Delhi District Court
State vs Ramesh Kumar on 24 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 05,
ROOM NO. 513, DWARKA, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
RAMESH KUMAR
FIR No. 139/03
P.S.: Inderpuri
U/S: 186/353/334 IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02405R0426702010
2. Date of commission of offence : 24.07.2003
3. Name of the Complainant : Sh. V.K Saxena,
Principal, ITI, Subzi Mandi,
PUSA B.T.C, New Delhi.
4. Name of the accused, and
his parentage and residence : Ramesh Kumar,
S/o Prithvi Singh,
R/o Puth Khurd, Bawana,
Delhi.
5. Date when judgment : 24.07.2012
was reserved
6. Date when Judgment : 24.07.2012
was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : U/s 186/353/332 IPC
or proved
8. Plea of accused Persons : Pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Judgment : Convicted for offence U/s
186 & 353 & 332 IPC
FIR No. 139/03
PS- Inderpuri
State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 1/11
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 24.07.2003 at about 8.45 am at ITI Subzi Mandi, Principal Office, Pusa within the jurisdiction of PS Inderpuri, the accused voluntarily obstructed Vinay Kumar Saxena in discharging his official duties being public servant and also used criminal force against him and caused simple hurt while he was discharging his duties as Principal. Accordingly, FIR No. 139/03, PS Inderpuri was registered. Challan was filed on 20.07.2006.
2. On appearance of the accused, a charge was framed against the accused for offences U/s 186/353/332 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. But due to typographical error, 334 IPC is written instead of 332 IPC. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution evidence. Accused as well as his counsel stated that they have no objection if evidence recorded till date is read into evidence as it was just a typographical error.
3. Prosecution has examined six witnesses namely PW1 Inderjeet Singh, PW2 V.K Saxena, PW3 WASI Asha, PW4 Lok Pal, PW5 Ct Ashok Kumar and PW6 SI Amarpal Singh to prove the case against the accused. The evidence of each of PWs is very relevant and the same is analyzed and discussed later on at appropriate places.
4. After the Prosecution evidence was closed the statement of FIR No. 139/03 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 2/11 accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence were put to him where he denied all the allegations against him and stated that he has not done any fight. He further submits that he want to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, matter was listed for defence evidence.
5. Accused has examined only one witness in his defence i.e DW1 Raju. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
6. Ld APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused addressed useful and pertinent arguments. Ld. APP for the state argued that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. He prays for conviction of the accused.
7. On the other hand, Ld counsel for the accused argued that PW1 has not supported the case of the prosecution and accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He prays for acquittal of the accused.
8. PROSECTUION EVIDENCE:
8.1 PW1 stated to have entered the room of the complainant on hearing scream of bachao bachao of the Principal. But during his testimony, he stated that he did not remember the exact date and do not know about the case as he visited only the office of the Principal FIR No. 139/03 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 3/11 and was not an eye witness of the case. This witness was cross examined by the Ld APP for the State in which he stated that he is working as Supervisor in ITI, Pusa and but denied the suggestion that he heard loud voice of the Principal bachao bachao and reached in the room of the principal. He categorically stated that he did not see any quarrel between them. He also denied the suggestion that blood was oozing from the finger of the principal but admitted that both talked with each other. PW1 also identified the accused as the person who was present in the room of the Principal.
8.2 PW2 is the complainant. He stated that on 24.07.2003 at about 8.45 am accused entered into his room and asked him to release his salary without deductions which were ordered on account of unauthorized absence of 33 days. He further stated that since he refused to stop the deductions, accused hit him on his neck and chest and stomach and he shouted for help. He further stated that on hearing his cries, Satbir Singh craft instructor and security officer reached his room and pressed his finger which was bleeding. He proved his statement which is Ex. PW2/A. During his cross examination, he stated that he was present in the office well before regular office hours as there was an examination going on in the institute. He also stated that the site plan was prepared at his instance. He denied the suggestion that accused was directed to perform the work of sweeper apart from the job of mali and accused made several complaints in the department and therefore false case was made against the accused. He also denied the suggestion that FIR No. 139/03 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 4/11 accused has been reinstated in the service. He also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely as no quarrel took place and no injuries were sustained by him.
8.3 PW3 is the duty officer who proved registration of FIR and endorsement on the original rukka vide Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B. 8.4 PW4 is the official who proved the permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C for prosecuting the accused. This witness was not cross examined by the defence counsel and his testimony goes unchallenged. 8.5 PW5 is the Constable who accompanied the IO at the spot. He stated that on receipt of DD No. 8A he alongwith IO reached BTC complex, ITI Pusa, Subzimandi where statement of complainant was recorded and FIR was registered through him after preparation of rukka. He also proved his presence at the time of arrest of the accused. This witness was also not cross examined by the defence counsel.
8.6 PW6 is the IO of the case. He stated that on receipt of DD No. 8A he alongwith Ct Ashok Kumar reached the spot and prepared the rukka and site plan. He also stated that complainant was sent for medical examination with Ct Ashok and he collected the MLC No. 88084/03 wherein injuries opined as simple. He also proved the arrest of the accused. He also stated that permission U/s 195 Cr.P.C was received by him vide Ex. PW6/D.
9. DEFENCE EVIDENCE.
9.1 In his defence, accused has examined only one witness. DW1 is FIR No. 139/03 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 5/11 the official working with the accused in the same office. DW1 stated that he was posted as sweeper in BTC, Pusa at the time of alleged incident and V.K Saxena was Principal of BTC, Pusa. He further stated that accused entered the room of the Principal and requested for salary which was not released as accused has taken frequent leaves. He also stated that at that time as he was cleaning the room, Principal directed the accused to leave the room and asked him to come later and told accused that he is habitually taking leaves and accused left the room and no quarrel took place in his presence. During his cross examination by Ld APP for the State, he admitted that accused has joined BTC, Pusa in the year 1992 with him and is having good family relations with the accused. He also stated that accused used to be habitually absent from duty. He also stated that accused Ramesh Kumar got angry with the Principal but denied that accused gave beatings to the Principal. He also stated that he will be upset if accused is convicted.
10. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE: PW2 is the complainant. He not only proved his complaint but also stated the manner in which the accused attacked upon him. He also explained the motive of the attack by the accused as the salary of the accused was deducted due to his unauthorized absence of duty. The only witness who has not supported the version of prosecution is PW1. But even he also admitted that when he entered the room of principal where he found the accused present there. Even though he denied the quarrel and FIR No. 139/03 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 6/11 subsequent injury upon the complainant but admitted that both were talking to each other. Another eye witness Satbir Singh was not examined as he expired during the pendency of the trial. It appears that PW1 being colleague of the accused has given testimony in contrast to his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C being an interested witness. The defence witness has admitted that he is the colleague of the accused and having good family relations with the accused. Even during his cross examination, DW1 stated that accused Ramesh Kumar got angry with the principal. It is to be noted that DW1 stood surety of the accused. I am satisfied that this persons is also an interested witness. The complaint and sanction for prosecution U/s 195 Cr.P.C was proved by PW4. The police witnesses have also gave testimonies supporting the version of the prosecution.
11. In the present case all the ingredients of the offence are satisfied. Accused has not only obstructed the Principal in discharging his public duties of over seeing the work of the Institute but also caused hurt to him by attacking with fists and blows which resulted into injuries on the finger of the complainant.
12. On the basis of testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The offence is therefore clearly made out against the accused.
FIR No. 139/03PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 7/11
13. Accordingly, the accused Ramesh Kumar is convicted for the offence under Section 186, 353 and 332 IPC.
Put up for arguments on sentencing on 27.07.2012. Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) COURT ON 24.07.2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05 DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 139/03PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 8/11 IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 05, ROOM NO. 513, DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI.
STATE VERSUS RAMESH KUMAR P.S INDERPURI FIR No. 139/2003 U/s 186/353/334 IPC.
Present : Ld APP for the State.
Convicts alongwith counsel.
O R D E R ON SENTENCING.
1. Arguments on the point of sentence heard today.
2. Ld. APP for the State submits that the offence by the convicts are proved. He submits that convicts be sentenced as per law.
3. On the other hand Ld counsel for the convicts submits that the convict is working as mali and the incident happened due to salary dispute with the complainant/ injured He further argued that the convict is having growing children. He also submits that the convict is earning his livelihood by working and there is no previous involvement in any other criminal offence. He prays for releasing the convict on probation.
4. Heard. Perused.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in ''Abdul Qayum Vs. State of Bihar, (1972) 1 SCC 103 that:
'Probation of Offenders Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of FIR No. 139/03 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 9/11 criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him''.
6. Section 3 and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act provides that the courts have to exercise their discretion while extending the benefit of Probation. But such discretion under any Statue has to be exercised judicially.
7. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act provides that any convict who is dealt U/s 3 or 4 of the Act shall not suffer disqualification if any, attaching to the conviction.
8. The Supreme Court in MCD Vs. State of Delhi,(2005) 4 SCC 605, whilst analyzing Section 4 held that:
''The discretion of the court has to be exercised having regard to the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the age, character and antecedents of the offender. Such exercise of discretion needs a sense of responsibility. The offender can only be released on probation of good conduct under this section when the court forms an opinion, having considered the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, that in a particular case, the offender should be released on probation of good conduct. The section itself is clear that before applying the section, the Magistrate should carefully take into consideration the attendant circumstances''.
9. In the present case, convict was found guilty for offences U/s 186/353/332 IPC. The incident happened due to some dispute over the release of salary by the complainant/ injured. The offence was not pre FIR No. 139/03 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 10/11 mediated, but it happened at the spur of moment. No previous involvement has been brought on record. The convict has family to maintain. Hence, the convict must get a chance to reform as the convict wants to live with his life peacefully.
10. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the convict is released on probation U/s 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on furnishing probation bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety in like amount and to appear and receive sentence when called upon within one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior. Convict is further directed to pay Rs. 500/ for the offence U/s 186 IPC, Rs. 5000/ for the offence U/s 353 IPC and Rs. 2000/ for the offence U/s 332 IPC as compensation to the State. Compensation deposited.
11. Probation bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/ each furnished by the convicts. Same are considered and accepted.
12. Copy of order be given free of cost to the convict. Copy of the order be also sent to the SHO concerned to file report before the court on quarterly basis about the conduct of the convict.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) Court on 27.07.2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05 DWARKA COURTS, DELHI FIR No. 139/03 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page 11/11