Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak Sachdeva on 4 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 6482017
U/S. 3 DPDP Act
PS Rajouri Garden
State Vs. Deepak Sachdeva
Case ID No. 2742018
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 2742018
2. Date of commission of offence 12.11.2017
3. Name of complainant HC Krishan Lal
4. Name of accused Deepak Sachdeva
S/o. Sh. Ashok Sachdeva
R/o; 2/242, Subash Nagr, 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 04.12.2018
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 12.11.2017, at about 11.15 am, Main Market, in front of Subash Nagar, 17Block Park, Subash Nagar, Delhi, accused defaced the State Vs. Deepak Sachdeva ; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 1/8 public property i.e. grill of the park by putting a flex board 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 witness in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is HC Krishan Lal. PW1 is the first IO. PW1 deposed that on 12.11.2017, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as HC. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Ravi Anand were on patrolling duty and while patrolling, when they reached at Subhash Nagar Main Market, 17Block Park, Delhi, they saw one Flex board was affixed on the grill of the park. He further deposed that after that, he State Vs. Deepak Sachdeva ; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 2/8 clicked the photograph of the said board and the board was brought down on the ground and taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that after that tehrir was prepared by him, which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point A. FIR was got registered under section 3 of DPDP Act through Ct. Ravi Anand. He further deposed that after that he prepared the site plan of the spot, which is Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A. After that he alongwith Ct. Ravi Anand came back at the PS. Thereafter, he deposited the said board into malkhana. He further deposed that on the same day, he contacted the accused Deepak Sachdeva on his mobile phone, which was mentioned on the flex board. He further deposed that on 21.11.2017, accused came to the PS, where he narrated the facts of the said case and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, accused was released on police bail after furnishing of appropriate surety.
(b)PW2 is Ct. Ravi Anand. PW2 deposed that on 12.11.2017, he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as Ct. On that day, he alongwith HC Krishan Lal were on patrolling duty and while patrolling, when they reached at Subhash Nagar Main Market, 17Block Park, Delhi, they saw one Flex board was affixed on the grill of the park. He further deposed that after that IO clicked the photographs of the State Vs. Deepak Sachdeva ; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 3/8 said board and the board was brought down on the ground and taken into possession, vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, tehrir was prepared by the IO, which is Ex. PW1/B. FIR was got registered under section 3 of DPDP Act through him. After that IO prepared the site plan of the spot, which is already Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point B. After that he alongwith IO came back at the PS. Thereafter, he deposited the said board into malkhana.
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. Deepak Sachdeva ; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 4/8 the Act and has stated that the flex board 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) Photograph of the flex board are on record. The photograph State Vs. Deepak Sachdeva ; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 5/8 clearly reveals that the flex board was put on the grill of the park. Bare perusal of the testimony of PW1 and PW2, who are the material witnesses show that the accused had committed the offence of defacement of the public property/grill of the park by putting the flex board. Moreover, accused has also admitted the allegations of putting of flex board 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 12.11.2017, I was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as HC. On that day, I alongwith Ct. Ravi Anand were on patrolling duty and while patrolling, when we reached at Subhash Nagar Main Market, 17Block Park, Delhi, we saw one Flex board was affixed on the grill of the park. After that I clicked the photographs of the said board and the board was brought down on the ground and taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, tehrir was prepared by me, which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing my signature at point A. FIR was got registered under section 3 of DPDP Act through Ct. Ravi Anand. After that I prepared the site plan of the spot, which is Ex. PW1/C, bearing my signature at point A. After that I alongwith Ct. Ravi Anand came back at the PS. Thereafter, I deposited the said board into malkhana.
On the same day, I contacted the accused Deepak Sachdeva on his mobile phone, which was mentioned on the flex board (who is present in the court today, correctly identified by the witness). On 21.11.2017, accused came to the PS, State Vs. Deepak Sachdeva ; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 6/8 where I narrated the facts of the said case and arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/D, bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, accused was released on police bail after furnishing of appropriate surety. I can identify the case property, if shown to me. At this stage, photograph of the said board, which is on record is shown to the witness, who correctly identified the same. The same is Ex. P1. PW2: On 12.11.2017, I was posted at PS Rajouri Garden as Ct. On that day, I alongwith HC Krishan Lal were on patrolling duty and while patrolling, when we reached at Subhash Nagar Main Market, 17Block Park, Delhi, we saw one Flex board was affixed on the grill of the park. After that IO clicked the photographs of the said board and the board was brought down on the ground and taken into possession, vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/A, bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, tehrir was prepared by me, which is Ex. PW1/B. FIR was got registered under section 3 of DPDP Act through me. After that IO prepared the site plan of the spot, which is already Ex. PW1/C, bearing my signature at point B. After that I alongwith IO came back at the PS. Thereafter, I deposited the said board into malkhana...".
(v) Despite cross examination of the said PW1 and 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. Deepak Sachdeva ; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 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 prove 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:
2018.12.04
Judgment dictated and JITENDRA SINGH
14:54:36 +0530
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
i.e. the 4th December, 2018
(This judgment consists of 8 pages)
State Vs. Deepak Sachdeva ; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 8/8
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 6482017 U/S. 3 DPDP Act PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Deepak Sachdeva Case ID No. 2742018 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. Deepak Sachdeva; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 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 4th December, 2018 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI State Vs. Deepak Sachdeva; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 2/2
State Vs. Deepak Sachdeva; FIR No. 648-2017; PS RG 2/2