Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajneesh Gupta on 27 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 3582017
U/S. 3 DPDP Act
PS Patel Nagar
State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta
Case ID No. 16882018
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 16882018
2. Date of commission of offence 10.11.2017
3. Name of complainant HC Vijender
4. Name of accused Rajneesh Gupta
S/o. Sh. Shanti Sawroop Gupta
R/o; H.No. RZ78, EKamal Park,
Sagarpur, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 3 DPDP Act
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 27.10.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 10.11.2017, at EBlock, wall of Sarvodya Kanya Vidhayala, West State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta ; FIR No. 358-17; PS PN 1/8 Patel Nagar, Delhi, accused defaced the public property i.e. wall of the said school by putting a poster and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as DPDP Act).
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the 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. 3 DPDP Act 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 HC Vijender, who had deposed before the court that on 10.11.2017, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar as HC. On that day, the present case was marked to him by the SHO for further investigation. After that he reached at the spot i.e. EBlock, Wall of Sarvodya Kanya Vidhaylala, West Patel Nagar, Delhi, where Ct. Paramjeet, Ct. Manoj and SI Satyavir Singh met him and SI State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta ; FIR No. 358-17; PS PN 2/8 Satyavir Singh handed over the seizure memo of the case property and case property i.e. one poster to him. He further deposed that after that he prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Satyavir Singh, which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he called the accused Rajneesh Gupta on the mobile number mentioned on the poster in PS and he narrated the entire facts of the case to the accused. He further deposed that after that he arrested the accused, vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that after that accused was released on police bail after furnishing of appropriate surety being the bailable offence. He recorded the statement Ct. Pararmjeet and Ct. Manoj. After completion of the investigation of the case, he filed the chargesheet before the court for judicial verdict.
(b)PW2 is SI Satyavir, who had deposed before the court that on 10.11.2017, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar as SI. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Parmjeet and Ct. Manoj were on patrolling duty in area and while patrolling when they reached near EBlock, Wall of Sarvodya Kanya Vidhalya, West Patel Nagar, Delhi, they saw that one poster was affixed on the wall of Government School. After that, he clicked the photograph of the said poster and the poster was State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta ; FIR No. 358-17; PS PN 3/8 brought down on the ground and taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir, which is Ex. PW1/B. FIR was got registered under section 3 of DPDP Act, through Ct. Paramjeet. After registration of the present case HC Vijender came at the spot. After that he handed over the case property i.e. poster and seizure memo to the second IO/HC Vijender. Thereafter, he discharged from the spot.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused has admitted the allegations however stated that he was not aware about the Defacement of Property Act. 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 defacement of the public property 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 stated that he was not aware about State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta ; FIR No. 358-17; PS PN 4/8 the Act and has stated that the poster was put just to bring to the notice of public.
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 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) Photographs of the poster are on record. The photograph State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta ; FIR No. 358-17; PS PN 5/8 clearly reveals that the poster was put on the wall of the Government School. Bare perusal of the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, who are the material witnesses show that the accused had committed the offence of defacement of the public property/wall of Government School by putting the poster. Moreover, accused has also admitted the allegations of putting of poster in his statement recorded u/s. 313 cr.p.c. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW1 and PW2 are reproduced below for ready reference: "...PW1: On 10.11.2017, I was posted at PS Patel Nagar as HC. On that day, the present case was marked to me by the SHO for further investigation. After that I reached at the spot i.e. EBlock, Wall of Sarvodya Kanya Vidhaylala, West Patel Nagar, Delhi, where Ct. Paramjeet, Ct. Manoj and SI Satyavir Singh met me and SI Satyavir Singh handed over the seizure memo of the case property and case property i.e. one poster to me. After that I prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Satyavir Singh, which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I called the accused Rajneesh Gupta (who is present in the court today, correctly identified by the witness) on the mobile number mentioned on the poster in PS and I narrated the entire facts of the case to the accused. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C, bearing my signature at point A. I recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing my signature at point A. After that accused was released on police bail after furnishing of appropriate surety being the bailable offence. I recorded the statement Ct.
State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta ; FIR No. 358-17; PS PN 6/8 Pararmjeet and Ct. Manoj. After completion of the investigation of the case, I filed the chargesheet before the court for judicial verdict. At this stage, photographs of the said poster as well as poster, which are on record are shown to the witness, who correctly identified the same. The same is Ex. P1, Ex. P2 and Ex. P3.
PW2: On 10.11.2017, I was posted at PS Patel Nagar as SI. On that day, I alongwith Ct.
Parmjeet and Ct. Manoj were on patrolling duty in area and while patrolling when we reached near EBlock, Wall of Sarvodya Kanya Vidhalya, West Patel Nagar, Delhi, we saw that one poster was affixed on the wall of Government School. After that, I clicked the photograph of the said poster and the poster was brought down on the ground and taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I prepared the tehrir, which is Ex. PW1/B. FIR was got registered under section 3 of DPDP Act, through Ct. Paramjeet. After registration of the present case HC Vijender came at the spot spot. After that I handed over the case property i.e. poster and seizure memo to the second IO/HC Vijender. Thereafter, I discharged from the spot...".
(v) Despite cross examination of the said PW2, nothing has been made out in favour of the accused. There is nothing on record to doubt the same.
(vi) Reliance can be placed upon Anil Bhatia vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors reported as WP(C) NO. 6711/2013 wherein the court held that State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta ; FIR No. 358-17; PS PN 7/8 "unregulated putting up of Poster/ Banners/ Hoarding on the public property lead to public nuisance and runs counter to public order within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution."
(vii) Thus, the prosecution has successfully brought on record that defacement of the public property was done by the accused. The cumulative and corroborating testimonies of PW1 and PW2 also clearly proves that the accused has committed the offence under Section 3 DPDP Act.
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is hereby convicted for said offence.
Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.10.27
15:34:38 +0530
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
i.e. the 27th October, 2018
(This judgment consists of 8 pages)
State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta ; FIR No. 358-17; PS PN 8/8
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 3582017 U/S. 3 DPDP Act PS Patel Nagar State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta Case ID No. 16882018 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 is not a previous convict and he is first time offender. 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. 3 DPDP Act. No previous conviction has been alleged or State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta; FIR No.358-17; PS PN 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/convict is facing trial for defacing the public property by putting the flex board and he is first time offender. I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict is admonished u/s. 3 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958. Further u/s. 5 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958, convict is directed to deposit Rs. 1000/ as the cost of the proceedings of the court. Cost has been deposited. Receipt be issued.
Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH
i.e. the 27th October, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta; FIR No.358-17; PS PN 2/2
State Vs. Rajneesh Gupta; FIR No.358-17; PS PN 2/2