible to be done in
such a room or limited dimensions.

24. Admittedly, the MLC of the PW-4 (the prosecutrix) has been conducted
after two days of the alleged incident and PW-4 (the prosecutrix) has
changed her clothes and washed her genitals after the act, hence, no
material evidence could be adduced by the prosecution from medical
report of the victim as well as scientific report.

25. As far as contention with regard to delay in registration of FIR is
concerned, it is settled law that in cases of offence punishable under
Section 376 of the IPC the benefit of delay in registration of FIR cannot
be given to the accused persons.

26. In the present case, as discussed above, it is evident. that the prosecution
has miserably failed to establish the case against the Respondent. The
statement of PW-4 (the prosecutrix) and PW-10 (the mother of the
prosecutrix) are contradictory and inconsistent. The medical and
scientific evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution.
According to the prosecution, the accused forcibly took the victim along
from a busy road at a knife point during broad daylight. It seems highly
improbable that in a busy street, no one noticed the Respondent holding

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 16 of 18
the victim at a knife point. The prosecutrix claims that she shouted for
help, which again seems doubtful as no independent witness has been
produced by the prosecution, neither the shopkeeper of the shop where
the alleged incident took place was examined, nor anyone from the
adjacent shops was arrayed as witness. The behavior of PW-4 (the
prosecutrix) is also unnatural as she neither took any steps to get away
from the clutches of the Respondent nor reported the matter
immediately to her family members. The place of incident i.e. the shop
has also not been established by the prosecution.

27. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dal Singh Ors.,
reported at JT 2013 (8) SC 625, the Supreme Court has held that the
appellate court while considering the appeal against the judgment of
acquittal shall interfere only when there are compelling and
substantial reasons for doing so and if the judgment is unreasonable
and relevant material have been unjustifiably ignored, it would be a
compelling reason for interference. In the case of Rukia Begum Vs.
State of Karnataka AIR 2011 SC 1585 the Apex Court has held that
in case two views are possible and the trial court has taken the view
favouring acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the finding.

28. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Ghurey Lal (supra), State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and
Rukia Begum (supra), we do not find that there is any infirmity in
the impugned judgment. Accordingly, no grounds are made out to

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 17 of 18
interfere in the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court and
the leave to appeal petition is dismissed.

29. Ordered accordingly.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

FEBRUARY 28, 2019/afa

CRL.L.P.445/2018 Page 18 of 18

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation