Delhi District Court
State vs . Smt. Madhu Bhandari on 25 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT ARORA
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. SMT. MADHU BHANDARI
FIR No.153/12
PS: MANDAWALI
JUDGMENT:
A New Number of the case 6518/18
B Name of the Complainant SI Veer Singh
Name of the accused & his Smt. Madhu Bhandari W/o Sh. C parentage and address Kuldeep Bhandari R/o C-94, Gali no.
8, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi
D Offence complained of : 3 D.P.D.P. Act
Date of commission of 06.04.2012
E
offence
F Date of Institution 05.10.2012
G Offence charged 3 D.P.D.P. Act
H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
I Order Reserved on 25.05.2019
J Date of pronouncement 25.05.2019
Final Order Acquitted of offence u/s 3 D.P.D.P.
K
Act
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION ALLEGATIONS FIR No. 153/12 State v. Smt. Madhu Bhandari Page No.1 of 7
1. The story of the prosecution as per charge sheet is as under:-
2. On 06.04.2012, SI Veer Singh alongwith SI Lokesh (PW1) were on patrolling and when they reached at Ambedkar Park, they saw one pamphlet which was pasted on wall of Ambedkar Park. The pamphlet was having photograph of various prominent leaders of Congress Party alongwith the photographs of Madhu Bhandari who was contesting election for councilor.
3. SI Veer Singh called one private photographer and removed the pamphlet and seized it. A tehrir was prepared and as the same amounted to an offence u/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007 the present FIR was registered. Later on challan was filed. Vide order dt. 20.02.2013, Ld predecessor directed for further investigation after noting that there was nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Later on supplementary challan was filed by HC Sher Singh (PW3) who collected the receipt of the printing order of the pamphlets from M/s Creative Waves from its owner namely Vikas Garg. As per the receipt the pamphlets were ordered by the accused Madhu Bhandari.
4. Accused was summoned to face trial and she was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act was framed against accused and read out to her, to which she pleaded not FIR No. 153/12 State v. Smt. Madhu Bhandari Page No.2 of 7 guilty and claimed trial.
DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
6. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has examined three witnesses in all. It is pertinent to note here that the prosecution was unable to examine the printer PW Vikas Kumar despite ample opportunities. Similarly IO SI Veer Singh also could not be examined as it was reported that he was absent from his duties without any intimation since 20.06.2018. Accordingly they were dropped from the list of witness.
7. PW SI Lokesh Kumar has deposed in terms of the prosecution case. He deposed that he saw one board affixed on the wall of Ambedkar having photograph of the accused and various other leaders. He deposed that IO obtained photographs through a private photographer and seized the pamphlet was seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. Photograph was proved as Ex. PW1/C. One CD was also prepared which was Ex. P-1. Site plan was prepared which was Ex. PW1/D. During cross-examination, he stated that he do not remember whether pamphlets of other parties were also pasted. He denied that the pamphlets produced in the court were not pasted at the spot. He admitted that the case property was not sealed. He further deposed that he further denied that the case property was planted upon the accused as the same was easily available in the market.
8. PW2 is Vikas Singh who is the photographer. He deposed that he was FIR No. 153/12 State v. Smt. Madhu Bhandari Page No.3 of 7 deputed on election duty and conducted videography. One CD was shown to him and he deposed that he had submitted the same to the concerned SDM. CD was Ex.P-1. He had denied the suggestions that he had not prepared the CD.
9. PW3 is ASI Sher Singh who has conducted further investigation. He deposed that on the case property Creative Waves Pvt. Ltd was written and he gave notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to Vikas Garg regarding the pamphlets. He deposed that on 04.09.2015 Vikas garg gave him one bill which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. The copy of the bill was exhibited as Mark -XA.
10. After completion of PE, statement of accused was recorded wherein she denied all the allegations. He stated that she was implicated by the other political parties and she had not affixed any pamphlets.
11.Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
12. Ld. APP for state contended that the witness of the prosecution i.e. PW1 has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the pamphlet was affixed by the accused on the wall to advertise herself in her election compagn and the offence u/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is made out. On the other hand Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that there are various lacunaes in the prosecution case as no independent witness was joined to prove that such a poster was affixed. That the printer was not examined despite repeated opportunities. He FIR No. 153/12 State v. Smt. Madhu Bhandari Page No.4 of 7 further contends that such a pamphlets can be very easily got printed by any person and in the absence of any direct evidence showing that the same was affixed by the accused or at her instance by her supporters, accused cannot be convicted and she is entitled to benefit of doubt.
13. I have perused the entire record including the statement of witnesses.
14. It is trite to say that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
15. In the instant case there are many loop holes in the version of the prosecution story. It is pertinent to note here that the prosecution in the first place has been unable to examine the printer who had printed the pamphlets. Prosecution cited one Vikas Kumar in this regard however he was not examined. The testimony of PW3 ASI Sher Singh is not of much assistance to the case of the prosecution. As per his version he has seized one bill from Vikas Garg. The bill was marked as Mark XA. I have perused the said bill. It is a retail invoice. A question arises as to why the IO did not seize the entire bill book and why only loose bill was seized. The possibility that such a document was procured by the IO cannot be ruled out as the owner of the agency was not examined.
16. Moreover the IO SI Veer Singh was also not examined. So far as the testimony of PW1 is concerned. During cross-examination he admitted FIR No. 153/12 State v. Smt. Madhu Bhandari Page No.5 of 7 that it is correct that any person can get the pamphlet from the market.
17. Thus, going by the evidence available on record, I find that the present case was registered only on the basis of presumption that since the poster contained the photograph of the accused, she had got them printed and had affixed at the wall. I have seen the pamphlet which was produced in the court also as well as its photograph. Now merely because the photograph of the accused is shown on pamphlet does not lead to a presumption that the banner was fixed by the accused herself. There has to be some direct evidence in this regard to show that the banner was affixed by the supporters of the accused at her instance or under her directions. In the instant case there is no such evidence led by the prosecution.
18. Moreover the printer Vikas also could not be examined despite repeated opportunities.
19. I am also in agreement with the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that such a pamphlet can be printed by any third person to implicate the accused out of political rivalry. The possibility of the fact that the same was affixed by the rival parties cannot be ruled out as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had got the same printed. Such a pamphlet can be printed and affixed by any person and as such once the accused is refusing that she affixed the pamphlet, the possibility of her opponents pasting the pamphlet in order to implicate her cannot be ruled out. The examination of printing press officials would have provided additional corroboration to the version of prosecution. They could have provided the name of person on whose behalf that pamphlet was published and the same would have been vital piece of evidence. However, the printer was not examined. Moreover the bill placed on FIR No. 153/12 State v. Smt. Madhu Bhandari Page No.6 of 7 record has no evidentiary value as it is a loose bill and the entire bill book was not seized and the possibility that the bill was later on antedated cannot be ruled out. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the allegation against the accused.
CONCLUSION
20. In view of my above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are several loop holes in the prosecution story which give rise to doubt in the mind of the court as regards the alleged investigation and inclines the court to give benefit of doubt to accused.
21. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions accused is acquitted of offence u/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.
22. As per section 437-A of the Cr.P.C as inserted vide the Amendments Act which came into force on 31.12.2009, accused shall furnish fresh personal bond and surety bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- today which shall remain intact for a period of six months from today.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. ANNOUNCED ON 25.05.2019 (AMIT ARORA) ACMM (E)/KKD/Delhi/25.05.2019 Certified that this judgment was directly typed by my personal assistant on computer directly on my dictation.
(AMIT ARORA)
ACMM (E)/KKD/Delhi/25.05.2019
Digitally
signed by
AMIT AMIT ARORA
Date:
ARORA 2019.05.25
05:19:12
+0530
FIR No. 153/12 State v. Smt. Madhu Bhandari Page No.7 of 7