Delhi District Court
State vs Rampat on 6 March, 2020
State versus Rampat
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NORTH) 05,
ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Rampat
FIR No. 66/13
PS Bawana
U/s. 447/188 IPC
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 5283141/16
2 Date of commission : 11.02.2013
3 Date of institution of the case : 30.01.2014
4 Name of complainant : SI Randhir
5 Name of accused : Rampat S/o Late Sh. Rati
Ram
6 Offence complained of : U/s. 447/188 IPC
7 Notice framed : U/s 447 IPC
8 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9 Arguments heard on : 06.03.2020
Digitally
10 Final order : Convicted signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV MEHTA
11 Date of judgment : 06.03.2020 MEHTA Date:
2020.03.11
16:33:00
+0530
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on or before 11.02.2013, at about 02.00 pm, at K. No. 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 (½), 37, 8, 12, 2 (½) Village Auchandi, near main Auchandi Road, Delhi, the accused committed criminal trespass by encroaching FIR No. 66/13 PS Bawana 1 of 8 State versus Rampat upon the abovesaid land and started cultivating on the said land which was attached by SDM, Narela vide order dated 15.05.2007. Thereafter, the present FIR got registered against accused for offence U/s. 447/188 IPC.
CHARGE
2. Prima facie case of commission of offences under Section 447 IPC was made out against the accused and charge was framed upon the accused on 15.10.2015 wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION
3. The prosecution has examined 05 witness.
PROSECUTION WITNESS
PW1 HC Dinesh Duty officer
PW2 Praveen Kumar Alleged owner of the
trespassed land
PW3 HC Jaivir Singh Assisted the IO
PW4 Retd. SI Randhir Singh Complainant / IO of
the case
PW5 Rvi Kumar Reader to SDM
4. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents: Exhibited by Contents Exhibits PW1 Copy of FIR, PW1/A & PW1/B & endorsement on rukka PW1/C FIR No. 66/13 PS Bawana 2 of 8 State versus Rampat and certificate u/s 65B PW2 Arrest memo and PW2/A & PW2/B personal search memo PW3 Seizure memo PW3/A PW4 Rukka and site plan PW4/A & PW4/B PW5 Copy of order no. PW5/A and PW5/B F.No.SDM/ (NL)/2012/265 dated 28.01.2013 & another order dated 15.05.2007
5. PW1 HC Dinesh proved copy of FIR Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW1/B and also proved certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/C.
6. PW2 Praveen Kumar deposed that his father got approximate 4½ acre of agricultural land in the family partition and they are owners of said land bearing Khasra no. 22/13, 14, 16, 17, 18 (½) which is situated in between Auchandi Canal and Auchandi Border and adjacent to the road and the said land was attached by SDM Narela vide order dated 15.05.2007 and similarly agricultural land claimed by Dilbagh Singh bearing khasra no. 22/3, 7, 8, 12, & 2 (½) was also attached by SDM Narela and on 13.11.2012 the abovesaid land of 4½ acre was cultivated by accused and his sons after which he complained to the police and on 28.01.2013 the SDM sent the order of said attachment and on 11.02.2013 he made a call to police after which police officials came at abovesaid land FIR No. 66/13 PS Bawana 3 of 8 State versus Rampat and found that accused was ploughing the land with tractor bearing no. DEG 9242 and showed the attachment order of the SDM Narela, but accused refused to follow the orders of SDM and so IO prepared rukka and after registration of FIR, accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/A and also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW2/B and the abovesaid tractor was also seized.
7. PW3 HC Jaivir Singh deposed that on 11.02.2013, at about 02.00 pm, he alongwith SI Randhir Singh reached at abovesaid khasra numbers and saw that accused was ploughing the field with tractor bearing no. DEG 9242 and PW Praveen produced the copy of an order of SDM, however, accused refused to see the said order after which IO prepared the rukka and thereafter, IO seized the said tractor vide seizure memo as Ex. PW3/A.
8. PW4 Retd. SI Randhir Singh deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW4/A and also prepared site plan Ex. PW4/B.
9. PW5 Ravi Kumar brought the original order no. F.No.SDM (NL)/2012/265 dated 28.01.2013 of the then SDM Narela, Ajay Arora and he acquainted the signature of Sh. Ajay Arora and proved the copy of said order as Ex. PW5/A (OSR) and he also proved the order dated 15.05.2007 passed by the then SDM, Narela Sh. Vijay Dogra as Ex. PW5/B (OSR).
FIR No. 66/13 PS Bawana 4 of 8 State versus Rampat
10. Thereafter, PE was closed on 22.02.2019.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
11. Statements of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 04.03.2020 separately and he opted not to lead defence evidence and matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. The Ld. APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are consistent and corroborate each other and the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.
The Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that there are serious inconsistencies in the deposition of prosecution witnesses and therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and he should be acquitted in the present case.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
13. Section 441 defines as Criminal trespass: Who ever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to FIR No. 66/13 PS Bawana 5 of 8 State versus Rampat intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
14. Section 447 defines as punishment for criminal trespass: Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundres rupees, or with both.
COURT OBSERVATIONS:
15. After going through the material on record including the testimony of prosecution witnesses, this court makes the following observations:
(a) PW2 Praveen Kumar is the alleged owner of the land in question and he has stated that he became the owner of the said land after family partition and the said land was attached by SDM Narela vide order dated 15.05.2007 and despite the said order, the accused Rampat encroached upon the land defying the order of the SDM Narela after which the SDM issued another clarification order dated 28.01.2013 and when the accused Rampat continued the encroachment, he made a call to the police on 11.02.2013.
(b) PW 2 Praveen has further stated that when he alongwith FIR No. 66/13 PS Bawana 6 of 8 State versus Rampat the police officials went to the land in question, accused Rampat was ploughing the land in question with a tractor and accused refused to follow the orders of the SDM and continued ploughing the land.
(c) The testimony of PW2 Praveen has been corroborated by the deposition of PW3 HC Jaiveer Singh and PW4 Rtd. SI Randhir Singh who have deposed on the same lines.
(d) The copy of order dated 15.05.2007 is on the record and as per the said order, the accused Rampat was only allowed to harvest the standing crop in the land in dispute and was not allowed to cultivate the land.
(e) As per the order dated 28.01.2013 placed on record by the prosecution, the SDM Narela had clarified that the attachment dated 15.05.2007 has not been vacated and the possession of the land is with the court of SDM Narela and so no encroachment be done on the said land.
(f) The prosecution witnesses have given consistent testimonies and the same stands corroborated from the other material placed on record including the arrest memos, seizure memos, the statements u/s 161 Cr.PC of the witnesses and the order of the SDM Narela dated 15.05.2007 and 28.01.2013.
FIR No. 66/13 PS Bawana 7 of 8 State versus Rampat
(g) The orders of SDM Narela dated 15.05.2007 and 28.01.2013 are clear and unequivocal that the attachment with respect to the land in question has still not been vacated and no encroachment be done on the said land and the accused Rampat was only allowed to harvest the standing crop.
(h) The testimony of PW2 Praveen duly corroborated by PW3 HC Jaiveer and Rtd. SI Randhir are sufficient to prove that the accused Rampat encroached upon the land in question and carried out cultivation defying the orders of the SDM Narela.
(i) After going through the material on record including the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, this court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused Rampat beyond doubt.
16. For the reasons mentioned above, this court convicts the accused Rampat for offences u/s 447 IPC.
17. Let he be heard on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA)
court on 06.03.2020 MM5 (North), Rohini Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 66/13 PS Bawana 8 of 8