Delhi District Court
State vs . Bhola Prasad on 11 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01, WEST, THC NEW DELHI STATE VS. BHOLA PRASAD FIR No.19/19 PS Punjabi Bagh U/s 188 IPC JUDGMENT
New Case No. : 3613/19
Date of Institution : 24.04.2019
Date of Commission of Offence : 10.01.2019
Name of the complainant : IO HC Vijender Singh
No.1115/W, PS Punjabi Bagh
Name & address of the accused : Bhola Prasad
s/o Sh. Shobit Sah
r/o H.No.83C, T Huts, Golden
Park, Ram Pura, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 188 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of reserve for judgment : 11.11.2019
Date of announcing of judgment : 11.11.2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. By this judgment, the court shall decide the present matter under Section 188 Indian Penal Code.
2. The briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 10.01.2019, at about 07:10 pm at Jhuggi No.83C, T Huts, Golden Park, Delhi, accused being the landlord of the aforesaid property rented out the same to one Ram Snehi Sah without any police verification and violated the order of State vs Bhola Prasad. U/s. 188 IPC FIR No.19/2019 1 /4 concerned ACP and thereby accused had committed an offence u/s 188 IPC. Complaint was made to police and First Information Report was registered in the present case.
3. The chargesheet was filed against the accused in the court. Copy of the chargesheet and related documents were supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, notice was framed against the accused under Section 188 IPC on 21.09.2019 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined only one witness which is as follows:
5. PW1, Sh. Ram Snehi Sah, deposed that he was residing as a tenant in the Jhuggi No.83C, T Huts, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi as a tenant for the last 1½ 2 years. He further deposed that accused owner / landlord had not got done his tenant verification. He also deposed that he had given his identity card and photo to his landlord before shifting the abovesaid premises for getting his police verification done. He further deposed that he is still residing at the said jhuggi and does not know further about the present case.
6. Statement of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. with respect to admission / denial of document is recorded separately. As enough incriminating material has come on record therefore prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused has denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. Accused State vs Bhola Prasad. U/s. 188 IPC FIR No.19/2019 2 /4 have submitted that he has been falsely implicated. No defence evidence was led despite opportunity.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
8. PW1 is a star witness in the present case. His testimony has remained intact on all the material facts. There is no reason for the witness to depose falsely against the accused. The court does not see any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1.
9. The prosecution witnesses has deposed about the incident fully in consonance with the facts mentioned in the charge sheet. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witness. The prosecution has proved the fact that the accused Bhola Prasad had rented out the premises i.e. H.No. 83C, T Huts, Golden Park, Delhi to Sh. Ram Snehi Sah however he had not got done his police verification. All the ingredients of section 188 of IPC are proved. The testimony of prosecution witness comes out to be clear, convincing, trustworthy & inspires confidence of this Court. Accordingly, accused namely is hereby convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 188 IPC.
10. Be put up for hearing convict on his point of sentence at 12 noon.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (MANU VEDWAN) COURT ON 11.11.2019 MM01(WEST)/ TIS HAZARI COURT State vs Bhola Prasad. U/s. 188 IPC FIR No.19/2019 3 /4 ORDER ON SENTENCE At 3 pm I have Heard Ld. APP for the State and the convict on the point of sentence. Convict Bhola Prasad was inquired about his individual and family circumstance. It is submitted by convict that he is the only earning member in his family. It is further submitted by convict that he has no previous involvement in any criminal case. Convict prays that lenient view may be taken against him and opportunity may be given to lead a peaceful life.
On the other hand ld. APP submitted that convict does not deserve any leniency and maximum punishment be awarded.
Heard and perused.
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the antecedents and the inclination of the convict to improve his behaviour to live in the society as a law abiding citizen and also considering the change of philosophy of punishment in modern era, changing its orientation from retribution to restitution, treating the convict as patient who needs treatment rather than punishment and considering principles of criminal justice system that aims to reduce the criminality from the society for larger interest; the court is of considered view that ends of justice shall be met if the convict is sentenced to pay fine in sum of Rs.200/ and in default SI for 2 days. Fine paid.
Let the copy of judgment and copy of order on sentence be given to convict at free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (MANU VEDWAN) COURT ON 11.11.2019 MM01/W/ TIS HAZARI COURT State vs Bhola Prasad. U/s. 188 IPC FIR No.19/2019 4 /4