Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagdish Singh on 1 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 19/2017
ID 7694/2017
U/S. 188 IPC
PS Patel Nagar
State Vs. Jagdish SIngh
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 7694/2017
2. Date of commission of offence 8.1.2017
3. Name of complainant ASI Devender Singh
4. Name of accused Jagdish SIngh
s/o. Sh. Shabh SIngh
r/o. H NO. T580/5
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 1.11.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 8.1.2017at about 5.20 PM at H NO. T580/5, Gali NO. 2, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, he being the landlord had kept a tenant without police verification.
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the State Vs. Jagdish SIngh; FIR No. 19/17; PS PN 1/5 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 he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined one witness. The testimony of the said witnesses in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is ASI Devender Kaushik i.e. the complainant. PW1 deposed that on 8.1.17 while he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Satender one person namely Sh Shambyu Giri met them who informed that he was residing in the house as tenant. PW1 further stated that the accused failed to produce any document regarding police verification of the tenant hence the FIR was registered and thereafter, he arrested the accused and prepared site plan. PW1 further stated that he obtained complaint u/s. 195 cr.pc. and after completion of the investigation prepared the chargehseet.
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 State Vs. Jagdish SIngh; FIR No. 19/17; PS PN 2/5 u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused has stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. 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 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 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.
State Vs. Jagdish SIngh; FIR No. 19/17; PS PN 3/5
(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 who was the complainant has submitted that while on patrolling duty, they came to know that the accused had kept the tenant without police verification. The relevant extract of the testimony of PW1 is reproduced for ready reference:
"On 8.1.2017, I was posted at PS Patel Nagar as ASI.............. alongwith Ct. Satender in the area. While on verification duty we went to the H NO. T 580/5 Gali NO 2 Baljeet Nagar, Delhi one Shambu Giri met us who was residing in said house as tenant for ............. Thereafter we met the accused who was the owner of the said house met us but he failed to show any documents regarding the verification ..................the present FIR under Section 188 IPC was registered ..........arrested the accused ...............Complaint under Section 195 of Cr.P.C............ was obtained........"
(v) 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 State Vs. Jagdish SIngh; FIR No. 19/17; PS PN 4/5 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 testimony of PW1 clearly proves that the accused has violated the orders of ACP concerned.
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the 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 JITENDRA SINGH pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI i.e. the 1st of November, 2018 (This judgment consists of 5 pages) State Vs. Jagdish SIngh; FIR No. 19/17; PS PN 5/5 IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 19/2017 ID 7694/2017 U/S. 188 IPC PS Patel Nagar State Vs. Jagdish SIngh 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 not a previous convict. It is further submitted that he belongs to poor strata of society. 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 State Vs. Jagdish SIngh; FIR No. 19/17; 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 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. Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date:
2018.11.05 14:32:42 Announced in open Court JITENDRA SINGH +0530 i.e. the 1st of November, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI State Vs. Jagdish SIngh; FIR No. 19/17; PS PN 2/2