Delhi District Court
State vs Yoginder Singh on 13 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA, DJS
-: JUDGMENT :-
STATE Vs.YOGENDER SINGH
FIR NO. : 411/2002, u/S 279/304 A IPC
PS : SEELAMPUR
CNR No. DLNE020000672005
1.
FIR No. 411/2002
2.Unique Case no. 461354/2015
3.Title State Vs. Yogender Singh
3(A).Name of complainant SI Nitin Kumar
3(B).Name of accused Yogender Singh S/o Sh.
Sheesh Ram, R/o Village
Madanpur Khadar, Delhi.
3 (C). Representation on behalf Sh. Rashid Ali, Ld. Sub.
of State APP for the State.
4.Date of institution of challan 02.12.2005
5.Date of Reserving judgment 26.04.2025
6.Date of pronouncement 13.06.2025
7.Date of commission of 23.11.2002
offence
8.Offence complained of 279/304A IPC.
9.Offence charged with 279/304A IPC.
10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
11.Final order ACQUITTED
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date:
2025.06.13
13:14:07 +0530FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 1 of 19
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case:-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on
23.11.2002, at about 01:35 AM near Mahila Training center, Zero
Pusta, Shastri Park, the accused who was driving his vehicle
make TATA 407 bearing no. DL1LB4391 (hereinafter,
“offending vehicle”) in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
vehicle of the complainant Naveen Sharma bearing no. DL6 CF
1378 make Maruti Van. As a result, the complainant scummed to
his injuries on way to hospital. It is alleged that the offending
vehicle was being driven by the accused Yogender Singh. As
such, it is alleged that the accused has committed the offence
under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter, “IPC“), for which FIR No. 411/2002 was registered
at Police Station Seelampur. After culmination of investigation,
chargesheet was filed against the accused. On appearance, same
was supplied to him and on finding a prima facie case against the
accused, notice of accusation under Section 279/304A IPC was
served upon accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
2. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral
and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt :-
ORAL EVIDENCE
Om Prakash (owner of
Digitally
PW-1 :
offending vehicle)
signed by
ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date:
2025.06.13
13:14:15
+0530
FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 2 of 19
Prakash Devi (owner of
PW-2 :
victim vehicle)
PW-3 : SI Om Prakash (DO)
SI Sarvar Khan (PCR/eye
PW-4 :
witness)
Retd. SI Ram Singh
PW-5 :
(photographer)
PW-6 : Dr. J. K. Basu (MLC)
PW-7 : Dr. Arvind Kumar (PMR)
Insp. Nitin Kumar (IO of the
PW-8 :
case)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW1/A : Superdarinama
Ex. PW1/B : Notice u/S 133 MV Act
Ex. P1 to Ex.
: Photographs
P5
Ex. PW3/A : Copy of FIR
Ex. PW3/B : Endorsement of rukka
Ex. PW1/DA : Site plan
Ex. N1 to
: Negatives of photographs
Ex. N5
Ex. PW6/A : MLC of injured
Ex. PW7/A : Postmortem Report on MLC
Ex. PW8/B : DD No. 42A
Ex. PW8/C : Seizure memo of vehicle
Digitally
signed by
Ex. PW8/D : Seizure memo of Van
ANMOL
ANMOL
NOHRIA
NOHRIA
Date: Ex. PW8/E : Request letter of postmortem
2025.06.13
13:14:20
+0530 Statement of Chandra
Ex. PW8/F :
Shekhar
Ex. PW8/G : Statement of Ajay Kumar
Ex. PW8/H : Request for mechanical
FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 3 of 19
inspection
Request for mechanical
Ex. PW8/I :
inspection
Ex. PW8/K : Arrest memo of accused
Personal search memo of
Ex. PW8/K1 :
accused
Ex. PW8/L : Personal search of DL
3. From the above the star witnesses of the prosecution
is PW4 who is the eye witnesses and the gist of their testimony is
as below :-
3.1 PW4/SI Sarvesh Khan has deposed on oath that on
the intervening night of 22.11.2002 and 23.11.2002 he was
posted at PCR North-East zone and was In-charge of I/C Baker
55 and present at Shastri Park Chowk with other staff. At around
1:30 AM they were going towards Khazuri Red Light from
Shastri Park and one maruti van of white colour was also going
in front of them, one TATA 407 came from opposite side at very
fast speed and hit the van from the front side, after which they
went near both the vehicles and the driver of van was in injured
condition. The number of the van was DL6CB 1378 and number
of TATA 407 was DL1LB 4391. Thereafter, injured was taken out
from maruti van and taken to trauma center and control room was
informed of the incident. The said driver was declared brought
dead by the doctor and he along with his staff went to Shastri
Park Base and later on name of driver of TATA 407 was revealed
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.06.13
13:14:27
+0530FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 4 of 19
as Yogender Singh. The witness correctly identified the accused
present in the court and identity of the vehicle was not disputed
by the defense.
In cross examination, SI Sarvar Khan (PW4) has
stated that he is not in the uniform as he is posted in security. At
present, he does not remember the name of staff present with him
on that day, however, there was one driver and one gunman. He
cannot tell the exact distance between them and maruti van but
the same was in front of them. He has admitted that TATA 407
was coming from opposite direction in the same lane but does not
remember whether there was any divider on the road at that time
or not. The site plan was not prepared in his presence but the
same bears a divider and the accident is shown on the right side
of the road. He had seen the accused at the spot while removing
the injured but never tried to apprehend him; he does not
remember the description of clothes warned by the accused and
name of the injured was revealed from his DL as Naveen Sharma
and he does not know whether IO placed the same on record or
not. He does not know when IO came to know about the incident
and he had met the IO on the night of incident but does not
remember the time and he also does not remember when his
statement was recorded by the IO. He saw the accused in street
light but he does not remember the placement of the same.
4. The remaining prosecution witness supported the
case of the prosecution and proved the documents mentioned in
Digitally
signed by
ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date:
2025.06.13
13:14:32
+0530FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 5 of 19
the Table above.
5. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in
order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement
of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 281 read
with Section 313 CrPC. He stated that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence
as alleged by the prosecution. Pursuant thereto, he stated that he
does not wish to lead any defence evidence.
6. I have heard the learned APP for the State and
learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also have given
my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
7. It has been argued by the learned APP for the State
that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present
case. He has argued that the evidence on record in the form of
testimony of eye witnesses, medical record and other evidence
like mechanical inspection also points towards the commission of
offence by the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be
punished for the said offence.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has
argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. He has argued that the prosecution has failed to
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.06.13
13:14:39
+0530FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 6 of 19
prove that the basic essentials of the offence. It is submitted that
neither rashness nor negligence of the accused is proved on
record as the eye witness has taken contrary stands and his
presence at the spot is in dispute, hence, his testimony cannot be
relied upon. It is further submitted that the owner of the vehicle
has failed to depose anything against the accused and as such no
evidence to show presence of the accused at the spot. As such, it
is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
9. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it
would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be
met. In order to establish the offence under Section 279 of the
IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was driving
the vehicle on a public way in a rash or negligent manner, so as
to endanger human life or cause hurt/injury to any person.
Likewise, for the offence under Section 304A IPC, it has to be
proved that due to such rash or negligent act, death has been
caused by the accused to the victim.
10. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of
proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The
presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by
the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards
the guilt of the accused.
11. The gravamen of the offence under Section
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date:
2025.06.13
13:14:45 +0530FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 7 of 19
279/304A IPC is the act of the accused, done with “rashness” or
“negligence”. The IPC does not define either of these terms.
However, the ambit of these terms has now been settled by
judicial pronouncements of superior courts. In Empress of India
vs. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776 the term “rashness” was
interpreted to mean commission of an act with indifference or
recklessness towards the consequences of such act. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Rathnashalvan vs. State of Karnataka
(2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under-:
“7. …. Culpable negligence lies in the failure
to exercise reasonable and proper care and the
extent of its reasonableness will always depend
upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness
means doing an act with the consciousness of a
risk that evil consequences will follow but
with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a
breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal
cases, the amount and degree of negligence are
determining factors. A question whether the
accused’s conduct amounted to culpable
rashness or negligence depends directly on the
question as to what is the amount of care and
circumspection which a prudent and
reasonable man would consider it to be
sufficient considering all the circumstances of
Digitally
the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a
ANMOL
signed by
ANMOL
NOHRIA
dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge
NOHRIA Date:
2025.06.13 that it is dangerous or wanton and the further
knowledge that it may cause injury but done
13:14:51
+0530without any intention to cause injury or
knowledge that it would probably be caused.
8. As noted above, “rashness” consists in
hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with
the knowledge that it is so, and that it may
cause injury. The criminality lies in such aFIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 8 of 19
case in running the risk of doing such an act
with recklessness or indifference as to the
consequences. Criminal negligence on the
other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect
or failure to exercise that reasonable and
proper care and precaution to guard against
injury either to the public generally or to an
individual in particular, which, having
regard to all the circumstances out of which
the charge has arisen it was the imperative
duty of the accused person to have adopted.”
12. Similar observations were made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal vs. CBI (2014) 6 SCC
173. The standard of negligence was discussed in the said case,
by observing, inter alia, as under-:
“58. In the case of “negligence” the courts
have favoured a meaning which implies a
gross and culpable neglect or failure to
exercise that reasonable and proper care and
precaution to guard against injury either to
the public generally or to an individual
which having regard to all the circumstances
out of which the charge arises, it may be the
imperative duty of the accused to have
adopted. Negligence has been understood to
be an omission to do something which a
reasonable man guided upon those
Digitally
signed by
considerations which ordinarily regulate the
ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date:
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
2025.06.13
13:14:57
+0530
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable person would not do. Unlike
rashness, where the imputability arises from
acting despite the consciousness, negligence
implies acting without such consciousness,
but in circumstances which show that the
actor has not exercised the cautionFIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 9 of 19
incumbent upon him. The imputability in the
case of negligence arises from the neglect of
the civil duty of circumspection.”
13. Thus, rashness implies doing an act despite the
consciousness that it might result in injuries. Negligence, on the
other hand, means lack of reasonable care that a person placed is
the fact situation ought to take, in order to avoid injuries. It is to
be ascertained if the act of the accused in driving the vehicle in
the present case amounted to a rash or negligent act, in light of
the above discussion.
14. In the present matter, the star witnesses of the
prosecution is PW4 as he is stated to be eye witness of the
incident, hence his testimony requires careful scrutiny.
15. Perusal of the testimony of PW4 shows that a
number of contradiction and improvement is there in his
testimony. First of all, he had stated that he had met the IO on the
night of the incident but he does not remember the time of the
meeting, however as per the version of the prosecution and the
contents of the charge sheet, no such meeting is mentioned;
further, perusal of the testimony of the IO/PW8 also shows that
no such meeting is stated by him nor has he anywhere in his
testimony or the charge sheet mentioned that PW4 is the eye-
witness. Further, statement of PW4 u/S 161 Cr.P.C. has been
recorded on 02.12.2002 which is after giving of notice u/S 133
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.06.13
13:15:02
+0530FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 10 of 19
MV Act to the owner who had made the accused join the
investigation very same day; no explanation has been offered by
the prosecution of the fact that if IO had met PW4 on the night of
the incident why was his statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C. not recorded
at that time; also as per statement of PW4 under 161 he nowhere
mentions that he had met the IO on the night of the incident.
16. Secondly, PW4 has stated that site plan was not
prepared at his instance or in his presence; as per the version of
the prosecution/IO the site plan was prepared by the IO at the
instance of Ct. Satpal. This court cannot reconcile the fact that
when an eye-witness was present who states that he had met the
IO on the night of the incident, why the site plan was not
prepared at his instance but at the instance of third person.
Further as per the site plan no PCR vehicle is shown in the same .
17. Thirdly, PW4 has stated that the offending vehicle
came from the opposite side in fast speed and hit the victim’s
vehicle in front side which was travelling in front of their vehicle.
However, perusal of the site plan Ex. PW1/DA shows that there
is a divider in the middle of the road and both the vehicles are not
on the same side of the road wherein the offending vehicle is on
the right side of the road and the victim’s vehicle is in between a
gap between the divider line on the road and is perpendicular to
the road and the front side of both the vehicles are at 90 degrees
to each other. In such a scenario it is highly unbelievable that the
Digitally signed
ANMOL by ANMOL
NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date: 2025.06.13
13:15:09 +0530
FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 11 of 19
offending vehicle had hit the victim’s vehicle from the front and
was on the same side of the road as the victim’s vehicle.
18. Fourthly, PW4 has further stated that he never tried
to apprehend the accused at the spot whom he had seen under
street light; however, the said fact also does not inspire the
confidence of the court as 3 police persons were present in the
PCR and yet none of them even tried to apprehend the accused,
also PW4 has nowhere stated as to what happened to the accused
or how he went away or how he fled from the spot when they
were present or helping the injured.
19. Thus, a doubt is cast as to the presence of PW4 at
the spot of the incident in view of the contradiction and missing
links as observed above. The same could have been cured by
placing on record DD entries with respect to the same. However,
no DD entry has been proved on record by prosecution in order
to show that PW4 was present on the Shastri Park Chowk on the
day and time of the incident. No DD writer has been examined or
made a witness. It is an important missing link in the version of
prosecution. As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police
Rules, which is reproduced as under:
“Chapter 22 rule 49 Matters to be
entered in Register no. II. The
following matters shall amongst
Digitally
signed by
ANMOL
others, be entered: –
ANMOL
NOHRIA
NOHRIA
Date:
2025.06.13
(c) The hour of arrival and departure
13:15:14
+0530 on duty at or from a police station ofFIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 12 of 19
all enrolled police officers of
whatever rank, whether posted at the
police station or elsewhere, with a
statement of the nature of their duty.
This entry shall be made immediately
on arrival or prior to the departure of
the officer concerned and shall be
attested by the latter personally by
signature or seal.
Note: – The term Police Station will
include all places such as Police
Lines and Police Posts where
Register No.II is maintained.”
20. In Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:
“if the investigating agency
deliberately ignores to comply with
the provisions of the Act the Courts
will have to approach their action
with reservations. The matter has to
be viewed with suspicion if the
provisions of law are not strictly
Digitally
signed by
ANMOL
complied with and the least that can
ANMOL
be said is that it is so done with an
NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date:
2025.06.13
13:15:19
+0530 oblique motive. This failure to bring
on record, the DD entries creates a
reasonable doubt in the prosecution
version and attributes oblique motive
on the part of the prosecution.”
21. Thus, presence of PW4 at the spot is not proved. If
he had departed from PS for duty the entry to this effect must
exist in the Roznamancha but that has not been proved, raising an
adverse presumption against the prosecution U/s 114 (g) of the
FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 13 of 19
Evidence Act that if the said Roznamancha had been produced it
would have not shown their departure at all.
22. In view of the above observation, the testimony of
PW4 as an eye witness is full of contradiction and improvements
and a clear doubt is cast upon his presence at the spot.
Consequently his testimony cannot be relied upon in proving the
version of the prosecution.
23. All the other witnesses examined by the prosecution
in this matter are police officials or doctors whose testimony
relate to the incidents which occurred post the accident in
question. The only circumstance on record is that the offending
vehicle was found on the spot, on the date of incident. Even if it
is assumed that an accident took place between the offending
vehicle and the deceased, there is no evidence on record to
suggest that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner or by the accused as the other connecting link
between the accused and the vehicle is PW1/owner of offending
vehicle who has turned hostile and stated that he does not know
the accused and has denied the fact that accused was employed as
driver of the said vehicle.
24. Accordingly, the inescapable conclusion in the
present matter is that the evidence on record does not prove
beyond reasonable doubt, the offences charged against the
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.06.13
13:15:25
+0530
FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 14 of 19
accused. There is no evidence of the prosecution on the point as
to how the accident took place on the date of incident.
Accordingly, given the insufficient evidence on record, it is
unsafe to convict the accused only on the basis of the statement
of the police officials as no negligence or rashness on part of the
accused has been proved.
CONCLUSION : –
25. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is
beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of
caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing
the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar,
(1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that:
“Before a person can be convicted on
the strength of circumstantial evidence,
the circumstances in question must be
satisfactorily established and the proved
circumstances must bring home the
offence to the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. If those
circumstances or some of them can be
Digitally
signed by
ANMOL
explained by any other reasonable
ANMOL
NOHRIA
NOHRIA
Date:
2025.06.13
hypothesis then the accused must have
13:15:30
+0530 the benefit of that hypothesis. But in
assessing the evidence imaginary
possibilities have no place. What is to
be considered are ordinary human
probabilities.”
26. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 :
FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 15 of 19
1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:
“But the principle of benefit of doubt
belongs exclusively to criminal
jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of
benefit of doubt can be invoked when
there is reasonable doubt regarding the
guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable
doubt which a conscientious judicial
mind entertains on a conspectus of the
entire evidence that the accused might
not have committed the offence, which
affords the benefit to the accused at the
end of the criminal trial. Benefit of
doubt is not a legal dosage to be
administered at every segment of the
evidence, but an advantage to be
afforded to the accused at the final end
after consideration of the entire
evidence, if the Judge conscientiously
and reasonably entertains doubt
regarding the guilt of the accused. It is
nearly impossible in any criminal trial
Digitally
to prove all the elements with a
signed by
ANMOL scientific precision. A criminal court
ANMOL
could be convinced of the guilt only
NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date:
2025.06.13
13:15:35
+0530 beyond the range of a reasonable doubt.
Of course, the expression “reasonable
doubt” is incapable of definition.
Modern thinking is in favour of the
view that proof beyond a reasonable
doubt is the same as proof which
affords moral certainty to the Judge.”
27. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law
in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in
his book Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the
FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 16 of 19
12th Edn.) as follows:
“It is difficult to define the phrase
‘reasonable doubt’. However, in all
criminal cases a careful explanation of
the term ought to be given. A definition
often quoted or followed is that given
by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster
case. He says: ‘It is not mere possible
doubt, because everything relating to
human affairs and depending upon
moral evidence is open to some possible
or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the
case which, after the entire comparison
and consideration of all the evidence,
leaves the minds of the jurors in that
consideration that they cannot say they
feel an abiding conviction to a moral
certainty of the truth of the charge.”
28. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence
authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th
Edn.) thus:
“The doubt to be reasonable must be
such a one as an honest, sensible and
fair-minded man might, with reason,
entertain consistent with a conscientious
desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly
entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable
doubt. A vague conjecture or an
inference of the possibility of the
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
innocence of the accused is not a
Date:
NOHRIA 2025.06.13
13:15:42
+0530reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is
one which arises from a consideration of
all the evidence in a fair and reasonable
way. There must be a candid
consideration of all the evidence and if,FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 17 of 19
after this candid consideration is had by
the jurors, there remains in the minds a
conviction of the guilt of the accused,
then there is no room for a reasonable
doubt.”
29. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home
the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the
offences under Section 279/304A of the IPC beyond reasonable
doubt. The basis of the offences charged in the present case is
rash or negligent driving of the accused. The prosecution has
failed to prove that the accused was driving rashly or negligently
on the date of incident or was even driving the vehicle. The star
witness could not establish his presence at the point of incident.
30. Resultantly, the accused Yogender Sharma son of
Shish Ram is hereby found not guilty. He is acquitted of the
offences under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
31. Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused stands
discharged. Original be returned to rightful owner after
cancellation of endorsement. Superdarinama, if any, hereby
stands cancelled.
32. Accused is directed to furnish bonds in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- with a surety of like amount u/S 437A Cr.P.C and is
directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when
directed.
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date:
2025.06.13
13:15:47 +0530FIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 18 of 19
33. This judgment contains 19 pages. This judgment has
been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
34. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the
official website of District Courts, Karkardooma forthwith.
File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Digitally signed
by ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date:
2025.06.13
13:15:54 +0530Announced in the open (ANMOL NOHRIA)
Court on 13th June, 2025 JMFC-02/NE/KKD COURTSFIR No. 411/2002 State vs. Yogender Kumar Page no. 19 of 19