Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Bhatia on 12 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 35/2002
ID 66051/2016
U/S. 186/353/332/309/506 IPC
PS Patel Nagar
State Vs. Anil Bhatia
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 66051/2016
2. Date of commission of offence 17.1.2002
3. Name of complainant Sh. Balram Sharma
4. Name of accused Anil Bhatia
s/o. Sh. Chetan Ram Bhatia
r/o. H NO. 17 South Patel Nagar
New Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 186/353/332/309/506 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted u/s. 353/506 IPC
Acquitted u/s. 186/332/309
8. Date of such order 10.12.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused was sent to face trial in the instant matter on the allegation State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 1/8 that on 17.1.2002, when the complainant had gone to execute the order dated 16.1.2002 passed by Addl Rent Controller, accused had quarreled with the complainant and had restrained him from executing the said order. It is also alleged that accused started threatening the complainant that he will kill himself and will implicate him. It is further alleged that when they had reached at the gate of the police station, accused had inflicted injuries upon himself with a surgical blade.
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge.
3. CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Charge for offences punishable u/s. 186/353/332/309/506 IPC was framed against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION : In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined eight witnesses as under :
(a)PW1 is Sh. Balram Sharma. PW1 is the complainant. PW1 State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 2/8 deposed that on 17.1.2002 at about 11.00 AM he alongwith the Decree Holder Sh. Girdhari Lal Sharma and his counsel Sh. Ravinder Nath Parashar had reached the property NO. 17, South Patel Nagar, 1st Floor where the Judgment Debtor NO. 2/ accused met him. PW1 further deposed that he showed the warrant to accused and asked him to vacate the property but he refused. PW1 further stated that upon his directions, the labourers of Sh. Girdhari Lal started to take out the articles from the said property but accused started quarreling with him and threatened to kill him, Girdhari Lal and his counsel Sh Ravidner Nath. PW1 further stated that accused also threatened that he will falsely implicate them after killing himself. PW1 further stated that call was made at 100 number and PCR van came at the spot and took them to the police station and on reaching the police station when they were at the gate of the police station, accused caused injured upon himself with a surgical blade on his stomach and also on his left leg saying 'main to mar hi raha hu aap logon ko bhi jaan se marwa dunga". PW1 further stated that in the meantime one HC Govind reached there and snatched the blade from the hand of accused. He further stated that his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded; seized the blade vide memo Ex. PW1/B. PW1 was cross examined by accused himself.
(b)In his cross examination, PW1 stated that when they had reached State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 3/8 the premises in question, the door was open and accused was inside. PW1 admitted that their entry into the house was easy and none had protested. PW1 also admitted that accused threatened him, GL Sharma and Sh. Ravinder Nath by saying that he will inflict self injury and will put the blame on them.
(c)PW2 is Sh Ravinder Nath. PW2 was the counsel for Sh. GL Sharma. PW2 further stated that on 17.1.02 he alongwith Sh. Girdhari Lal Sharma and the Ballif(Sh. Balram Sharma). PW2 also stated that when the eviction order was shown to accused, accused refused to vacate using filthy language. PW2 further stated that thereafter accused threatened saying "main possession nahi dunga, jo karna hai, kar lo.......main mar jaunga aur tum teeno ko bhi maar dunga". He further stated that thereafter they were taken to the police station and when they reached at the police station, accused took out some sharp weapon and caused injuries to himself on his feet. PW2 also stated that accused had also tried to inflict injuries on his stomach but was overpowered by some police officials. PW2 was also cross examined by accused himself.
(d)In his cross examination, PW2 admitted that when he reached the spot, Girdhari Lal and Baliff were present at the ground floor. He further stated that the process of possession was being done by Ballif and he was not assisting him in any manner.
State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 4/8
(e)PW3 is Ct. Rajbir Singh. PW3 deposed that on 17.1.02 he alongwith HC Govind on receipt of call reached the spot i.e. 17 South Patel Nagar where they came to know that the parties had been taken to the police station by the PCR van, therefore they returned to the police station. PW3 further deposed that when they reached the police station they saw the parties standing near the gate of the police station and the accused took out a blade and inflicted injuries on his left leg and right side of stomach saying 'mujhe to marna hi hai, par thumhe bhi marva dunga, faswa dunga'. He further stated that HC Govind snatched the blade from the hand of accused and seized it. PW3 further stated that thereafter, IO recorded statement of Sh. Balram Sharma; prepared tehrir and got registered the FIR and thereafter accused was got medically examined. PW3 further stated that the cloths of the accused were also seized vide memo Ex. PW3/C. PW3 was also cross examined at length by accused. PW3 correctly identified the accused as well as the blade.
(f) PW4 is ASI Mumtaz Ali. PW4 was the MHCm at PS Patel Nagar and had deposed regarding deposit of two sealed pulanda in the Malkhana.
(g)PW5 is Retd SI Ishwar Singh. PW5 was the Incharge of the PCR van. PW5 deposed that on 17.1.2002 on receipt of call near Pusa State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 5/8 Road. PW5 further stated that on reaching the spot he was informed that the quarrel took place in respect of property dispute and he took the parties to the police station. To a specific question put to the witness, witness replied that accused had inflicted injuries with a blade on his leg and thereafter he took the accused to RML Hospital for medical treatment.
(h)PW6 is W/SI Pushpa. PW6 was the duty officer. PW6 had deposed regarding registration of the FIR Ex. PW6/A by her on 17.1.2002. PW6 was also cross examined by accused.
(i) PW7 is HC Govind Sharma. PW7 deposed that on 17.1.2002 on receipt of DD NO. 13 A regarding quarrel he alongwith Ct. Rajbir went to the spot where he came to know that the parties had already been taken to the police station. He further stated that they returned and met the complainant, accused and Girdhari Lal in the PCR van at the gate of the police station. PW7 further stated that he also noticed that accused was having a surgical blade in hand hand and accused inflicted injuries on his left leg and stomach with said blade. He further stated that he snatched the said blade from the accused and seized it. PW7 further deposed regarding recording statement of complainant; getting case registered and getting the accused medically examined. PW7 was also cross examined by accused.
State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 6/8
(j) PW8 is Ms. Laxmi, Record Clerk from RML Hospital. PW8 had appeared on behalf of Dr. M Kaushik and had identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. M Kaushik on the MLC Ex. PW8/A. PW8 was also cross examined by accused.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused has stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused had opted to lead evidence in his defence. However he failed to produce and examine any witness in his defence. Hence, defence evidence was closed on 27.2.2018.
6. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND DEFENCE: Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of causing obstruction by using criminal force upon the public servant in execution of his duty i.e. vacating the premises in question and also beating and threatening the complainant has been beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for State has also submitted that the factum of attempt made by accused to commit suicide by inflicting injuries on himself has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt from the testimonies of witnesses, therefore, State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 7/8 accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
On the other hand, Ld Legal Aid Counsel has argued that the prosecution has failed to join any independent witness in support of its case. It is further submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of witnesses examined by prosecution. The allegations are inherently unbeliveable and false FIR has been registered to put pressure upon the accused to vacate the premises. It is further submitted that therefore, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled of being acquitted in this case.
7. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) In the present case charge for offences punishable u/s.
186/353/332/309/506 IPC was framed against the accused. In order to prove the essential ingredients and to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has produced and examined as many as eight witnesses.
(ii) Section 353 IPC postulates that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 8/8 public servant shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both.
(iii) In order to prove the offence punishable u/s. 353 IPC, the prosecution must prove
1. That Sh. Balram Sharma the person assaulted was a public servant;
2. That the accused Anil Bhatia assaulted Sh. Balram Sharma who was Balliff at the time of execution of Warrant of Possession;
3. That the accused Anil Bhatia assaulted Sh. Balram Sharma when he was acting in the execution of his Duty as a public servant
(iv) The complainant who has been examined as PW1 has deposed that on the date of incident(17.1.02) he was posted as Balliff in Civil Nazarat Branch, Tis Hazari Courts. The Warrant of Possession was marked to him on 16.1.02 for getting it executed on 17.1.02 by the Court of Ld Administrative Civil Judge. The Warrant of Possession was issued by the Court of Ms. Nevedita Anil Sharma, Ld. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The fact of complainant being a public servant has not been disputed by the defence. PW1 has also proved on record the Order of the Court as Mark X1. This fact has also remained undisputed by the accused. The question which requires to be determined is whether the State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 9/8 prosecution is successful in proving that the accused Anil Bhatia assaulted Balliff Sh. Balram Sharma with intent to prevent him in discharging his duty? PW1 has categorically deposed that the accused started quarreling and threatened that he shall kill him at the time when PW1 visited the premises for the execution of Warrant of Possession. The act of quarreling coupled with the threatening at the moment when the articles were being removed amounts to assault with the intent that PW1(Balliff) is prevented from taking the possession in discharge of his duty. The act of criminal intimidation and use of abusive language has also been brought out in the examination of PW2 who was the Advocate of the Decree Holder and was present at the time of execution of Warrant of Possession. PW1 was cross examined at length by the accused however, nothing beneficial came out in favour of the defence. Moreover, the accused has admitted by way of suggestion that he gave threatening to PW1 and PW2. The relevant extract is reproduced below for ready reference "it is correct that you accused Anil Bhatia gave threatening to me, to GL Sharma and Mr Ravinder Nath Parashar and told that I will put self inflicted injuries on me and put the blame on all of you....". The prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence u/s. 353 IPC.
State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 10/8
(v) Section 506 IPC postulates whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
(vi) In order to prove the offence punishable u/s. 506 IPC the prosecution must establish
1. that accused Anil Bhatia threatened Sh Balram Sharma and threat consisted of causing death of Sh Balram Sharma;
2. that the said threat was caused with the intent to cause alarm or to cause Sh Balram Sharma not to execute Warrant of Possession which he was legally entitled to do.
(vii) PW1 has categorically deposed that at the time when he was trying to execute the Warrant of Possession, the accused quarreled and gave life threats to him as well as PW2 Sh Ravinder Nath Parashar. PW1 has further deposed that the accused threatened that he will kill himself and falsely implicate them. The act of the accused caused alarm to PW1, as he in consequence made a 100 number call. The deposition of PW1 is corroborated in the testimony of PW2. The relevant extract of the deposition of PW1 is reproduced for ready reference:".......I showed to him the said warrant and stated to him to vacate the said property as per the order of Ld Court, on this the accused Anil Bhatia refused to vacate the said property. .......On my direction labourer of Sh State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 11/8 Girdhari Lal Sharma started taking out the articles lying in the said property. ON this accused started quarreling with me and threatened to kill me also threatened to kill Girdhari Lal Sharma and his counsel Ravinder Nath Parashar...." Despite being cross examined nothing beneficial for the accused has come from the mouth of this witness.
(viii) Thus, the prosecution has also succeeded in proving that the accused had threatened PW1 the Balliff of dire consequences. The accused with the motive and intent to prevent the execution of Warrant of Possession went to the extent of causing injury to himself by a surgical blade. This fact has also been proved in the testimony of PW7 HC Govind Sharma who had witnessed the incident of inflicting self injury and PW8 Ms. Laxmi who had proved the MLC of accused. The relevant extract of deposition of PW7 and PW8 is reproduced hereinunder for ready reference:
"PW7: On 17.1.02 I was posted as HC
at PS Patel Nagar and on that day on PCR
call vide DD..............was received. I
alongwith Ct. Rajbir went to 17 South Patel Nagar............On reaching I noticed that one PCR Van had already taken both the parties(who were quarreling to the PS, I alongwith Ct. Rajbir left for PS. At about 1.40 PM when we reached at the gate of PS, we State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 12/8 found the PCR standing in which one Baliff whose name was Balram Sharma and Anil Bhatia and one Girdhari Lal Sharma were present. At that time, I witnessed that accused Anil Bhatia.............was having surgical blade in his hand and has inflicted injuries in his stomach and left leg(takhna). I immediately rushed and snatched the blade from his hand and placed the said blade in the matchbox and sealed with seal of GS................."
"PW8: I am working in the hospital since 1994.............the MLC NO. 228/02 in name of Anil Bhatia was prepared by Dr. M Kaushik....................I can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Kaushik as I have seen him signing and writing in the ordinary course of my work in the hospital..."
(ix) In view of the above discussion this Court has no hesitation to hold that the accused has committed the offence of criminal intimidation punishable u/s. 506 IPC.
(x) Now coming to section 186 IPC which lays down that whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/ or with both. At this stage, a reference to section 195 cr.p.c. is also essential as section 195 cr.p.c. laid down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable u/s. 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC except on the State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 13/8 complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, prosecution has produced and examined PW1 i.e. Sh Balram Sharma who is the complainant in the present case. PW1 had stated that he was entrusted with Possession Warrant for execution in favour of DH(Sh. Giridhari Lal Sharma) but accused objected for the same. A complaint/ application dated 17.8.2002 seeking complaint u/s. 195 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the said application was tagged with the present chargesheet. It appears that the said application remained not disposed off during the course of long trial even though cognizance of offence u/s. 186 IPC was taken by the Court. The alleged permission/ application u/s. 195 cr.p.c. is infact no complaint u/s. 195 cr.p.c. as envisaged by the said legal provision. The same do not fall within four corners of a complaint as postulated by section 195 cr.p.c. As there is no complaint u/s. 195 cr.p.c. the cognizance of the offence punishable u/s. 186 IPC cannot be taken and the accused cannot be convicted for the said offence in the absence of valid cognizance. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove offence punishable u/s. 186 IPC.
(xi) Section 309 IPC postulates whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 14/8 which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
(xii) A close scrutiny of the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW7 clearly shows that the accused had inflicted injury on himself to criminally intimidate the complainant with the object to prevent execution of Warrant of Possession. The entire incident taken as a whole reveals that the injury inflicted by the accused on himself was not with the intention of committing suicide. Therefore, the prosecution has also failed to prove the offence punishable u/s. 309 IPC.
(xiii) Section 332 IPC postulates that whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both.
(xiv) The accused has been charged for offence u/s. 332 IPC. The prosecution was required to prove that the accused Anil Bhatia voluntarily caused hurt to public servant Sh. Balram Sharma with a view to deter him to perform his duty. A perusal of the State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 15/8 testimony of PW1 and PW2 clearly reveals that they have not said anything to the effect that the accused has caused any injury to PW1/ complainant. Moreover, there is no MLC of Sh. Balram Sharma to substantiate the same. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that that prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable u/s. 332 IPC.
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, accused is hereby convicted for offences punishable u/s. 353/506(Part II) IPC and is acquitted for offences punishable u/s. 186/332/309 IPC.
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI i.e. the 10th of December, 2018 (This judgment consists of 16 pages) State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS PN 16/8 IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 35/2002 ID 66051/2016 U/S. 353/506 IPC PS Patel Nagar State Vs. Anil Bhatia 12.12.2018 ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for State(substitute).
Convict is produced from JC.
Sh. Jitender Kumar, Ld LAC is also present.
Matter is listed for arguments on the point of sentence.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant matter the convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 353/506 IPC vide judgment dated 10.12.2018. As per the judgment the accused has been convicted for obstructing the public servant in discharge of his official duty and has advanced life threats as well as threats to falsely implicate them in false case.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
SUBMISSIONS OF LD APP FOR STATE:
Ld APP for State submits that the convict be punished with maximum sentence provided by law for his felony. Ld APP has also submitted that the convict be punished with maximum punishment so that convict can realise his mistake. It is further submitted that the convict who is involved in around 30 FIRs had already been convicted and State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS Pate Nagar sentenced in another matter which was pending in this court. Ld APP for State has also pointed out towards Para NO 14, 15 and 16 of the Order of Ld District & Sessions Judge in the petition filed by the convict on 15.10.2018. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced herein under for ready reference:
"14. On consideration of Trial Court, I do not find any merits in the allegations alleged by the petitioner/ accused in the review petition and transfer petition against the Trial Court. The present case is more than 20 years old and the record shows that trial court always accommodated the petitioner/ accused and conducted trial as per well established principles of law. There is no material on record and the allegations of the petitioner/ accused against the court staff as well as trial court are unwarranted and contrary to the trial court record and does not hold water. The accused shall maintain discipline and decorum of the proceedings and submit to the rule of law of the country.
15. I have gone through the record of all the three cases and find that allegations are false, baseless and only in order to escape from justice. I direct the Ld Trial Court to proceed as per law. All the matters are old matters and as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court they have to be decided expeditiously at the earliest.
16. On the basis of above observation and discussion, I do not find any ground to review the order dated 27.9.18 and the present application is dismissed. The accused/ petitioner has already withdrawn the transfer petition on State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS Pate Nagar 8.10.18 bearing TP (Crl) NO 8/2018. There is no stay of proceedings and all the three trial Court records be sent back alongwith copy of this order."
SUBMISSIONS BY LD LAC FOR THE CONVICT:
On the other hand, Ld LAC for convict submits that convict has been facing trial in the present case for the last more than 20 years. It is further submitted that the convict was falsely implicated in this matter in order to get him evicted from the property in question. It is further submitted that the convict is suffering from cancer therefore, lenient view be taken against the convict.
LAW ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as BG Goswami vs. Delhi Admn reported as 1974 (3) SCC 85 held as under:
"............ The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must relise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies however reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS Pate Nagar harsh sentence both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate, thereby, making the offender a hardened criminal..........." The Law Commission of India (in its 47 th Report) has summed up the components of a proper sentence as under:
"A proper sentence is a composite of many factors, including the nature of the offence, the circumstances.................extenuating or aggravating...............of the offence, the prior criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the offender, the professional and social record of the offender, the background of the offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental condition of the offender, the prospect for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of a return of the offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of treatment or of training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by this offender, or by others, and the present community need, if any, for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence involved." In Ahmed Hussain Vali Mohd Saiyed and Anr vs. State of Gujarat reported as (2009) 7 SCC 254, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:
"99. ...........The object of awarding appropriate sentence should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence, which reflects the conscience of the State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS Pate Nagar society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentence or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result wise counter productive in long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
100. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Courts must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong."
In Sailesh JasvantBhai and Anr vs. State of Gujarat and Ors reported as(2006) 2 SCC 359 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "7. The law regulates social interest, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross culture conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the Courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS Pate Nagar order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Fiedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that "State of criminal law continues to be as it should be a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society. Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc.." Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hazara Singh vs. Raj Kumar and Ors reported as 2014 II AD(SC) 137 observed as under:
"13. We reiterate that in operating the sentence system, law should adopt the corrective State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS Pate Nagar machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment."
In the matter titled as Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2013) 6 SCC 770 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that it is mandatory for the Courts to consider the matter qua compensation to victims at the time of sentencing. The principle laid down in abovesaid judgments are being followed in the instant matter.
CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED DURING TRIAL:
It took around 20 years to conclude tnhe trial in the instant matter. On many of the occasions the convict has opted not appear before the Court. The convict had played delay tatitcs several times by filing frivolous applications and thereafter had preferred revision in this matter which were dismissed.
Perusal of the present file reveals that the convict had filed transfer application and the same was dismissed on 29.1.18. The convict State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS Pate Nagar had filed another transfer petition before Ld District and Sessions Judge and the same was disposed off vide order dated 27.9.18 wherein expeditious disposal of the matter was directed by Ld Revisionist Court.
FINDINGS/ORDER:
The report from the concerned police station regarding the involvement of the convict is already on record. The conduct of the convict clearly reveals that he is a habitual offender and does not have any respect to the law of land. Moreover the convict went to the extent of causing injury to himself with a motive and object to deter the public servant(Balliff) from discharge of his duty and to criminally intimidate the public servant so that he is not able to comply the Order of the Court. In these circumstances, the convict does not deserve leniency from this Court.
Accordingly, convict is sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for a period of 18 months for offence punishable u/s. 353 IPC and is also directed to undergo SI for a period of 4 years and 6 months for offence punishable u/s. 506(Part II) IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit u/s. 428 Cr.P.C. be also given to the convict.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date: 2018.12.12 Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH 15:47:37 +0530 i.e. the 12th of November, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
State Vs. Anil Bhatia; FIR No. 35/02; PS Pate Nagar