Delhi District Court
State vs . Niranjan Mishra on 17 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 23/2018
ID 4716/2018
U/S. 188 IPC
PS Ranjit Nagar
State Vs. Niranjan Mishra
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 4716/2018
2. Date of commission of offence 14.1.2018
3. Name of complainant HC Raj Kumar
4. Name of accused Niranjan Mishra
s/o. Sh. Baidhnath
r/o. H NO. A240, Pandav Nagar
New Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 188 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 17.9.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 14.1.2018 at about 10.15 AM at H NO. A240, Pandav Nagar, Delhi, he being the landlord had kept a tenant without police verification.
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the State Vs. Niranjan Mishra; FIR No. 23/18; PS RN 1/5 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. NOTICE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Notice for offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC was given to the 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 two witnesses. The testimony of the said witnesses in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is Sh. Jagdish. PW1 was the tenant. PW1 in his testimony recorded in the court deposed that on 14.1.18 he was residing in the house in question. PW1 further stated that the accused was the landlord of said house and on that day IO had made inquries from him and he told the IO that he had been residing in the said house for last about 4 years and the landlord had not got the police verification.
(b)PW2 is HC Raj Kumar. PW2 is the investigating officer as well as the complainant. PW2 deposed regarding the investigation carried out by him and also proved the documents prepared by him
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the State Vs. Niranjan Mishra; FIR No. 23/18; PS RN 2/5 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 not led any evidence in his defence.
6. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND ACCUSED: 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 keeping tenant without police verification by accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case. On the other hand, accused has submitted that he was not aware about the notification.
7. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the State Vs. Niranjan Mishra; FIR No. 23/18; PS RN 3/5 prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
(ii) It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.(iii) In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
(iv) PW1 who was the tenant of the house in question. PW1 deposed that he was residing in the said house for the last about 4 years and his police verification was not got done by the accused. PW2 is the complainant. PW2 deposed that while on patrolling and tenant verification duty they went to the house in question where they came to know that the accused had not got police verification of the tenant. The relevant extract of the testimony of witness is reproduced for ready reference: "PW1: On 14.1.18, I was residing at the above said address as tenant. The landlord of the said house is Niranjan Mishra..........On that day, IO HC Raj Kumar alongwith Ct. Jaipal came to me at the said address and made inquiries from me. I had told the IO that I have been residing at the said address for the last about 4 years and the landlord had not got done his police verification."
"PW2: On 14.1.18, I was posted at PS Ranjit Nagar as HC. On that day, I was on patrolling and tenant verification duty alongwith Ct Jaipal.........when reached at H NO. A240, Pandav Nagar the landlord of said house met us on inquiry he told that he had kept a tenant namely Sh Jagdish. When State Vs. Niranjan Mishra; FIR No. 23/18; PS RN 4/5 I asked him to produce the documents regarding police verification of the tenant, he told me that he had not got done the police verification of the said tenant. Thereafter I made inquries from tenant Sh Jagdish and he told me that he had been residing in the said house for the last abut 4 years but his police verification has not been got done."
(v) Nothing substantial in the favour of the accused has came on record despite being cross examined. Thus, prosecution has successfully brought on record that accused had not complied with the order of MHA and violated the order of concerned ACP and had not submitted the tenant verification form in the police station. Thus, the aforesaid cumulative and corroborating testimonies of PW1 & PW2 clearly proves that the accused has violated the orders of ACP concerned.
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is hereby convicted for said offence.
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI i.e. the 17th of September, 2018 (This judgment consists of 5 pages) State Vs. Niranjan Mishra; FIR No. 23/18; PS RN 5/5 IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 23/2018 ID 4716/2018 U/S. 188 IPC PS Ranjit Nagar State Vs. Niranjan Mishra ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for state.
Convict in person.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by convict that he is the sole bread earner for his family. It is further submitted that he not a previous convict. It is further submitted that he belongs to poor strata of society. Convict has prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convict be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC. No previous conviction has been alleged or State Vs. Niranjan Mishra; FIR No. 23/18; PS RN 2/2 proved against convict. The convict is not involved in any such case, as stated by him. Convict is having a family to support. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused belongs to the poor strata of the society, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be met if the convict is admonished. Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH Sentenced accordingly. SINGH Date: 2018.09.17 12:54:18 +0530 Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH i.e. the 17th of September, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI State Vs. Niranjan Mishra; FIR No. 23/18; PS RN 2/2