Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinod Arya on 23 January, 2013
FIR No:500/2000
State Vs. Vinod Arya
IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 500/2000
PS: Dabri
U/s 451/323/355 IPC
State V. Vinod Arya
Date of institution of the case : 26.06.2000
Date on which Judgment was reserved : Not Reserved
JUDGMENT
a) S. No. of the case : 1495/2
b) Date of commission of offence : 26.05.2000
c) Name of the Complainant : Smt. Shaheen Fatima D/o Sh. Abdul Sammat R/o 3758, Churiwalan, Gali Akharewali, Jama Masjid, Delhi.
d) Name of accused and address : Vinod Arya S/o Sh. Nahar Singh R/o RZ-65A/365, Gali No. 9, near J.R. Public School, Sagar Pur, New Delhi.
FIR No:500/2000
State Vs. Vinod Arya
e) Offence complained of : U/s 451/323/354 IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Convicted.
h) Date of such order : 21.01.2013.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered against the accused on the complaint of complainant Smt. Shaheen Faitma on the allegation that, in the night of 25-05-2000, accused Vinod Arya came to her office at RZ-6, Mohan Block, West Sagar Pur, New Delhi and stated that he is brother of Chand and he can do anything and thereafter he went away. On 26.05.2000, accused again came to her office at about 10:15 am and demanded for luggage of worker Chand. Thereafter, he abused her in filthy FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya language and caught her hairs. He also slapped and dragged her.
Her worker rescued her and then she called PCR. At her complaint the present case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Vinod Arya for the offence U/s 451/354/323 IPC.
2. After taking cognizance accused was summoned. On considering the prima facie evidence on record, notice served upon accused for the offence u/s 451/323/355 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has filed list of Six witnesses and examined only Three witness in support of its case.
4. PW-1 ASI Goverdhan who is the Duty Officer and recorded the FIR of the present case on receiving rukka through Ct. Surinder sent by SI R.A. Prasad on 26.05.2000. Copy of FIR is FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on rukka in this regard is Ex.PW1/B.
5. PW-2 Ms. Shaheen Fatima stated that on 25.05.2000 she was at her office at RZ-6, Mohan Block, West Sagar Pur, Delhi where she was doing the business of garments. After 10 pm on that day accused Vinod Kumar arrived at her office and misbehaved with her and asked her that whey you not releasing the payment of worker Chand. On this she asked as to who is he to ask her to release the payment of worker Chand. Accused told that he is the brother of worker Chand. Thereafter, he had gone back. Again accused came at about 10 am on 26.05.2000 and threatened her for not releasing the payment of her worker Chand and he also used abusive language and assaulted her. Her workers saved her. Thereafter she called at 100 number. Police officer came and manhandled the accused. Thereafter, they were taken to PS by PCR. In this regard she made a complaint in writing, same is Ex.PW2/A. FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya
6. PW-3 Ct. Surender Kumar stated that on 26.05.2000 he was on emergency duty along with SI Ram Ayodhaya Prasad at PS. They received a call regarding a dispute had taken place at RZ-6, Mohan Nagar, West Sagar Pur. They went there and found PCR Van and a lady, that lady namely Fatima had informed them that one person had quarrelled with her. IO recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A, her worker was also present at the spot, IO prepared rukka and got registered the present case FIR through him. He came back at spot and copy of FIR and rukka and handed over the same to IO. Thereafter, he along with IO went to Jagdumba Vihar from where they arrested accused Vinod Arya. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/A.
7. No other witness examined by the prosecution despite several opportunities. Therefore, P.E. Closed. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C recorded in which he denied the allegation against him and stated that the case of the prosecution is concocted FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya and he was falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence in his defence. Thereafter, matter fixed for final arguments.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the accused is the actual culprit and he intentionally tresspassed into the shop of complainant, assaulted and abused her and gave her beatings. Accused deserves maximum punishment as per law. On the other hand, accused stated that the story of the prosecution is concocted one. He had committed nothing wrong with the complainant and he had neither tresspassed into her shop nor caused any injury to her. He is facing the trial of false case without any reason since about 12 years. Therefore, he may be acquitted in the present case.
9. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and analyzed the statements of witnesses.
FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya
10. In brief, the accused was served with the notice regarding the allegation that on 26.05.2000, he committed house trespass into the shop of complainant and gave beatings to her and used criminal force to dishonour her. The injured/complainant herself is only eye witness regarding the incident and therefore her statement is very important and it should be uncontradictory, corroborated and reliable.
11. The complainant when appeared before the court as PW-2, she had narrated the incident identically as stated by her in her complaint Ex.PW2/A. In Ex.PW2/A, she had also made the allegations that the accused caught hold her and pulled her from her hairs and also dragged her but this fact is not stated by her before the court. It is also not mentioned by her before the court that how accused gave beatings to her. There is also no any medical report produced by the prosecution regarding the injury, if any sustained by the complainant. It is also admitted by the complainant in her cross FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya examination that she had told to the police that she did not want to get herself medically examined. Therefore, allegations regarding the beatings given by accused to the complainant or causing hurt by accused to the complainant is not substantiated.
12. As far as allegations of tresspass is concerned, the complainant specifically stated in her complaint that on 25.05.2000 as well as on 26.05.2000, accused tresspassed into her office and gave threatinings to her. When she appeared before the court, then also she had stated this fact. Although, she had only stated that on 26.05.2000 accused 'again came' and not stated the word 'in her office', but in earlier portion of her statement, she specifically stated that on 25.05.2000, accused came at her office and threatened her. Therefore, in second paragraph, she has continued her statement stating accused again came on 26.05.2000 and not repeated the word 'in her office'. There is also nothing to suggest the fact that the inference can be drawn that accused not tresspassed into her office FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya or incident occurred somewhere outside. During her cross examination, Ld. Counsel for accused also raised no such specific defence. Although there are some minor discrepancies regarding narrating of the incident but the material fact and material ingredients of the alleged offence are stated by the all witnesses satisfactorily. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh and anothers Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 X AD SC 271 as under:
" 19. Even if there are minor discrepancies between the narrations of witnesses when they speak on details, unless such contradictions are of material dimensions, the same should not be used to discard the evidence in its entirety. The trivial discrepancy ought not to obliterate the otherwise acceptable evidence."
13. Another allegation leveled against accused regarding the offence u/s 355 IPC which reads as under:
Section 355 IPC. Assault or criminal force with intent FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation.- whoever assault or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise then on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
14. The essential ingredients of section 355 IPC are a) assault or use of criminal force to another person, b) intention to dishonour that person and c) it should be used otherwise than on grave provocation.
15. In the present matter nothing is stated by accused in the cross examination of complainant or in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that there was any kind of grave provocation from the side of complainant. The complainant specifically stated that the accused assualted her and used abusive language. In her complaint FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya Ex.PW2/A, she also stated that accused used filthy language to her in front of her workers in her office. Although no other eye witness is appeared before the court to strengthen the case of prosecution but only because of this reason the version of complainant cannot be discarded, if otherwise she is stating reliable statement . It is also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mahesh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2011(X) AD (SC) 225 that, quantity of witnesses not important but court has to see quality of witness.
16. PW-3 also corroborated the fact that on 26.05.2000 he along with IO went to the spot where complainant informed them that accused quarrelled with her and her worker was also present there. He had also proved the personal search memo of accused Ex.PW3/A prepared by the IO at the time of his arrest.
17. Therefore, after considering the all the facts and FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya circumstances and evidence produced on record, court comes at the conclusion that the prosecution successfully established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 451/355 IPC however, the offence u/s 323 IPC is not proved. Accordingly accused Vinod Arya S/o Sh.Nahar Arya is acquitted for the offence u/s 323 IPC and he is convicted for the offence u/s 451(Part-I)/355 IPC in case FIR No.500/2000 PS:Dabri.
Let the convict be heard on the point of quantum of sentence on 23.01.2013.
Copy of Judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.
on this 21st day of January' 2013 (Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) This judgment contains 12 pages METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE which bears my signatures at DWARKA COURTS/DELHI each page.
FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya FIR No. 500/2000 PS: Dabri U/s 451/323/355 IPC State V. Vinod Arya 21.01.2013.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment pronounced and dictated in the open court, accused Vinod Arya S/o Sh.Nahar Arya is acquitted for the offence u/s 323 IPC and he is convicted for the offence u/s 451(Part-I)/355 IPC in case FIR No.500/2000 PS:Dabri.
At request put up for arguments on the point of sentence on 23.01.2013.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya IN THE COURT OF Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI FIR No. 500/2000 PS: Dabri U/s 451(Part-I)/355 IPC State V. Vinod Arya 23.01.2013 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Vinod Arya is present with Ld. Counsel Sh. Rajpal.
I have heard the convict and Ld. APP for the State. Ld. APP for the State submitted that convict is liable to get maximum punishment. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for convict stated that he is of 39 years and has 8 years daughter, wife and old aged partents to maintain in his family. He is the only earning member of the family and working as photographer. He is not having any criminal background and remained punctual in the proceedings of this case. He is partly handicaped from right hand. He is facing the trial since last about 12 years. Therefore, a lenient view may FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya be taken against him.
In view of the argument of both the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court comes at the conclusion that convict is not a previous convict in any other criminal case before or during the trial of the present case. He is attending the court since last about 12 years and attending the court on each date may be considered as equivalent to simple imprisonment for one day. Therefore, he deserves a lenient view. Benefit of Probation is given to the convict and convict is released on Probation after furnishing a probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety of like amount for a period of six months with the direction to keep peace in society for the offence u/s 451(Part-I)/355 IPC in case FIR No.500/2000 PS:Dabri. Probation bonds furnished and accepted.
Copy of order be supplied to the convict.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya FIR No:500/2000 State Vs. Vinod Arya FIR No. 500/2000 PS: Dabri U/s 451/323/355 IPC State V. Vinod Arya 23.01.2013.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict on bail with Ld. Counsel Sh. Rajpal. Arguments heard on the point of sentence. Vide separate order on sentence of even date convicts are sentenced accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(Dr. JAGMINDER SINGH) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS/DELHI