Delhi District Court
State vs Mayus Verma on 29 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF HARSHAL NEGI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02, DWARKA COURT,
NEW DELHI.
FIR No.: 279/2021
PS: Mohan Garden
U/s: 188 IPC
Case no. 9706/2021
State
Vs.
Mayus Verma
S/o Sh. Arya Kumar
R/o H. No. 87, Gali no. 4, Vipin Garden,
Mohan Garden, New Delhi. ..... Accused
S. No. of the case : 9706/2021
The date of offence : 21.06.2021
The name of the complainant : ASI Sanjay Kumar
The name of the accused : Mayus Verma
The offence complained : 188 IPC
The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Argument heard on : 29.06.2024
The date of order : 29.06.2024
The final order : Acquitted
Brief Facts
1. It is the case of the prosecution that ASI Sanjay Kumar on 21.06.2021 along with Ct Phool Chand were in emergency duty and after receiving DD no. 17A reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 87, Gali no. 4, Vipin Garden Extn. where they found one Nigerian lady Madinah who was living on rent on said premises. ASI Sanjay Kumar asked her about her passport and visa which she told him that she could not produce. She told him that she has given a copy of her passport and visa to her landlord Mayus Verma. She further told ASI Sanjay Kumar that the accused landlord did not get the police verification conducted. An FIR bearing no. 279/2021 u/s FIR No.: 279/2021 State versus Mayus Verma Page No. 1 of 7 188 IPC came to be registered at PS Mohan Garden.
2. Investigation was set into motion and was conducted by IO ASI Sanjay Kumar. Chargesheet was filed by ASI Sanjay Kumar under Section 188 IPC.
3. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents were supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'). On finding a prima facie case against him, charge under Section 188 IPC was framed against the accused on 20.12.2021 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of the trial the accused admitted FIR No 279/2021 PS Mohan Garden Ex P1, Permission under Section 195 Crpc by ACP Jogender Joon Ex PW1/5. Thus, witness at serial No 3 & 6 were dropped. Further, the prosecution failed to ensure the presence of witness at serial No 5 and witness at serial No 5 was also dropped. Also on the request of the APP witness at serial No 4 was also dropped.
Prosecution Evidence
5. The prosecution examined the following witnesses:
i. ASI Sanjay Kumar was examined as PW1. He stated that on 21.06.2021, he was posted as ASI at PS Mohan Garden. At about 8.00 AM, he alongwith Ct. Phool Chand were in the emergency duty and after receiving DD no. 17A reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 87, Gali no. 4, Vipin Garden Extn.
FIR No.: 279/2021 State versus Mayus Verma Page No. 2 of 7 where they found one Nigerian lady Madinah who was living on rent on said premises. He asked her about her passport and visa which she told him that she could not produce. She told him that she has given a copy of her passport and visa to her landlord Mayus Verma (accused present in the court and correctly identified by witness). She told him that the accused landlord did not got the police verification conducted. The accused Mayus Verma had done offence u/s 188 IPC. He prepared the rukka which is Ex. PW1/1 (bearing his signature at point A). He prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW1/2 (bearing his signature at point A). Photocopy of Adhar Card of accused Mayus Verma which he gave to him which is Ex. PW1/3 (bearing his signature at point A). The application u/s 195 CrPC to ACP, Najafgarh is which is Ex. PW1/4 (bearing his signature at point A). The sanction received from ACP, Najafgarh is which is Ex. PW1/5. The Order of ACP, Najafgarh dt. 24.04.2021 which is Ex. PW1/6 (bearing his signature at point A). He gave notice u/s 41A CrPC to the accused which is Ex. PW1/7 (bearing his signature at point A). He recorded the statement of witnesses. The pabandinama of accused Mayus is Ex. PW1/8 (bearing his signature at point A). He prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before FIR No.: 279/2021 State versus Mayus Verma Page No. 3 of 7 this court.
ii. In his cross examination he stated that he is posted in PS Mohan Garden for last one and half years. He reached the house of accused Mayus at 8.00 AM. He went inside the house of accused. The house of accused is of two storey. He do not know the number of rooms in house of accused. He do not know whether there other tenants other than Madinah. He did not find any other tenant in house of accused. He did not ask any public person about the tenancy of some other person in house of accused other than Madinah. He do not know whether Rebicca used to reside in the room of Madinah at same premises. He denied the suggestion that the police verification of tenant Madinah was under process. He do not know whether the police verification document was received on the same day when he visited the house of accused. (At this stage, Ld. Defence Counsel has shown a police verification form dt. 21.06.2021 (i.e. the date of offence). Form C, passport and visa of Madinah. The same are Ex. PW1/D1 (Colly.) (running into 4 pages).) He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
FIR No.: 279/2021 State versus Mayus Verma Page No. 4 of 7
6. The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed and the statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 07.06.2024 wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing on record against the accused was put to him but he denied the same. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
7. Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the witness has stated the case completely and the accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
8. Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable ground, therefore, accused may be acquitted in present case.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. Findings of the Court
10. Before embarking on the analysis and appreciation of the statements and evidences on record it is apposite to state that to bring home the guilt of the accused in any criminal matter beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt the burden rests always upon the prosecution. The burden of proof on the prosecution is heavy, constant and does not shift. The case of the prosecution needs to stand on its own footing failing which benefit of doubt ought to be given in favour of the accused. Needless to say, in this case also, with or without defense evidence, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the touchstone of the above settled legal proposition the facts of the present case are to be FIR No.: 279/2021 State versus Mayus Verma Page No. 5 of 7 analysed.
11. In this case accused has been charged and being tried for offence under section 188 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the offence under Section 188 IPC has been committed by the accused did not carry out the police verification of the tenant namely Madinah and thus has contravened Notification No 1817-47/R/ACP Sub Div Najafgarh dated 24/04/2021.
12. The date of incident is 21/06/2021 when PW 1 along with Ct Phool Chand went to the spot and found tenant namely Madinah who informed that the landlord, herein the accused, had not carried out her police verification. During the course of cross examination of PW 1 the accused placed on record the police verification dated 21/06/2021 of the tenant Madinah Ex PW1/D1 (Colly) (running into 4 pages) to PW1. Perusal of Ex PW1/D1 proves that the accused had carried out the police verification of the tenant Madinah on that date itself i.e. 21/06/2021. To this effect the suggestion was also put to PW 1 that the police verification of tenant was under process. Thus, it stands proved that the accused had already initiated steps qua police verification and the same was pending at the end of the police and also the police verification of tenant Madinah was done by the accused on 21/06/2021 itself and he did not contravene the said notification.
13. The case of the prosecution fails on another ground. The tenant Madinah was never examined by the prosecution. Although the tenant Madinah was made a witness at serial No 5, however, the prosecution failed to ensure her presence and she could not be examined. Thus, it never came on record that tenant namely FIR No.: 279/2021 State versus Mayus Verma Page No. 6 of 7 Madinah ever resided at the address of the accused in the first place.
14. Hence, the offences u/s 188 IPC is not made out. Therefore, accused is bound to get to acquitted in this case.
15. Accused Mayus Verma s/o Arya Kumar r/o H. No. 87, Gali no. 4, Vipin Garden, Mohan Garden, New Delhi thus, stands acquitted of the offence under section 188 IPC, he has been charged and tried with. Digitally signed by HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
Announced in the open court on 29.06.2024. 2024.06.29 20:22:41 +0530 (Harshal Negi) MM-02/Dwarka Court, New Delhi, 29.06.2024 It is certified that the present judgment runs into 7 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date: 2024.06.29 20:22:47 +0530 (Harshal Negi) MM-02/DwarkaCourt, New Delhi, 29.06.2024 FIR No.: 279/2021 State versus Mayus Verma Page No. 7 of 7