Delhi District Court
State vs . Sukender @ Parvesh on 4 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SINGLA:
ACMM (SOUTH), SAKET, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Sukender @ Parvesh
FIR No. 46/19
P.S. Saket
U/s 174A IPC
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
A. Cr.C. No. : 3413/19
B. Date of its institution : 16.07.2019
C. Name of the complainant : HC Naresh Kumar
D. Date of commission of offence : 17.01.2019
E. Name of the accused : Sukhender @ Pravesh S/o
Sh. Jasbir, R/o Village
Meerpur, Lorali, PS
Hasanpur, distt. Palwal (HR)
F. Offence complained of : U/s 174 A IPC
G. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Date when judgment reserved : Oral
I. Date when judgment pronounced : 04.02.2020
J. Final order : Conviction
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
1. In the present case, FIR was registered under Section 174A IPC pursuant to the orders dated 17.01.2019 passed by Sh. Rajat Goel, Ld. MM01, NI Act. Presence of the accused was FIR No. 46/19 State Vs. Sukender @ Parvesh 1/4 required in complaint case 12485/17 titled as Sunil Kumar vs. Sukender @ Parvesh. A process under Section 82 Cr.PC was directed to be issued against the accused which was apparently executed on 13.10.2018 at the alleged address of the accused at Village Mirpur, Karoli Tehsil, District Palwal, as well as pasted on the court's notice board. However, the accused failed to appear and vide order of 17.01.2019, the present FIR no. 46/19 was directed to be registered.
2. Thereafter, the investigation present FIR was carried out. IO collected the necessary documents, traced and arrested the accused and filed the chargesheet.
3. During recording of evidence, the accused admitted the order dated 17.01.2019, the existence, recording of the FIR No. 46/19, the date, time mentioned therein, but not the truth of the contents. He also admitted DD No. 26A dated 29.01.2019 pertaining to his arrest. In view thereof, witnesses for proving these documents were dropped. One witnesses i.e. Process Server was examined in the present case. Ld. APP for the State dropped other witnesses as other witnesses were formal witnesses and their evidence is not mandatory to prove the case against the accused. At the stage of recording of statement of accused under Section 313 FIR No. 46/19 State Vs. Sukender @ Parvesh 2/4 Cr.PC, accused stated that he never resided at Village Mirpur, Karoli Tehsil, District Palwal and he was not aware about the execution of process u/s 82 Cr. PC. However, accused chose not to lead DE.
4. The following documents were relied upon on behalf of the prosecution and admitted by the accused:
Ex.P1 FIR No. 46/19 dated 29.01.2019 Ex.P2 Certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act regarding FIR No.46/19 Ex.P3 Certified PO order dated 17.01.2019 of Ms. Rajat Goel, Ld. MM(01), NI Act, Saket Courts Ex.P4 DD no. 26 A dated 29.01.2019 Ex.P5 Rukka Dated 29.01.2019 Ex.P6 Arrest memo dated 25.03.2019 Ex. P7 Personal Search memo
5. The Process Server HC Kapil Dev was examined as PW1. He was duly cross examined. Although, there are minor discrepancies in his evidence such as that he had not taken any photograph of the affixation nor made any arrival entry however, I have no reason to doubt his otherwise consistent stand and testimony. Accused has not been able to show that the report made by Process Server is, in any manner, manipulated. Of course, there FIR No. 46/19 State Vs. Sukender @ Parvesh 3/4 is always a presumption attached to official acts performed by a Government Servant and the burden lies on the person who pleads otherwise to show that the procedure prescribed was not followed. That, however, has not come out in the cross examination of the said witness. The main defence of the accused is that he was not resident of the address on which proclamation is made. However, he failed to tell the court regarding his address at the time when proclamation was made.
7. In these circumstances, it is held that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts that the accused failed to appear in this court despite issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.PC. Accordingly, accused stands convicted for the offence under Section 174A of IPC.
Dictated and announced (Ankit Singla) in the open court ACMM/South
on 04.02.2020. Saket Courts: New Delhi Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2020.02.11 15:37:05 +0530 FIR No. 46/19 State Vs. Sukender @ Parvesh 4/4