Delhi District Court
State vs . Chandra Devi on 26 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAWANI SHARMA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 73/2019
ID 5157/2019
U/S. 188 IPC
PS Patel Nagar
State Vs. Chandra Devi
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 5157/2019
2. Date of commission of offence 19.2.2019
3. Name of complainant HC Vinod Kumar
4. Name of accused Chandra Devi
s/o. Late Sh Chotte Lal
r/o. H NO. T572A/ 4B Gali NO 2
Baljeet Nagar, 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 26.9.2019
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 19.2.2019 at about 8.00 PM at H NO T572A/4B, Gali No. 2 Baljeet Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Patel Nagar, she being the State Vs. Chandra Devi; FIR No. 73/19; PS Patel Nagar 1/5 landlord of the said house had kept one tenant namely Smt. Anjali without police verification.
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. 188 IPC was given to the accused, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 2 witnesses. The testimony of the said witnesses in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 Ct. Mangal. PW1 had accompanied the IO to the spot where they met the tenant namely Anjali who told that her police verification by her landlady. Witness further stated that IO handed over to him rukka and he got registered the FIR.
(b)PW2 HC Vinod Kumar is the IO. Witness deposed that on 19.2.19, while on patrolling and tenant verification duty they met the tenant Anjali who on inquiry stated that her police verification has not been got done and thereafter he prepared tehrir and got the State Vs. Chandra Devi; FIR No. 73/19; PS Patel Nagar 2/5 FIR registered through PW1 and arrested the accused.
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 denied the allegations. Accused had not led any evidence in her 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 State Vs. Chandra Devi; FIR No. 73/19; PS Patel Nagar 3/5 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) PW1 and PW2 deposed that while on patrolling duty, they came to know that the accused had kept the tenant without police verification. 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 PWs clearly proves that the accused has violated the orders of ACP concerned.
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the State Vs. Chandra Devi; FIR No. 73/19; PS Patel Nagar 4/5 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 BHAWANI SHARMA pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI i.e. the 26th of September, 2019 (This judgment consists of 5 pages) State Vs. Chandra Devi; FIR No. 73/19; PS Patel Nagar 5/5 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAWANI SHARMA ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 73/2019 ID 5157/2019 U/S. 188 IPC PS Patel Nagar State Vs. Chandra Devi ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for State(substitute).
Convict in person with Ld counsel.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as Ld counsel for convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by Ld counsel for convict that convict belongs to poor strata of the society. It is further submitted that convict is not a previous convict and is having clean antecendents. 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 proved against convict. The convict is not involved in any such case, as State Vs. Chandra Devi; FIR No. 73/19; PS Patel Nagar stated by her. Convict is a lady 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.
Needless to say that the convicted person shall be entitled to the benefit u/s. 12 of the Probation of the Offender's Act and no disqualification shall be attached with the conviction as the accused has been admonished in the instant matter. Digitally signed by BHAWANI BHAWANI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2019.09.27 15:12:43 +0530 Announced in open Court BHAWANI SHARMA i.e. the 26th of September, 2019 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI State Vs. Chandra Devi; FIR No. 73/19; PS Patel Nagar