Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Bheem Singh on 12 December, 2023

       IN THE COURT OF MS. KRATIKA CHATURVEDI
  METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04 (SOUTH-WEST)
                      DWARKA COURTS: DELHI


State Vs.         :   Bheem Singh
FIR No            : 382/2018
U/s               : 229A IPC
P.S.              : Dwarka South




1. CNR No. of the Case                       : DLSW020331312019
 2. Date of commission of offence            : 22.10.2018
3. Date of institution of the case           : 03.07.2019
4. Name of the complainant                   : Mr. Neeraj Bisht
5. Name of accused, parentage &              : Bheem Singh S/o Sh.
                                               Gopi Ram R/o Village
                                               Patan, PO Arya Nagar,
                                               PS Azad Nagar, District
                                               Hisar, Haryana.
6. Offence complained of                     : 229A IPC
7. Plea of the accused                       : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order                               : Convicted
9. Date of final order                       : 12.12.2023


Argued by:- Mr. Manish Sidhawat, Ld. APP for the State
           Mr. Subodh Gupta, Ld. LAC for accused.




FIR No. 382/2018, PS Dwarka South,   State vs. Bheem Singh   Page 1 of 9
                                      JUDGMENT

BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

FACTUAL MATRIX:

1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.10.2018 at unknown time at Dwarka Court Complex, Delhi, the accused i.e., Bheem Singh being on bail, had failed to appear in the court in FIR No.79/2011, PS Dwarka South despite repeated opportunity. As such, it is alleged that the accused, Bheem Singh has committed the offence punishable under section 229A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which FIR No. 382/2018 was registered at the police station Dwarka South, New Delhi.

INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED:

2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused was filed. This court took the cognizance against the accused and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under section 229A of IPC was framed against the accused on 14.12.2022. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:

3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case FIR No. 382/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Bheem Singh Page 2 of 9 beyond reasonable doubt:-

ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 W/ASI Bheema Tomar PW-2 Sh. Ravi Shankar Prasad PW-3 ASI Sanjay PW-4 Ms. Neeraj Bisht DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A FIR Ex.PW-1/B Endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW-1/C Certificate u/s 65B of IEA Ex.PW-3/A Application for obtaining of NBW Ex.PW-3/B Application for initiating proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C.

Ex. PW-3/C Application for production warrant Ex. PW-3/D Application for further production warrant Ex. PW-3/E Disclosure statement Ex. PW-3/F Arrest memo Ex. P-1 (colly) Affixing photographs of the notice of proclamation at house of the accused and at the notice board of court complex Ex.PW-4/A Complaint Ex.PW-4/B Ordersheet dated 12.10.2018 directing to register the FIR

4. PW-1 W/ASI Bheema Tomar, has deposed that on 29.10.2018, she was posted at P.S Dwarka South as a DO and her duty hours were from 8.00 AM to 5.30 PM. On that day, at about 5.00 PM, reader namely Neeraj Bisht from the court of Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh, Ld MM-04, Dwarka Court, New Delhi brought one rukka for registration of FIR. Thereafter, she registered present FIR bearing no. 382/2018 alongwith certificate u/s 65 B (4) (c) of IEA. Thereafter, she made her endorsement on the original rukka and handed over the copy of FIR and original complaint to IO HC Sanjay for investigation. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she does not know whether accused Bheem Singh had FIR No. 382/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Bheem Singh Page 3 of 9 appeared before the Hon'ble Court despite repeated opportunities.

5. PW-2 Sh. Ravi Shankar Prasad has stated that he has been posted in the court of Ld. MM-04, Dwarka Court since March, 2017. He has brought the original case file of FIR No. 79/2011 of PS Dwarka South. On perusal of case file, FIR No. 79/2011, it is revealed that on 22.10.2018 accused Bheem Singh failed to appear before the Hon'ble Court despite repeated opportunities. In his cross-examination, he has stated that IO had not enquired from him in respect of case file of FIR No. 79/2011 and in the present case at any point of time after registration of FIR.

6. PW3 ASI Sanjay has deposed that on 29.10.2018, he was posted as HC at PS Dwarka South. On that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. Thereafter, he searched for the accused at his given address i.e. Village Patan, PO Arya Nagar, Hisar, Haryana but he was not found present there. The son of the accused namely Kapil met him at the said residence and Kapil told him that the accused is in Chandigarh jail. Thereafter, he made enquiries in the Chandigarh jail but the accused was not found in the said jail as prisoner. Thereafter, he obtained the non bailable warrants of the accused from the Hon'ble court by moving an application regarding the same. Thereafter, he moved an application for initiating the proceedings u/s 82 Cr PC against the accused. Proceedings against the accused u/s 82 Cr PC was initiated by the Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, he came to know that the accused was imprisoned in Hisar jail and therefore, he moved an application for production warrant.

Thereafter, when accused was not produced from the Hisar jail on the fixed date, he again moved an application of the production warrant. Accused was produced before the court. He sought the permission from the court to make enquiries from the accused and he joined the investigation. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused. He formally arrested the accused. The PO proceedings initiated and steps taken by him i.e. publishing the proclamation in newspaper, visiting the address of the accused, affixing the notice on the house of the accused and at the notice board of the court complex. He has correctly identified the accused. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had visited the house of the accused thrice but he does not remember the dates of the visits. He had not visited Chandigarh jail on a landline number; however, he does not know the landline number, in person but he enquired telephonically about the present case. He does not know the name of the person who had informed him telephonically about the accused. Thereafter, in the month of May, 2019, one secret informer had informed him on his mobile phone about the whereabouts of the present accused but he could not tell the mobile number of the said secret informer. He had visited personally in the Hisar jail where the warrants were executed by him but he does not remember the date. The statement of the wife of the accused namely Dharamjit Kaur was recorded in his own hand writing.

7. PW-4 Ms. Neeraj Bisht, has deposed that on 22.10.2018, she was discharging her work as Reader at the court no. 12, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. She was directed by the then Ld MM of the court to give the complaint to lodge an FIR U/s FIR No. 382/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Bheem Singh Page 5 of 9 229A IPC against the accused and accordingly, she had given the complaint to the SHO PS Dwarka South against the accused. The ordersheet dated 22.10.2018 wherein the then Ld. MM Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh directed her to register the FIR. In her cross-examination, she stated that she does not remember whether IO recorded her statement or not in the present case. IO did not arrest the accused in her presence.

STATEMENT               OF      THE   ACCUSED             PERSON     AND
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

8. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 26.08.2023 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.

ARGUMENTS:

9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.

10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond FIR No. 382/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Bheem Singh Page 6 of 9 reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.

11.Per contra, the Ld. LAC for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Ld. LAC further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.

INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE:

12.The accused has been charged for the offence punishable under section 229 A of IPC.

Section 229A IPC Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in Court- "Whoever having been charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond without sureties, fails without sufficient cause (the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Explanation: - The punishment under this section is -

(a) In addition to the punishment to which the offender would be liable on a conviction for the offence with which he has been charged; and

(b) without prejudice to the power of the court to order forfeiture of the bond."

13. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The FIR No. 382/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Bheem Singh Page 7 of 9 presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

14.In order to prove the allegation against the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-4 who proved the complaint vide Ex.PW-4/A on the basis of which the instant FIR has been registered. PW-1 has deposed that he registered the FIR on the basis of order of the court vide Ex.PW-1/A. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW-3 who went to the address of the accused regarding execution of process of NBW against him. PW-3 deposed that accused was not found on his address and that he met the son of the accused, Kapil who told him that accused is in Chandigarh Jail, however he was not found there. However, the accused has failed to lead any evidence to show that he was in JC on the date when the direction was issued to register the instant FIR. The testimony of all the four prosecution witnesses remains unrebutted during the trial as accused has failed to rebut the examination of any prosecution witness. In view of the unrebutted testimony, allegation against the accused regarding commission of offence punishable u/s 229A IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

15. Moreover, in the statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C, accused has denied all the allegations. However, no motive has been brought on record as to why the PWs would falsely implicate FIR No. 382/2018, PS Dwarka South, State vs. Bheem Singh Page 8 of 9 the accused. Absolutely nothing has been brought on record to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, reliance can be placed upon their testimonies.

CONCLUSION

16.To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence charged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses is coherent and directly implicates the accused. The defence has failed to punch a hole in the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

13.Resultantly, the accused, Bheem Singh is hereby found guilty for offence under section 229A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is convicted accordingly. Let the convict be heard separately on sentencing.

Announced in open court on 12.12.2023 in the presence of the accused.

(Kratika Chaturvedi) Metropolitan Magistrate-04, Dwarka, Delhi/12.12.2023 Note:- This judgment contains 9 pages and each page has been signed by me.