Delhi District Court
[State vs . Dharambir @ Tinku] on 8 October, 2016
Judgement in the matter of :-
[State vs. DHARAMBIR @ TINKU]
FIR no. 925/14 : PS Maurya Enclave
Dated : 8th October, 2016
: IN THE COURT OF :
SH. KANWALJEET ARORA :
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE - 03: NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI.
STATE v/s DHARAMBIR @ TINKU
Sessions Case No.: 53537/16
CNR No. : DLNW010077412016
FIR NO. : 925/14
Police Stn. : Mangol Puri.
Under Sec. : 174A IPC.
STATE
v e r s u s
DHARAMBIR @ TINKU
S/o.: Sh. Mohan Lal,
R/o.: N962, Mangol Puri, Delhi.
[.... Accused]
Date of filing of chargesheet u/s 174A IPC. : 26.08.2016
Date on which the case was instituted after
its assignment in this court : 03.10.2016
Date of conclusion of arguments : 06.10.2016
Date of Order : 08.10.2016
Memo of appearance:
Sh. Sanjay Jindal, Ld. Substitute Addl. APP for the State.
Sh.Ankur Sharma, Advocate, Ld. Amicus for the accused.
Sessions Case No. 53537 / 16 Page 1 of 7
Judgement in the matter of :-
[State vs. DHARAMBIR @ TINKU]
FIR no. 925/14 : PS Maurya Enclave
Dated : 8th October, 2016
J U D G E M E N T :
1.Police of PS Mangol Puri had apprehended accused Dharambir @ Tinku along with coaccused Anuj Gupta for offences punishable under section 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC, on the allegations that both of them in furtherance of their common intention on 27.05.2014 had given beatings to Amin and Virender with a broken beer bottle with such intention and under such circumstances that if they by said act had caused death of Amin and Virender, they would have been guitly of murder.
2. On the basis of rukka prepared by SI Amit Nara, FIR No.925/14 was registered at PS Mangol Puri. The same was investigated and on conclusion of investigations, a charge sheet was filed in Court for trial of accused Dharambir @ Tinku and his coaccused Anuj Gupta under relevant provisions i.e. Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. During the pendency of said proceedings before Ld.Predecessor of this Court, accused Sessions Case No. 53537 / 16 Page 2 of 7 Judgement in the matter of :-
[State vs. DHARAMBIR @ TINKU] FIR no. 925/14 : PS Maurya Enclave Dated : 8th October, 2016 Dharambir @ Tinku absented himself. Despite issuance of warrants against him, when accused Dharambir @ Tinku could not be arrested, proclamation proceedings were initiated against him on 26.08.2015, which were executed. Despite execution of those proclamation proceedings, when accused Dharambir@ Tinku failed to surrender before the court on or before the due date, he was declared "proclaimed offender" on 19.11.2015.
4. Pursuant to his rearrest in this case on 02.06.2016, a supplementary charge sheet was filed before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for proceeding against Dharambir @ Tinku for offences punishable under section 174A IPC.
5. The said supplementary charge sheet was committed to the court of Sessions as the other case for offences under Section 307/34 IPC was also revived for trial of the present accused. The same was assigned to this court. On receipt of the supplementary chargesheet for proceeding against Dharambir @ Tinku under Section 174A IPC and finding that the same had arisen on the basis of Sessions Case No. 53537 / 16 Page 3 of 7 Judgement in the matter of :-
[State vs. DHARAMBIR @ TINKU] FIR no. 925/14 : PS Maurya Enclave Dated : 8th October, 2016 subsequent event, the same was separately registered as separate Sessions Case.
6. After hearing arguments on point of charge as advanced by Ld. APP for state and by Ld. Amicus for the accused and finding prima facie case against him for offence punishable under section 174A IPC, requisite charge was framed on 06.10.2016, to which accused pleaded not guilty.
7. Prosecution was thereafter called upon to substantiate its case by examining its witnesses. To do so, prosecution had examined IO SI Amit Nara who relied upon the judicial orders passed by this court regarding issuance of process U/s 8283 Cr.PC and the order vide which accused was declared proclaimed offender.
8. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC wherein he admitted that during pendency of the proceedings, he absented himself and failed to surrender in court after execution of the proclamation proceedings against him.
Sessions Case No. 53537 / 16 Page 4 of 7Judgement in the matter of :-
[State vs. DHARAMBIR @ TINKU] FIR no. 925/14 : PS Maurya Enclave Dated : 8th October, 2016
9. Accused did not wish to lead any evidence in his defence.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for state as well as by Sh. Ankur Sharma, Advocate, Ld. Amicus appearing for accused Dharambir @ Tinku.
11. Perusal of Section 44 of the Amendment Act 25 of 2005 reveals that by this act, Indian Penal Code was amended and Section 174A IPC was brought on the Statute Book, as a punishable offence vide notification with effect from 23.06.2006.
12. The object for which this provision was brought on the statute book is to punish a person, who being legally bound to appear before the court to answer the charge for which he was put to trial, on his failure to do so makes himself liable to be punished for violation of the process of administration of justice.
13. In the present case, it is apparent that accused Dharambir @ Tinku who being an accused Sessions Case No. 53537 / 16 Page 5 of 7 Judgement in the matter of :-
[State vs. DHARAMBIR @ TINKU] FIR no. 925/14 : PS Maurya Enclave Dated : 8th October, 2016 in FIR no. 925/14 PS Mangol Puri was charged for offence punishable U/s 307/34 IPC by Ld. Predecessor of this court on 25.09.2014. In order to facilitate him to defend himself properly and to restore his personal liberty, he was admitted to bail vide orders dated 25.09.2014 itself with directions to appear in court on the dates of hearing. As accused Dharambir @ Tinku was legally bound to appear before the court on the dates so fixed, but he failed to do so from 18.03.2015 onwards, which led to initiation of proclamation proceedings against him.
14. Vide orders dated 19.11.2015 which were passed on the basis of statement of process server HC Surender Singh CW1 coupled with Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/F, the present accused was declared proclaimed offender. Not only owing to the execution of the proclamation proceedings, but even otherwise accused Dharambir @ Tinku being aware of the pendency of the proceedings, failed to appear. He further failed to surrender himself in court, despite the proclamation proceedings.
15. No justifiable reason has been adduced Sessions Case No. 53537 / 16 Page 6 of 7 Judgement in the matter of :-
[State vs. DHARAMBIR @ TINKU] FIR no. 925/14 : PS Maurya Enclave Dated : 8th October, 2016 on record by the accused for his failure to surrender in court despite proclamation proceedings. Thus, prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused Dharambir @ Tinku for offence under Section 174A IPC, which even otherwise he has admitted, during his statement under section 313 Cr.PC.
F I N A L V E R D I C T :
16. In view thereof, accused Darambir @ Tinku is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 174A IPC.
17. Let he be heard on point of sentence.
Announced in open court on 8th day of October, 2016.
(KANWAL JEET ARORA) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE 03 NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 53537 / 16 Page 7 of 7