Delhi District Court
State vs . Harbans Singh Etc., on 14 September, 2012
1 FIR No:574/1999
State Vs. Harbans Singh etc.,
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO: 574/1999
PS: Dabri
U/s 448/34 IPC.
State V. Harbans Singh etc.,
Date of institution of the case : 10.08.2000
Date on which Judgment was reserved: 14.09.2012
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 152/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 13.08.1999
c) Name of the Complainant : Sh. Bachan Lal Saini
S/o Sh. Charan Dass
R/o H.No. RZ-65, Geetanjali
Park, West Sagar Pur,
New Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : 1). Harbans Singh
S/o Sh. Karam Singh
R/o RZ-1, Shankar Park,
West Sagar Pur, Delhi
2 FIR No:574/1999
State Vs. Harbans Singh etc.,
2). Radhey Shyam Mittal
S/o Sh. Babu Lal R/o RZ-14,
Geetanjali Park, West Sagar
Pur, Delhi
3). Gopi Chand Gupta
S/o Sh. Thakur Dass
R/o RZ-59, Geetanjali Park,
West Sagar Pur, Delhi
4). Surender Singh
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o RZ-14, Geetanjali Park,
West Sagar Pur, Delhi
e) Offence complained of : U/s 448/34 IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 14.09.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered on the statement of 3 FIR No:574/1999 State Vs. Harbans Singh etc., complainant Sh. Bachan Lal Saini. In brief the allegations leveled against accused persons are that on 13.08.1999 at about 4:00 pm at RZ-1, Shankar Park, Baba Balak Nath Mandir, West Sagar Pur, Delhi all the accused persons have thrown out the luggage/ articles belonging to complainant from his shop and they forcibly put their own articles/ luggage into the shop and thereafter tried to lock the shop from outside by a chain. And they also started breaking the wall from inside. He called the police at 100 number. Police came there and at his complaint the present case was registered. After completing the investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 CrPC filed against accused Harbans Singh and other three accused persons Radhey Shyam, Gopi Chand and Surender Singh were kept under column No.2.
2. Cognizance was taken accordingly and on the basis of material available with the charge sheet, all the four accused persons were summoned for the offence u/s 448/34 IPC and on considering the prima facie documents, notice served upon them for the offence u/s 448/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4 FIR No:574/1999
State Vs. Harbans Singh etc.,
3. To prove its case, Prosecution has cited Seven witnesses in its list of witnesses and examined only Two witnesses.
4. PW-1 ASI Sukhdev stated that on 13.08.1999 he was working as duty officer and at about 7.58 pm, he received rukka from Ct. Rajender on the basis of the which, he recorded formal FIR copy of which is Ex. PW-1/A and his endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW1/B.
5. PW-2 Bachan Lal Saini is the complainant himself, who deposed that he was running a sweet shop at the spot. He had constructed two shops. One was used as shop and another was used as a place to prepare material etc. He used to give rent of Rs.300/- to Sh. Harbans Singh. On 13.08.1999 all the 4 accused persons thrown away his articles and put their material in the shop and he was also manhandled in that process. Civil litigations were also filed between them. He had filed his complaint in this regard which is Ex.PW2/A. The articles put by the accused were taken into possession vide memo 5 FIR No:574/1999 State Vs. Harbans Singh etc., Ex.PW2/B.
6. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE closed. The statement of all the accused persons U/s 281 Cr.P.C recorded in which they denied all the allegations made against them and they further submitted that they do not want to lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the case is totally proved against the accused persons and they be given maximum punishment. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons stated that prosecution cannot prove any ingredients of the offence against accused persons. Accused persons are falsely implicated in the present case and are liable to be acquitted. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record.
8. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubts. In the present case, the charge 6 FIR No:574/1999 State Vs. Harbans Singh etc., against the accused persons is for the offence U/s 448/34 IPC which proves punishment for house trespass. House trespass is defined in Section 442 IPC which reads as under:-
" Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building, used as place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house trespass.
Explanation :- The introduction of any part of the criminal trespassers body entering is sufficient to constitute house trespass."
9. Therefore, in view of the above said provision to constitute the offence of house trespass, the main ingredients is that the accused persons have committed offence of criminal trespass which is provided under Section 441 IPC as under :-
7 FIR No:574/1999
State Vs. Harbans Singh etc., " Section 441. Criminal trespass :- Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intends 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 therewith, intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass. "
10. The combined readings of the above said provisions reveals that essential ingredients to establish offence U/s 448 IPC are :
I) Accused enters into or upon any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling in the possession of another,
ii) he does so with intent,
a) to commit an offence, or
b) thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy such person. 8 FIR No:574/1999
State Vs. Harbans Singh etc.,
11. The complainant in his complaint Ex.PW-2/A stated that accused persons trespassed into his shop and thrown out his articles. As he is only eye witness of the present case, therefore, his version must be uncontradictory and reliable. There are certain contradictions occurred in his statement. In Ex.PW2/A he stated that in the night of 12.08.1999, accused Harbans Singh have given him threatenings but no such thing is stated by him in his statement before the court. It is also stated by him in Ex.PW2/A that accused persons tried to lock outside the shop and started breaking the wall of the shop inside but none of these facts is stated by him before the court.
12. The offence of trespass is against the right of possession. But in the present matter the complainant could not proved even his possession on the said shop. During cross examination the complainant /PW-2 himself admitted that he cannot produce any document in order to establish that he was in possession of the premises. He also specifically admitted that possession of the premises had been handed over to accused Harbans Singh as per the order of the court. 9 FIR No:574/1999
State Vs. Harbans Singh etc., The recovery memo Ex.PW2/B pertains to the articles seized from the shop and that articles were also not of complainant. The complainant has also admitted in his cross examination that the articles seized vide memo Ex.PW2/B were of Mandir.
13. It is also held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sikandar Kumar Vs. State 1998 (3)Crimes 69 that material contradictions in the statements of witnesses creates doubt in the prosecution version and it would be unsafe to place total reliance on their testimony.
14. There is no any other evidence documentary or circumstantial to establish the fact that the complainant was in possession of the said shop and accused persons committed trespass in the said shop. Sole testimony of complainant which is itself contradictory and uncorroborated is not sufficient to establish the case of prosecution. Hence, keeping in view the above said discussion, court comes at the conclusion that prosecution failed to established its case beyond reasonable doubts. Benefit of doubt goes to accused persons. Hence, accused persons 10 FIR No:574/1999 State Vs. Harbans Singh etc., Harbans Singh, Radhey Shyam Mittal, Gopi Chand Gupta and Surender Singh stands acquitted in case FIR No.574/1999, PS: Dabri. Bail bonds of accused persons shall remain in force for the period of six month starting from today in accordance with section 437A Cr.P.C. as no fresh bail bond furnished by the accused persons. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 14th day of September' 2012 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 10 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
11 FIR No:574/1999
State Vs. Harbans Singh etc., FIR NO: 574/1999 PS: Dabri U/s 448/34 IPC.
State V. Harbans Singh etc., 14.09.2012.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
All accused are present with Ld. Counsel.
Statement of all accused persons recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C wherein they denied allegations leveled against them and not opted to lead any defence eivdence.
Final arguments heard today.
Vide separate judgment of even date pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused persons Harbans Singh, Radhey Shyam Mittal, Gopi Chand Gupta and Surender Singh are acquitted in the present case. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI