Delhi District Court
State vs Lakhan on 16 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. EBBANI AGGARWAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03
NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. 7380/2024
FIR No.: 300/2024
P.S.: Raj Park
State Vs. Lakhan
U/s. 394/411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
STATE
VERSUS
LAKHAN
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o Jhuggi No. 13, Nasirpur, Manglapuri
Phase-II, Palam, Delhi
Date of institution of case : 22.06.2024
Date of reserving the judgment : 13.01.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.01.2025
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLNW020230942024
Date of Commission of Offence 23.04.2024
Name of the complainant Ms. Nirmala
Name of the accused Lakhan
Offence complained or proved Section 394/411 of
Indian Penal Code, 1890
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted for offence
under Section 394 of
IPC and Acquitted for
offence under Section
411 of IPC.
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 1 of 17 Digitally signed
by EBBANI
EBBANI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.16
15:13:23 +0530
BRIEF FACTS, COGNIZANCE AND APPEARANCE OF
ACCUSED
1. Facts, in brief, as alleged by the prosecution are that on
23.04.2024, at about 06:00 AM, when complainant was
going for her morning walk and had reached near
Government School, F-2 Block, Sultanpuri, Delhi,
accused, who was wearing a T-shirt of brown colour came
infront of her and crossed her. Thereafter, accused came
from behind and committed robbery of her gold earrings
and while committing the said robbery, accused also
caused hurt to the complainant. It has also been alleged by
the prosecution that subsequently, on 24.04.2024, the
robbed earrings of complainant were recovered from the
accused. Thereby, it has been alleged that accused has
committed an offence under Section 394/411 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860. (hereinafter referred to as “IPC“)
2. Investigation was carried out and upon completion, the in-
stant charge-sheet alleging an offence punishable under
Section 394/411 of IPC was filed against the accused.
Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken.
3. Copy of charge sheet and annexed documents was sup-
plied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“Cr.P.C.”).
4. Prima facie case was made out against the accused,
namely, Lakhan and charge for commission of an offence
under Section 394/411 of IPC was framed against him on
23.08.2024 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and
Digitally signed
by EBBANI
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 2 ofEBBANI
17 AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.16
15:13:31 +0530
claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for record-
ing of prosecution evidence.
5. Statement of accused in terms of Section 294 of Cr.P.C.
was recorded wherein the accused admitted the
genuineness of FIR no. 300/2024 PS Raj Park i.e Ex. A-1,
Endorsement on Rukka which is Ex. A-2, Certificate u/s
65-B Indian Evidence Act regarding the aforesaid FIR i.e.
Ex. A-3, GD No. 0038A which is Ex. A-4, GD No. 0069A
which is Ex. A-5, MLC No. 6913 which is Ex. A-6 and
TIP Proceedings of case property which is Ex. A-7,
without admitting the contents of the same.
6. In view of the above, witnesses mentioned at serial no. 3,
4, 5 and 6 in the list of prosecution witnesses were
dropped.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution
examined a total of five witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Ms. Nirmala
who is the complainant and the star witness for the
prosecution as she is the only eye-witness to the incident,
PW-2 Sh. Hitesh Bhatia is the son of complainant and PW-
3 to PW-5 are either police witnesses or formal witnesses.
8. PW-1, Ms. Nirmala (complainant/eye-witness), has
deposed that on 23.04.2024 at about 06:00 AM, she was
going for her morning walk and when she had reached
Government School, F-2 Block one person came in front
of her who was wearing a brown coloured t-shirt and
started going behind her and further that when she took 5-7
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 3 of 17 Digitally signed
by EBBANI
EBBANI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.16
15:13:37 +0530
steps forward, the same person came from her behind and
snatched both of her earrings and fled away. PW-
1/complainant further deposed that she suffered injuries in
her ears and that after some time, her son (PW-2) arrived at
the spot and made a call to the PCR. PW-1/complainant
further deposed that police officials arrived at the spot and
took her to SGM Hospital where she got first aid treatment
and thereafter, police officials took her to the PS where her
statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded. PW-1/complainant
has correctly identified the accused before this Court and
has also identified the case property through photographs
Ex. P-1.
9. Thereafter, PW-1, was duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC
for accused wherein she has further supported the case of
prosecution and has deposed on similar lines as her
examination-in-chief. PW-1/complainant further deposed
that she had gone for the morning walk alone and that
neighbours who had arrived at the spot had made a call to
her son. PW-1/complainant has further deposed that the
spot of the incident is around 10 minutes away from her
house and that her son had arrived at the spot after 15
minutes of the incident and police officials arrived after 20
minutes of the PCR call. PW-1/complainant has further
deposed that she alongwith her son and police officials
went to SGM Hospital on her scooty.
10.PW-2, Sh. Hitesh Bhatia, is the son of complainant has
deposed that on 23.04.2024, at about 06:00 AM, her
mother had gone for morning walk and after sometime,
one person came to his house to inform that someone has
Digitally signed
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 4 of 17
EBBANI by EBBANI
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.16
15:13:44 +0530
robbed the earrings of his mother near Government
School, F-2 Block, Sultanpuri. PW-2 further deposed that
he went to the spot where he found that his mother was
trembling, and blood was coming out of ears of his mother
and further that he made a call to PCR. PW-2 further
deposed that after some time, he took his mother to SGM
Hospital where police officials were present, and statement
of her mother Ex. PW-1/A was recorded by the police
officials. PW-2 further deposed that police officials
obtained MLC of her mother, took him and his mother to
the spot where the site plan was prepared at the instance of
her mother and also made a search for the accused but
accused could not be found. PW-2 further deposed that on
next day, i.e., 24.04.2024, he received a call from IO
regarding apprehension of accused and recovery of the
earrings of her mother and thereafter, he along with his
mother went to the PS where IO showed the recovered
earrings to her mother which were identified by his
mother. PW-2 has correctly identified the accused before
this Court and has also identified the case property through
photographs Ex. P-1. The witness was duly cross-
exmained by Ld. LADC for accused wherein he deposed
that he cannot tell the name of person who had informed
about the incident to him and further that he does not
remember the exact time when he made the PCR call.
11.PW-3, HC Ramesh, has deposed that on 23.04.2024, he
was on emergency with IO/SI Neeraj and on receipt of DD
No. 38A, he along with IO went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital
where they found complainant Nirmala Devi and further
that complainant Nirmla Devi had also given her
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 5EBBANI
of 17 Digitally signed by
EBBANI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.16
15:13:52 +0530
statement. PW-3 further deposed that IO prepared rukka on
statement of complainant and sent him to PS for recording
of FIR and further that he got the FIR registered and
returned to the hospital to handover the FIR, Certificate
under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to
the FIR and original rukka to the IO. PW-3 further deposed
that thereafter, he along with IO, complainant and son of
complainant went to the spot where IO prepared the site
plan at instance of complainant Ex. PW-3/A and further
that search for the accused was conducted but all in vain
and further that no CCTV cameras were found near the
spot of the incident.
12.Durning cross-examination, PW-3 further deposed that DD
no. 38A was received at 06:45 AM and his emergency
duty hours were from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. PW-3
further deposed that he and the IO reached the hospital at
around 06:55 AM, he took the rukka to PS at around 07:15
AM and he returned to the hospital at around 08:00 AM.
PW-3 further deposed that he and the IO went to the spot
in private car of the IO.
13.PW-4, HC Shailender, has deposed that on 24.02.2024, he
had participated in the investigation with IO and during
search for accused and case property, he and the IO met a
secret informer near Shani Bazar Road who gave them
information about the present case and further that
subsequently, they went to a place near Noori Masjid, F-
Block, Sultanpuri where secret informer pointed towards
the accused and informed that he is same person who has
committed robbery on 23.04.2024. PW-4 further deposed
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 6 of 17 Digitally signed
by EBBANI
EBBANI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.16
15:13:57 +0530
that they apprehended the accused, took the accused to PS
for interrogation where accused revealed his name to be
Lakhan and further that complainant came to the PS where
she identified accused as the same person who had robbed
her earrings. PW-4 further deposed that thereafter, IO
arrested the accused vide arrest arrest memo Ex. PW-4/A,
conducted personal search of accused vide personal search
memo Ex. PW-4/B and also recorded the supplementary
statement of complainant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
PW-4 further deposed that before complainant came to the
PS, accused had lead him and IO to his house, i.e. D-220,
Laxmi Park, Nangloi, Delhi where he got recovered one
gold earring and one mobile phone and also disclosed
about his involvement in the present case which was
recorded by IO in his disclosure statement Ex. PW-4/C.
PW-4 further deposed that IO seized the gold earring vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D, seized the mobile phone vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-4/E , IO also prepared the pointing
out memo Ex. PW-4/F and recovery memo Ex. PW-4/G.
PW-4 has correctly identified the accused before this Court
and has also identified the case property through
photographs Ex. P-1.
14.Thereafter, PW-4 was duly examined by Ld. LADC for
accused wherein PW-4 deposed that he and the IO had
taken the accused from Noori Masjid to the PS in Creta
Car and further that accused made disclosure statement in
the PS. PW-4 further deposed that IO asked public persons
to join the investigation but they refused to join the
investigation. Digitally signed
by EBBANI
EBBANI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.16
15:14:02 +0530State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 7 of 17
15.PW-5, SI Niraj, is the IO who has conducted the
investigation and has filed the present chargesheet,
deposed that on 23.04.2024 he was posted as SI at PS
North Rohini when he received DD No. 38A and
accordingly, he along with HC Ramesh went to hospital
where they met complainant who have her statement Ex.
PW-1/A. PW-5 further deposed that he prepared tehrir Ex.
A-2 and sent HC Ramesh for registration of FIR which
was recorded through him under Section 379/356 IPC and
later Section 394 of IPC was invoked. PW-5 further
deposed that he along with HC Ramesh, complainant and
son of complainant went to the place of incident where he
prepared the site plan at instance of complainant Ex. PW-
3/A and also searched for CCTV cameras but no CCTV
camera was found near the spot. PW-5 further deposed that
on 24.04.2024, he alongwith HC Shailender went for
search of accused and they met an informer near Shani
Bazar Road, Sultanpuri, Delhi who gave them information
regarding the present case. PW-5 further deposed that they
went near Noori Masjid, F-Block, Sultanpuri, Delhi where
the secret informer pointed out towards the accused as the
person who is involved in the present case and thereafter,
he and HC Shailender apprehended the accused and took
him to the PS for interrogation where accused disclosed his
name to be Lakhan. PW-5 further deposed that after some
time, complainant visited the PS and identified the accused
as the same person who had committed robbery with her
and thereafter, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo
Ex. PW-4/A and conducted personal search vide personal
search memo Ex. PW-4/B. PW-5 further deposed that
Digitally signed
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 8 of 17 EBBANI
by EBBANI
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.16
15:14:08 +0530
accused had lead him and HC Shailender to his house, i.e.
D-220, Laxmi Park, Nangloi, Delhi where he got
recovered one gold earring and one mobile phone and also
disclosed about his involvement in the present case which
was recorded by him in disclosure statement Ex. PW-4/C.
PW-5 further deposed that he seized the gold earring vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-4/D, seized the mobile phone vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-4/E , he also prepared the pointing
out memo Ex. PW-4/F and recovery memo Ex. PW-4/G.
PW-5 further deposed that he recorded the statement of
witnesses and filed the present chargesheet. PW-5 has
correctly identified the accused before this Court and has
also identified the case property through photographs Ex.
P-1.
16.Thereafter, PW-5 was duly examined by Ld. LADC for
accused wherein PW-5 deposed that he had taken the
accused from Noori Masjid to the PS in Creta Car and
further that accused made disclosure statement in the PS
after which he had taken accused to his house in Creta Car.
PW-5 further deposed that he had asked public persons to
join the investigation but they refused to join the
investigation.
17.Since, no other witness was left to be examined,
prosecution evidence was closed on 26.11.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
18.Statement of accused persons in terms of Section 313
Cr.PC. was recorded wherein all the incriminating
evidence were put to the accused and the accused stated
Digitally signed
by EBBANI
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 9 of 17
EBBANI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.16
15:14:16 +0530
that they are innocent and that he has been falsely impli-
cated in this case. However, accused did not lead defence
evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL AGRUMENTS
19.Ld. APP for State has argued that prosecution has been
able to establish its case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt through the testimony of eyewitness PW-
1. Ld. APP for State has further argued that eyewitness
PW-1 has supported the case of prosecution entirely, has
withstood the cross-examination and has correctly
identified the accused before this Court. Ld. APP for State
has further argued that prosecution has also been able to
prove the recovery of gold earring of complainant from
possession of accused through his disclosure statement and
the part of the disclosure statement which led to the
recovery of the gold earring will be an admissible piece of
evidence. Ld. APP for State has further argued that non-
joining of public witness cannot be the sole ground for
negating the entire case of prosecution when the
eyewitness/complainant has supported the case of
prosecution.
20.Per contra, it has been argued by the Ld. LADC for
accused that prosecution has not been able to establish its
case beyond reasonable doubt as there is no independent
public witness which has been examined by the
prosecution. Ld. LADC for accused has further argued that
the disclosure statement of accused is not admissible in
evidence as the same did not lead to recovery of the gold
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by
EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.16
15:14:21 +0530
earring as the same was recovered prior to the recording of
the disclosure statement of accused itself. Ld. LADC for
accused has further argued that in view of lack of evidence
against the accused, accused be acquitted for the alleged
offences.
DISCUSSION ON MERTIS
21.This Court has carefully perused the record of the case, has
heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well
as by Ld. LADC for accused and has also perused the en-
tire material available on record and evidence led on behalf
of the prosecution.
22.It is an established principle in Indian criminal
jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt on basis of
cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well
settled position of law that in case of doubt, the benefit
must necessarily be given to the accused and whenever
there are two views possible, the view which favours the
innocence of the accused is to be accepted.
23.Before coming to the merits of the case, it becomes imper-
ative to discuss the statutory provisions of the offence for
which the accused has been charged with as well as the po-
sition of law regarding the same. Accused has been
charged with commission of offence under Section
394/411 of IPC which have been reiterated as under:
“394. Voluntarily causing hurt in
committing robbery.–If any person, in
committing or in attempting to commit
robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such
person, and any other person jointly
Digitally signed
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 11 of 17 EBBANI by EBBANI
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.16
15:14:27 +0530
concerned in committing or attempting
to commit such robbery, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or
with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen
property-Whoever dishonestly receives
or retains any stolen property, knowing
or having reason to believe the same to
be stolen property, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.”
24.From perusal of Section 394 of IPC it becomes clear that
the said section prescribes punishment for an offence when
hurt is caused by the accused while committing the offence
of robbery. As per Section 390 of IPC, in every case of
robbery there is either theft or extortion and every theft
would amount to robbery if:
(i) while committing theft or attempt to commit theft or
while carrying away property or in an attempt to
carry away property.
(ii) accused voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to
any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or
fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint.
(iii) the acts mentioned in (ii) must be committed by the
accused for achieving either of the ends mentioned
in (i).
25.Therefore, in order to bring home the charges for commis-
sion of offence under Section 394/411 of IPC, it is
imperative that prosecution proves the following facts
beyond reasonable doubt:
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 12 of 17 EBBANI Digitally signed
by EBBANI
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.16
15:14:31 +0530
(i) That on 23.04.2024, at about 06:00 AM, accused
Lakhan, while committing theft of gold earrings of
complainant voluntarily caused hurt to complainant.
(ii) That on 24.04.2024, the robbed earrings of com-
plainant were recovered from the possession of ac-
cused Lakhan.
QUA FACT NO. (i): COMMISSION OF OFFENCE OF ROB-
BERY
26.The present proceedings have emanated from statement of
complaint which is Ex. PW-1/A wherein she has stated
that on 23.04.2024 when she had gone for her morning
walk at around 06:00 AM and had reached near Govern-
ment School, F-2 Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi, when accused
had come from her front, had crossed her and when she
had taken 5-7 steps forward, accused came from her be-
hind and robbed her gold earrings by snatching them from
her ears.
27.PW-1/complainant is, therefore, the star witness for the
prosecution and the entire case of prosecution to prove the
involvement of accused in the present matter is based on
the testimony of PW-1/complainant as she is the sole eye-
witness as well as the person who injured in the present in-
cident. In a catena of judgements, it has been reiterated
that the entire case of prosecution cannot be discarded
merely because of non-examination of independent wit-
nesses if the testimony of the complainant is found to be
wholly reliable and credible. (Reliance has been placed
upon Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, [2019] 11 S.C.R.
Digitally signed
by EBBANI
AGGARWAL
EBBANI
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 13 of 17
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.16
15:14:35
+0530
554 and Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab [2019] 1
S.C.R. 307)
28.In the case at hand, PW-1/complainant has been consistent
in her testimony, has entirely supported the case of prose-
cution during the course of trial and has also withstood the
cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused.
PW-1/complainant has deposed about the entire incident in
detail and since, the incident took place in board day light,
PW-1/complainant had ample opportunity to see the per-
son who committed the robbery with her. PW-1/com-
plainant has correctly identified the accused before this
Court and has also correctly identified the gold earring re-
covered from accused Ex. P-1 as the gold earring which
was robbed from her.
29.It is also pertinent to mention here that the present case is
not one of those cases where the incident has occurred due
to some previous animosity between complainant/victim
and accused and PW-1/complainant did not know the ac-
cused from before. In fact, PW-1/complainant has been a
victim of offence of robbery committed by the accused
wherein she was injured as well and therefore, PW-1/com-
plainant would not want the actual perpetrators to go scot-
free and instead, falsely implicate the accused persons
herein.
30.Therefore, this Court is of the view that PW-1/complainant
is a wholly reliable and trustworthy witness and further,
through testimony of PW-2, prosecution has been able to
establish that blood was coming out from the ears of PW-
1/complainant as PW-2 had reached the spot of incident
Digitally signed by
EBBANI
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 14EBBANI
of 17
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.01.16
15:14:39 +0530
shortly after the incident. PW-2 has been consistent in his
testimony regarding the same and the same is also
strengthened through MLC of PW-1/complainant Ex. A-6
which also mentions “ENT blood” as an injury caused to
PW-1/complainant. Hence, the prosecution has also been
able to establish that hurt was caused by the accused to
PW-1/complainant while commission of robbery of her
gold earrings by accused.
QUA FACT NO. (ii): RECOVERY OF ROBBED EAR-
RINGS OF COMPLAINANT FROM ACCUSED
31.It is the case of prosecution that on 24.04.2024, accused
got one of the gold earrings belonging to
PW-1/complainant recovered from his house. It is
pertinent to mention here that there is no public witness to
the recovery of the gold earring and in order to prove the
same, prosecution has relied upon the disclosure statement
of accused Ex. PW-4/C. However, perusal of the
disclosure statement Ex. PW-4/C shows that it has been
mentioned that accused had already got the gold earring
recovered prior to the recording of the said disclosure
statement. Since, the recovery of the gold earring was also
done by the IO prior to the recording of the disclosure
statement Ex. PW-4/C, the same cannot be read into
evidence against the accused as the disclosure statement
did not lead to any recovery whatsoever.
32.Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari &
Digitally signed
by EBBANI
EBBANI AGGARWAL
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 15 of 17
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.16
15:14:43 +0530
Anr. vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2024 INSC 907, where it has
been held as under:
“37. Otherwise also, the disclosure
statement (Exb. Ka-18) was not
admissible in evidence because the
alleged discovery was not made pursuant
to that statement. Disclosure statement
was recorded at the police station whereas
recovery was made from the place pointed
out by the accused enroute to the police
station. It was, therefore, case of recovery
from the place allegedly pointed out by
the accused and not based on a disclosure
statement……”
33.It is also pertinent to mention here that even PW-5/IO has
deposed that he had recorded the disclosure statement of
accused Ex. PW-4/C after he had got the same recovered
from his house.
34.Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this Court is of the view that prosecution has
not been able to lead any evidence to establish that the
gold earring was recovered from the possession if accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
35.In view of the foregoing facts, marshalling of evidence as
well as established legal position, this court is of the
considered opinion that through the unblemished
testimony of PW-1/complainant, the prosecution has been
able to establish that accused caused hurt to complainant
while committing robbery of her gold earrings, however,
prosecution has not been able to establish recovery of the
gold earring from the possession of accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, accused, namely, Lakhan S/o Sh.
Digitally signed
by EBBANI
EBBANI AGGARWAL
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 16 of 17 AGGARWAL Date:
2025.01.16
15:14:47 +0530
Raj Kumar is hereby convicted for commission of offence
under Section 394 of IPC and is hereby acquitted for
commission of offence under Section 411 of IPC.
36.This judgement contains 17 pages and all pages have been
digitally signed by undersigned.
Digitally signed by
EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.16
15:14:51 +0530
Announced in open Court (EBBANI AGGARWAL)
on 16.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate First Class-03
North-West, Rohini, Delhi
State vs. Lakhan FIR no. 300/2024 P.S. Raj Park Page No. 17 of 17
[ad_1]
Source link