Delhi District Court
State vs Karamveer on 28 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR CASE/ 6035/2023
STATE Vs. KARAMVEER
State vs. Karamveer
FIR No. 214/2023
Police Station : Saket
Under Section : Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
Date of institution : 24.11.2023
Date of reserving : 23.03.2024
Date of pronouncement : 28.03.2024
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 6035/2023
b) Date of commission of : 13.07.2023
offence
c) Name of the complainant : ASI Deshraj
d) Name, parentage and address : Karamveer S/o Sh. Sohan Pal,
of the accused R/o H.No. 84/4, Nai Basti,
Devli, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : Section 3 of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act,
1984
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquittal
h) Date of final order : 28.03.2024
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Briefly stated, the instant case was registered on the complaint of ASI Deshraj that on 13.07.2023 at about 09:30 am, when he was on duty as MHC, Saket Lockup, one L-61 vehicle carrying C36 UTPs came from Tihar Jail to Saket Lockup. Subsequently, one UTP/accused Karamvir after deboarding from said vehicle and while proceeding towards lockup, reached in the gallery of Saket lockup, hit his head intentionally with the door glass to harm himself and broke it which was public property. Consequently, the instant chargesheet against the accused under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "PDPP Act") has been filed.
CHARGE
2. Vide order dated 08.12.2023, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the PDPP Act, 1984 against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
3. Vide order dated 08.12.2023, in compliance to the provisions of Section 294 of the Code, the accused was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of i) Endorsement by DO; ii) The present FIR; iii) Certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act; and iv) UTP Register dated 13.07.2023 at Saket Court's lockup vide Ex A-1 to A-4.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. Prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e. PW1 HC Nagender [the investigating officer (IO)] and PW2 ASI Deshraj (the complainant).
5. PW1 HC Nagender is the IO of this case, who deposed that on 13.07.2023, on receipt of DD No. 33A, he reached at Saket Court's lockup where he met complainant ASI Deshraj who disclosed that UTP Karamveer had hit his head in the door glass of Saket court lockup's gallery and broke the same upon which complainant gave written complaint. He clicked the photographs of the spot from his mobile phone. On 14.07.2023, he prepared rukka on the complaint. After FIR registration, he prepared site plan on complainant's instance. Complainant handed over copy of attendance register of UTP to PW1. After interrogation, on 27.09.2023, accused was formally arrested at Tihar Jail and his disclosure statement was recorded. PW1 recorded statements of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC, prepared chargesheet and filed the same in the court. Witness correctly identified the accused. Witness also correctly identified the broken glass of door in photographs shown to him. The witness was duly cross- examined.
6. PW2 ASI Deshraj was posted as MHC at Saket Lockup. He deposed that on 13.07.2023, at about 09:30 am, a police bus was carrying 36 UTPs from Tihar Jail. At about 09:35 am, accused /UTP Karamveer while going inside Kharja, suddenly hit his head against the glass gate of the gallery in the process of trying to harm himself, which resulted into breaking of said glass gate. He informed DO PS Saket regarding the same upon which IO reached there and recorded the statement of PW2. IO also recorded statement of PW2 u/s 161 CrPC. Witness correctly identified the accused. The witness was duly cross examined.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
7. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code, the accused denied the entire evidence against him. He stated that he was exiting said bus to attend his date of hearing in the court, when some UTPs were engaged in a fight and the In-charge, Lockup came to control the fight, however, he was not involved in the fight but he was beaten up by In-charge. He was pushed due to which his head collided with glass gate which broke. He also stated that previously, he was attacked with surgical blade by 5-7 UTPs in lockup who were from Jail No.1. He further stated that he was compelled to sign the disclosure statement. He stated that he is innocent and a false case has been registered against him. Accused did not lead evidence in his defence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of Sh. Deepak Madaan, Ld. Substitute Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Mr. Mohd. Rashid, Ld. LAC for the accused have been considered.
9. Section 3 of the PDPP Act is reproduced below:
Section 3. Mischief causing damage to public property (1) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.
(2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being:
(a) any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;
(b) any oil installations;
(c) any sewage works;
(d) any mine or factory;
(e) any means of public transportation or of tele-communications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine:
Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
10. The question to be decided is whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property. Section 2 (a) of the PDPP Act states that mischief shall have the same meaning as in Section 425 of IPC. Section 425 of IPC defines mischief as follows:
"Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
Explanation 1.- It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not.
Explanation 2.- Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly."
11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.07.2023, at about 9:30 a.m., the accused damaged public property i.e. glass in the lockup by banging his head while he was being brought to Saket Court's lockup for production in a case.
12. The accused has not led defence evidence. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code, all the incriminating circumstances were put to him, to which accused stated that a couple of UTPs were engaged in a fight and the In-charge, Lockup came to control the fight. Even though the accused was not involved in the fight, the In-charge, Lockup beat him up and while being beaten up, he was pushed and his head collided with the glass gate which broke. He further stated that he was compelled to sign a disclosure statement and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
13. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that there are no public witnesses as the entire incident happened in the Lockup. Therefore, the absence of public witnesses does not prima facie prejudice the case of the prosecution. On careful reading of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, following facts emerge:
a) Firstly, PW1 HC Nagender deposed that on 13.07.2023, at about 10:45 a.m., he received DD No. 33A upon which he reached Saket Court's lockup where he met the complainant ASI Deshraj who told him that the accused Karamveer was UTP and he alighted from the vehicle to go to the lockup. When the accused reached the gallery, he hit his head with the door glass and broke it. He further stated he clicked photographs of the spot with his mobile. Contrary to his examination in chief, he deposed that he reached Saket Court's lockup at about 10:00 a.m.
b) Secondly, PW1 HC Nagender admitted in his cross-examination that CCTV cameras were installed at the place of incident.
However, as he did not apply for preservation of CCTV footage on time, he could not procure the same and place on record. This error is completely on account of lapse on part of the IO/PW1. The lapse on behalf of the IO/PW1 in applying for preservation of the footage on a timely manner has fundamentally affected the case of the prosecution. Further, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. LAC for the accused, the IO/PW1 did not even file copy of the application purportedly filed by him for preservation and the reply received by him on the non-availability of the same. Therefore, the IO's bona fide in conducting proper investigation is rendered doubtful.
c) Thirdly, it is an admitted position that the UTPs were alighting the bus and going towards the lockup. PW2 ASI Deshraj has deposed that there were 36 UTPs in the police bus. These UTPs were eye witness to the incident and therefore, ought to have been joined in the investigation. None of the other UTPs have been examined by the prosecution as witnesses. The absence of deposition of other UTPs including UTP who belonged to the rival gang who would have eagerly deposed against the accused, raises suspicion on the entire prosecution's case. How could the IO not fathom to join any other UTP who would have been a witness to the incident?
d) Fourthly, PW2 ASI Deshraj deposed in his examination in chief dated 13.07.2023 that at around 9:35 a.m., while one UTP Karamveer was going inside the lockup cell, he hit his head against the glass gate to harm himself. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Duty Officer at PS Saket. PW2 ASI Deshraj deposed in his cross-examination that the IO reached the place of incident between 9:45 to 9:50 a.m. However, PW1 HC Nagender deposed that he went to the lock-up cell at 9:45 a.m. There are clear contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses.
e) Fifthly, PW2 ASI Deshraj deposed that IO seized the broken glass pieces from the place of incident. However, contrarily, PW1 HC Nagender deposed that no glass pieces were recovered from him. This further causes suspicion on the case of the prosecution and false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out.
f) Sixthly, the entire chargesheet has been prepared on the basis of the statement of the complainant ASI Deshraj. No other police official who was posted at the lock-up cell have been included in the investigation. The chargesheet has been prepared in a perfunctory manner without even conducting basic investigation.
14. There is nothing on record to establish that any mischief was done by the accused on account of which public property was damaged, as CCTV footage evidencing breakage of the glass door is not on record. No police officials apart from the complainant and the IO have been examined to corroborate the same. In arguendo, for the sake of arguments, even if it is presumed that a glass door was broken, there is absolutely nothing on record to state that the accused broke the glass as none of the other UTPs have been joined in the investigation. Accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of bald averments of the prosecution witnesses whose testimony does not inspire the confidence of this court. The substratum of the prosecution case has several holes which cannot be plugged. No new story can be reconstructed by this court. The aforesaid infirmities in the background of reasonable possibility of false implication of the accused, elicited above, renders the prosecution version not proved, beyond reasonable doubt.
15. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav vs. CBI [178 (2011) DLT 529], it was held that where it is possible to have both the views, one in favor of the prosecution and the other in favor of the accused, the later should prevail. Pronouncements in case of Dilip vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [1 (2007) CCR 354] and Gagan Kanejia vs. State of Punjab [IX (2006) SLT 406] were relied. Relying upon the law laid and elicited in the preceding paragraphs, since two views are possible on the evidence adduced in this case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, view which is favourable to the accused is being adopted. Accordingly, the accused Karamveer is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the offences charged under Section 3 of the PDPP Act.
16. Bail bond in compliance of Section 437A of the Code is directed to be furnished.
Dictated and announced in open Court on 28.03.2024.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2024.04.03
14:35:03 +0530
(T. Priyadarshini)
ACMM/South District/South
New Delhi/28.03.2024