1 IN THE COURT OF [ENTITY] ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH) : DELHI [CASE NUMBER] ID No. 0240R0451252010 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o Jhuggi 16A/138, [ENTITY], Timarpur, Delhi FIR No. 132/10 [ACT] U/[SECTION] [ACT] Date of Institution: 20.09.10 Date of reserving for judgment: 21.07.11 Date of pronouncement: 28.07.11 JUDGMENT
In the present case, charge has been framed against accused [ENTITY] in respect of offence U/[SECTION] [ACT]. The allegation in the charge is that on 26.05.10 at about 10:30 PM in front of H.No. 1842, [ENTITY], Timarpur, he [accused] caused injuries on the person of [ENTITY] with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if by that act, he had caused the death of injured [ENTITY], he would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
2 Accused pleaded not guilty to said charge and claimed trial. 3 To prove its case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. They are [ENTITY](PW-1), [ENTITY](PW-2), [ENTITY] Dr. [ENTITY]), Constable [ENTITY]), Constable [ENTITY]), ASI [ENTITY]), Dr. [ENTITY](PW-8),Constable [ENTITY] (PW-9), Sh. [ENTITY]), [ENTITY](PW-11), ASI [ENTITY]) and Dr. [ENTITY]
4 [ENTITY]ment of accused has been recorded U/[SECTION] [ACT], wherein he has denied the allegations of prosecution. He has submitted that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of [ENTITY] and his mother [ENTITY]. 5 Accused has examined three witnesses in his defence. They are [ENTITY] (DW-1), [ENTITY] (DW-2) and [ENTITY] (DW-3). 6 I have heard arguments from ld. counsel for accused and ld. Addl. PP for [ENTITY]. Ld. counsel for accused has prayed for acquittal of accused by submitting that complainant [ENTITY] was under the influence of liquor at the time of commission of alleged offence. He sustained injuries on account of falling. Complainant [ENTITY] does not remember the date, time and month. No public witness has been joined by the I.O. I.O obtained the signatures of accused on blank papers. Complainant was discharged from the hospital on the same day. The accused has been arrested on 01.08.10 on the disclosure statement of secret informer, despite the fact that he was living the locality of complainant [ENTITY]. PW-10 and PW-11 did not support the prosecution case. Prosecution has not been able to prove the motive behind the commission of alleged offence. There are contradictions in the testimonies of PWs regarding making of PCR call. 7 On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP has submitted that accused [ENTITY] be convicted as prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The contradiction in the testimony of PWs is of minor nature.
8 In the present case, out of 13 witnesses, PW-1 [ENTITY] is the star witness of the case being the complainant. He has deposed that he knows the accused present in court as he [accused] resides in the same locality. He does not remember the date and month of incident but the incident took place six-seven months ago. On the day of incident, his mother Smt. [ENTITY] had gone to meet his grandmother in [ENTITY], Timarpur. In the evening, he went there to bring his mother back. It was around 10:00/10:30 PM. [ENTITY], present in court, met him there. A hot talk took place between him and accused on some money as accused [ENTITY] demanded money from him. Accused told him that "Main tujhe jaan se maar dunga" and thereafter, [ENTITY] hit him with knife on his stomach, buttock and face. Blood oozed out from the body due to injuries. His mother heard the noise. She came at the spot. His uncle also reached at the spot. PCR van reached the spot and took him to hospital. Local police reached the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. In the hospital, doctor seized his vest [baniyan] Ex. P-1.
9 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-1 has deposed that he has been knowing accused since childhood. He had no enmity with accused prior to incident. He was under the influence of liquor on the day of incident. Accused demanded money from him but he does not know the exact amount which was demanded. His uncle made a call at 100 number. At the time of incident, 10-20 persons had gathered there. I.O did not record the statement of any public witness in his presence. Police obtained his signatures on two documents, one was written and the other one was blank. He was discharged from the hospital on the same day. He remained in the hospital for three hours. He has denied that no quarrel took place between him and accused. He has further denied that he has falsely implicated the accused in the present case. He has denied that since he was under
the influence of liquor, he sustained injuries due to fall.
10 Another material witness is PW-2 [ENTITY]. She is the mother of injured [ENTITY]. She has deposed that she does not remember the date of incident. It was in the month of either May or June, 2010. She went to meet her mother-in-law at [ENTITY], Timarpur. In the evening, her son [ENTITY] came to bring her back to home. It was about 10:00 PM. She heard noise from outside. She came out from her mother-in-law's house. She saw that accused had caught hold the neck of her son. Her son had put his hand on his stomach. She saw the injuries on the face and stomach of her son. After seeing her, accused fled away from the spot. She informed the police. Her brother-in-law also reached the spot. PCR van reached the spot and took her son to hospital. Police met her in the hospital. She stated the same facts to police which she has deposed in the court. 11 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, she has deposed that police reached the spot within ten minutes. The relation between her family and the family of accused were cordial. There is no enmity between both the families. Her statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. Her son was discharged from the hospital on the same day. Police did not seize anything in her presence. She has denied that she is deposing falsely at the instance of I.O. She has denied that no quarrel had taken place between her son and accused. She has denied that her son was under the influence of liquor at the time of incident and he sustained injuries due to fall.
12 Another material witness is PW-3 [ENTITY]. He has deposed that on 26.05.10 he was on patrolling duty. At about 11:00/11:15 PM he reached in front of H.No. 1842, [ENTITY]. He saw a crowd there. From the crowd, he came to know that one [ENTITY] has been stabbed by one [ENTITY] and PCR van has taken the injured [ENTITY] to hospital. In the meantime, ASI [ENTITY] reached the spot. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI [ENTITY] went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. I.O collected MLC of injured [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] was declared fit for his statement by doctor. I.O recorded statement of [ENTITY] and prepared rukka, which was handed over to him. He went to PS and got the case registered. He came back to spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to the I.O. I.O searched the accused but he was not traceable. 13 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-3 has deposed that I.O asked 6-7 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. All the proceedings were done by the I.O at the spot. Accused was not apprehended in his presence. 14 Another material witness is PW-4 SI [ENTITY]. He has deposed that on 01.08.10 he came to know that accused [ENTITY], who was absconding for the last three months, was present in [ENTITY]. He alongwith Constable [ENTITY] and Constable [ENTITY] went to [ENTITY], from where accused [ENTITY] was arrested. His arrest memo Ex. PW4/C was prepared. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused. Accused led the police party to [ENTITY], [ENTITY], where he had stabbed [ENTITY]. He prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW4/B. 15 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-4 has deposed that there was no public witness at the time of arrest of accused. He has denied that accused was not arrested from [ENTITY] and was arrested at P.S, where he was called. 16 PW-7 ASI [ENTITY] is the initial I.O. He has deposed that on the intervening night of 26.05.10/27.05.10 he received DD No. 67B regarding stabbing at [ENTITY], Teacher Colony, Timarpur. The attested copy of said DD is Ex. PW7/A. He went to spot, where he met beat Constable [ENTITY] and came to know that injured had been removed to hospital by PCR. He alongwith beat Constable [ENTITY] went to Aruna Asaf Ali hospital, where injured [ENTITY] was found admitted in the hospital. [ENTITY] was found fit for statement. He recorded statement Ex. PW1/A of [ENTITY]. He made endorsement Ex. PW7/B on statement Ex. PW1/A. In the hospital, doctor gave him one sealed pulanda alongwith sample seal. He seized the said pulanda and sample seal vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C. He sent the rukka to P.S through Constable [ENTITY] for registration of FIR. Smt. [ENTITY] , mother of injured was present at the spot. At her instance, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW7/D. He came back to P.S and deposited the case property in the malkhana. He searched the accused [ENTITY] but he was not traceable. He deposited the MLC for opinion on 16.06.10.
17 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-7 has deposed that he asked several persons to join the investigation but none agreed. He recorded statement of Smt. [ENTITY], mother of injured at the spot. He has denied that he did not visit the spot and the hospital.
18 Another material witness is PW-13 Dr. [ENTITY]. He has deposed that on 26.05.10 one [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] was brought to hospital by PCR with the alleged history of quarrel and assault. Injured [ENTITY] was examined by him vide MLC Ex. PW8/A. After examination, the patient was referred to S.R., Surgery for detail examination.
19 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-13 Dr. [ENTITY] has deposed that the injuries mentioned in the MLC Ex. PW8/A cannot be self-inflicted.
20 PW-8 Dr. [ENTITY] has deposed that on the MLC Ex. PW8/A the patient was referred to Dr. [ENTITY] for further medical examination and surgery. The patient was advised for operation by Dr. [ENTITY] vide his endorsement Ex. PW8/B on the MLC but the patient left the hospital against the medical advise. He [PW-8] has identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. [ENTITY]. He has deposed that Dr. [ENTITY] has left the hospital and the said MLC Ex. PW8/A was marked to him [PW-8] for opinion by the head of my department. After going through the contents of the MLC Ex. PW8/A, he opined that nature of injuries as grievous.
21 PW-10 [ENTITY] has deposed that he does not remember the exact date of incident but it was the summer season of the year 2010. On the day of incident, he was present at his house and was taking meal. It was around 8:00 or 9:00 PM. I heard a noise from outside. He came out from his house. His neighbour [ENTITY] met him. [ENTITY] is the uncle of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] also resides in front of my house. [ENTITY] asked for his mobile to make a call at 100 number. He saw [ENTITY] in an injured condition. He did not see anyone else when he handed over his mobile phone to [ENTITY]. He does not know how [ENTITY] received injuries. He knows accused [ENTITY], present in the court, as accused resides in his locality. Police enquired from him whether any call was made from his mobile to PCR in [ENTITY]'s case. He has deposed that he handed over his mobile to [ENTITY] for making call to PCR.
22 In cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP, PW-10 has denied that he stated to police in his statement Ex. PW10/A that when he came out of his house he saw that [ENTITY] and accused [ENTITY] were indulged in a scuffle and [ENTITY] was bleeding profusely. He has denied that he had seen accused [ENTITY] scuffling with [ENTITY] at the spot but he is denying the fact to save him. He has denied that he was very much present at the spot. In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-10 has deposed that he did not see the incident. He had only handed over his mobile phone to [ENTITY] and nothing else was done in his presence. Police did not record his statement. 23 PW-11 [ENTITY] is the uncle [[ENTITY]] of injured [ENTITY]. He has deposed that Smt. [ENTITY] is his sister-in-law [[ENTITY]]. [ENTITY] is his nephew [[ENTITY]]. He knows accused [ENTITY], present in the court. He does not remember the date, month and year of the incident but the incident took place around six-seven months ago. On the day of incident, [ENTITY] was taking meal with him. It was about 7:30 PM. He went out of the house for passing urine. After about ten minutes, [ENTITY] came back to the house. He saw that [ENTITY] was stabbed on his face, stomach and backside. He took mobile phone from his neighbourer [ENTITY] and informed the PCR at 100 number. He informed his [ENTITY] Smt. [ENTITY] about the incident. Thereafter, he took his nephew [ENTITY] to hospital, where he was treated.
24 In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-11 has deposed that he did not see the incident personally. He came to know about the incident through his nephew [ENTITY]. He informed the PCR about the incident. Accused [ENTITY] fled away after the incident. 25 In the present case, accused [ENTITY] has been charged in respect of offence U/[SECTION] [ACT], which is reproduced here for ready reference:
"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
26 In [ENTITY] V. [ENTITY] of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782, it has been observed by Hon'be Supreme Court that "a person is said to commit an offence under this section, if he does an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he thereby caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as defined under [SECTION], [ACT]. To invoke the section,intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder must be established."
It is worth noting that an attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime, and forming part of a series of acts which would constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted. It must then be an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This can only be proved by proving facts and circumstances, from which it would be justifiable to hold that, if the act had been completed, it would have been only culpable homicide and not murder.
In Ali Zaman V. [ENTITY], AIR 1963 S.C 152, it has been observed that "in view of the gravity of the offence, the Code has made express provision to punish an attempt to commit culpable homicide under [SECTION] [ACT] instead of leaving it to be dealt with under [SECTION] [ACT], which applies to all attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment. Where the use of a revolver from the accused's party did not result in the death of anyone on the complainant's side, it was held that the accused was liable for attempt to commit culpable homicide. But if the shot had killed one in consequence, the offence would have been culpable homicide, punishable under [SECTION] [ACT]."
27 Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether accused [ENTITY] made an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder of injured [ENTITY]. In the present case, PW-1 [ENTITY] has categorically deposed that on the date of incident, accused [ENTITY] present in court, met him and hot talk took place between them. He has further deposed that accused exhorted the words "Main tujhe jaan se maar dunga" and immediately thereafter, accused [ENTITY] hit knife on his stomach, buttock and face.
28 It is worth noting that testimony of PW-1 [ENTITY] is supported with MLC Ex. PW8/A. PW-13 Dr. [ENTITY] has deposed that injured [ENTITY] was brought to hospital by PCR with the alleged history of quarrel and assault and was examined by him vide MLC Ex. PW8/A. After medical examination, [ENTITY] was referred to SR[Surgery] for detail examination. In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-13 has deposed that the injuries mentioned in MLC Ex. PW8/A cannot be self inflicted. Moreover, PW-8 Dr. [ENTITY] has also deposed that on the MLC Ex. PW8/A, the patient was referred to Dr. [ENTITY] for further medical examination and surgery. The patient was advised operation by Dr. [ENTITY] vide his endorsement Ex. PW8/B on the MLC but the patient left the hospital against the medical advise.
29 It is worth noting that the endorsement Ex. PW8/B on MLC shows that stabbing was there in the abdomen of injured and injured [ENTITY] was advised surgery by Dr. [ENTITY]. MLC also shows that [ENTITY] suffered penetrating wounds on the left side of his back and other penetrating wound on the pelvic region besides the multiple incised like wounds on the left side of his face and neck. 30 It is worth noting that the testimony of PW-1 [ENTITY] to the effect that knife was used by accused in inflicting injuries on his body is supported with the MLC Ex. PW8/A, wherein the weapon used in inflicting injuries has been opined by the doctor as a sharp and pointed object and the nature of injuries has been opined as grievous.
31 It is worth noting that accused did not prefer to cross- examine PW-8 and did not put any question or suggestion to show that injuries were suffered by PW [ENTITY] on account of falling under the influence of liquor. It is further worth noting that PW-13 has categorically denied that injuries were self inflicted. 32 Moreover, the testimony of PW-1 is corroborated with the testimony of PW-2 [ENTITY], who is the mother of injured [ENTITY]. She has deposed that she came out of the house of her mother-in-law on hearing the noise as her son was crying. She saw that accused had caught neck of her son and her son had put his hand on his stomach. She further saw that there was injury on the face of her son. She also came to know that her son [ENTITY] was also having injury on his stomach. 33 So far as the contradiction, in the prosecution case, about informing the PCR van by PW-2 [ENTITY] or by PW-11 [ENTITY] [brother- in-law of PW-2] is concerned, I am of the considered view that the said contradiction is minor one and does not go to the root of the prosecution case.
34 In Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar and Ors. V. [ENTITY] of Kerala, AIR 1981, Supreme Court 1237, it was observed that "of course, discrepancies or inconsistencies in prosecution evidence a shortfall from which no criminal case is free. The thing to be seen while appreciating evidence is whether the discrepancies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspect thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the incongruities in the evidence. However, in the later case, no such benefit may be available to it".
35 In the present case, PW-11 [ENTITY] has deposed that he took the mobile phone from his neighbour [ENTITY] and informed the PCR at 100 number. PW-10 [ENTITY] has also deposed that [ENTITY] i.e. PW- 11 asked him to give his mobile as he [[ENTITY]] wanted to make a call at 100 number. In cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused, PW-10 [ENTITY] has also admitted that he had handed over mobile phone to [ENTITY].
36 It is true that PW-10 [ENTITY] has not supported the prosecution story and he turned hostile. It is settled law that testimony of hostile witness cannot be totally brushed aside and it can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution case. In the present case, PW-10 has categorically admitted in cross-examination that he handed over his mobile phone to [ENTITY], who informed the police at 100 number. Therefore, it cannot be said that PW-10 and PW-11 have not supported the prosecution case. I am of the considered view that said ambiguity/contradiction is not major or substantial one. 37 It is worth noting that after commission of offence, accused [ENTITY] fled away from the spot and was not available at his house. In the present case, the alleged incident took place on 26.05.10 and accused has been arrested, on the basis of secret information, only on 01.08.10 by PW-4 SI [ENTITY] [I.O] from his in-laws' house at [ENTITY], Timarpur. Therefore, the fact of abscondance by accused after commission of offence, also supports the prosecution case. 38 It is worth mentioning that, motive, in a criminal case, may be one of the factors in the commission of crime, but the absence of motive in a given case does not mean that offence was not committed by accused, where there is true and reliable documentary evidence of witness. It is worth noting that in cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that accused demanded money from him. This shows that there was money dispute between PW-1 and accused. Even DW-1 to DW-3 have deposed that there was money dispute and [ENTITY] had demanded his money back from [ENTITY] on several occasions. 39 Further, the reliable and trustworthy testimony of PW-1 [ENTITY] and PW-2 [ENTITY] cannot be disbelieved only because they could not tell the exact date of incident. In the present case, PW-1 has clearly deposed that the incident took place about 6-7 months prior to his deposition in court. Similarly, PW-2 [ENTITY] has deposed that incident took place in the month of May/June, 2010.
40 Moreover, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved if PW- 10 [ENTITY] has not supported the prosecution case. I am of the considered view that PW-10 [ENTITY] may have his own reasons for not supporting the prosecution story. I am further of the considered view that the evidence of PW-1, which is supported with medical record cannot be disbelieved only because he was under the influence of liquor. It is worth noting that law does not permit a person to cause injury on other person, simply because that he has consumed liquor. 41 Moreover, testimonies of PW1 [ENTITY] and PW2 [ENTITY] cannot be disbelieved on the ground that injured [ENTITY] was discharged from the hospital on the same day. It is important to note that in the present case, injured [ENTITY] was not discharged from the hospital by doctor. PW-8 Dr. [ENTITY] has categorically deposed that the patient [[ENTITY]] was advised for operation by Dr. [ENTITY] but he [patient] left the hospital against medical advice. I am of the considered view that [ENTITY] might have left the hospital for getting better treatment from private hospital of his choice as he suffered stab injury on his abdomen. Thus, in these facts, it cannot be said that injured was discharged from the hospital on same day and on that ground, accused deserves acquittal.
42 In the present case, accused has examined three witnesses in his defence. I am of the considered view that testimonies of these DWs are of no avail to accused as they were not present on the relevant day. They have only deposed that accused [ENTITY] is a person of good character. They have no personal knowledge of this case. DW-1 [ENTITY] and DW-2 [ENTITY] have supported the prosecution case by deposing that the dispute between [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] took place on account of money dispute as accused [ENTITY] had demanded his money from [ENTITY] on several occasions.
43 In the facts of the present case, I am of the considered view that accused made an attempt on the relevant date to commit the culpable homicide not amounting to murder of injured [ENTITY] as he [accused] gave stab injuries on the vital parts of his body. I am of the considered view that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused [ENTITY] inflicted the knife injuries on the person of injured [ENTITY] with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by inflicting knife injury on the person of [ENTITY], he had caused the death of [ENTITY], he would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to his murder. Accordingly, accused [ENTITY] is convicted of the offence, he was charged with.
Announced in the open court today on 28.07.11 (Smt. [ENTITY]) Additional Sessions Judge-II(North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. IN THE COURT OF [ENTITY] ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II(NORTH):DELHI ID No. 0240R0451252010 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o Jhuggi 16A/138, [ENTITY], Timarpur, Delhi [ACT] U/[SECTION] [ACT] Arguments heard: 29.07.11 Date of order: 30.07.11 ORDER ON SENTENCE
In the present case accused [ENTITY] has been convicted in respect of offence U/[SECTION] [ACT] vide my separate judgment announced on 28.07.11.
2 I have heard arguments on the point of sentence from ld. counsel for convict and Ld. Addl. P.P for [ENTITY].
3 Ld. counsel for convict has prayed for a lenient view by submitting that accused/convict [ENTITY] is a young man of 22 years age. He is having one younger brother, who is 17 years old. He [younger brother] is living separately with his aunt [[ENTITY]]. His father has already died. His mother is suffering from serious illness and is admitted in Patel Trust Hospital. He is having a minor daughter of five years old. His wife is on advanced stage of pregnancy. Accused/convict is not a previous convict. No other case is pending against him. Accused/convict has remained in JC for a period of three months. Benefit of [SECTION] [ACT] be given to him.
4 On the other hand, ld. Addl. P. P for [ENTITY] has prayed for imposition of maximum punishment upon the convict for proved commission of offence.
5 [SECTION] [ACT], is reproduced here for ready reference:
"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
6 In the present case, injured [ENTITY] has suffered grievous injury on his body so the case of accused/convict [ENTITY] falls under the [SECTION] [ACT], which provides an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both.
7 In the present case, accused/convict has inflicted injuries on the body of injured [ENTITY] as he [injured] did not return the money of accused/convict.
8 It is worth noting that accused/convict has inflicted injuries on the various parts of the body of [ENTITY], when he [[ENTITY]] was under the influence of liquor.
9 Keeping in view the totality of facts, I am of the considered view that it is not a case where maximum punishment should be imposed and further, I am also of the considered view that too much leniency is also not required. I am of the considered view that a moderate punishment would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, accused/convict [ENTITY] is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three years in respect of commission of offence U/[SECTION] [ACT]. He is also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. It is ordered that in default of payment of fine, he will suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Accused/convict would also be given the benefit of [SECTION] [ACT].
11 As per record, accused/convict [ENTITY] has been in JC from 01.08.10 to 21.09.10 and from 28.07.11 till date. 12 A copy of this order be sent to Jail Suptd. A copy of this order be also given to the convict free of costs.
13 File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ([ENTITY]) On 30.07.2011 Addl.Sessions Judge-II(North) Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi.