Delhi District Court
Abid vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 20 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH ,
SPECIAL JUDGE;NDPS SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
CA 341/2018
CNR No. DLST010059892018
Abid .......... appellant
s/o Mohd. Umar
r/o S53/344, Gandhi Camp,
Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi
versus
State (GNCT of Delhi) ......... respondent
Through Ld. APP.
FIR NO. 459 /2017 PS Saket Sh. Rajesh Pandey Advocate for appellant.
Sh. F. M. Ansari Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent.
Date of Institution : 11th September 2018
Date of Judgment : 20th November 2018
J U D G M E N T
1. Appellant has challenged judgment dated 16.04.2018 and order on sentence dated 19.04.2018 passed by the Court of Ld. CMM, South in FIR No. 459/17, PS Saket. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted u/s 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984. He was sentenced to SI for six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ . In default of payment of the fine, he has to undergo SI for 15 days. The appellant deposited the fine before Learned Trial Court.
Abid vs State page no. 1 of 4 CA No. 341/2018
2. The allegation against the appellant was that on 05.09.2017 when he was produced before Court of Ld. MM in Saket Courts from JC for hearing in case FIR No. 350/2016. On the same day, he was to be produced in two other cases. While he was being taken to the other Court in the elevator from second floor to the fifth floor, he intentionally and mischievously hit the glass of the elevator. The glass of the elevator broke and the appellant also suffered injury. As he had caused damage to the public property by mischief, the FIR was registered. Vide order dated 26.10.2017 charge was framed against him for the above mentioned offence to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellant/accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC on 05.04.2018 and he did not opt for defence evidence.
4. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the prosecution did not prove the ingredients of Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Police did not produce any CCTV recording of the incident. No public witness was examined. Excessive sentence was imposed.
5. I have considered the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the appellant and the arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
6. Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 provides for the punishment for causing damage to public property by mischief. Mischief is defined u/s 2 (a) of the Act and it has the same meaning as provided u/s 425 IPC. U/s 425 IPC provides that whoever with intent to cause, or knowing Abid vs State page no. 2 of 4 CA No. 341/2018 that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in the property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously, commits mischief.
7. PW4 Ct. Ajit was producing the appellant before the Court on the day of incident. His statement shows that the appellant broke the glass in the elevator by hitting the same with his right elbow. It was not an accident. In his cross examination he stated that there was no CCTV camera inside and outside the lift. Nothing has come in his crossexamination to create doubt regarding veracity of his statement. Breaking of the glass is confirmed by the statement of PW5, PW6 and PW7. The photographs Ex. P1 show the broken glass in the elevator. The appellant was examined by PW9 Doctor Rashmi Pandey. She examined the appellant and gave treatment to him vide OPD ticket Ex. PW9/A. The appellant took the stand that the injury was caused to him by fall on the floor. There is no reason for the PWs to depose falsely against the appellant. The grounds of appeal have no merit.
8. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed against the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2018. The appellant challenged the order on sentence dated 19.04.2018 also but at the time of arguments, the appeal qua the order on sentence was not pressed as the appellant has already served the sentence and had already deposited the fine. The appeal against the order on sentence is also dismissed.
Abid vs State page no. 3 of 4 CA No. 341/2018
9. Appeal is dismissed. Trial Court Record be returned to the Trial Court concerned alongwith copy of this order.
10. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
(announced in the RAJESH (Rajesh Kumar Singh )
open Court on KUMAR Special Judge (NDPS)
20th November 2018) SINGH
South District: Saket
Digitally signed by
RAJESH KUMAR
SINGH
Date: 2018.11.20
16:47:40 +0530
Abid vs State page no. 4 of 4
CA No. 341/2018