Delhi District Court
Vinod Maheshwari vs The State on 25 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No. 41/15
ID No. 02406R0297122014
Vinod Maheshwari
S/o Shri B. S. Maheshwari
R/o B/I 202, Yamuna Vihar,
New Delhi. . . . . Revisionist
Through: Shri Rajesh Ranjan,
advocate.
versus
The State . . . . . Respondent
Through: Shri M. Zafar Khan,
Additional Public
Prosecutor
__________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 14.11.2014
Date of receipt of file by way of
transfer in this court : 21.02.2015
Date when arguments were heard : 22.05.2015
Date of Judgment : 25.05.2015
JUDGMENT :
The present Revision Petition, filed under section 397 read with section 399 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short CR No. 41/15 1 of 7 "Cr.P.C."), seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and legality of order dated 30.09.2014 passed by learned MM09, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR No. 206/05, under section 186/332/353 of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") PS Defence Colony titled as State Vs. Vinod Maheshwari.
2. Background facts of the case are that on 16.04.2005, at about 7:40 PM, at Kotla Red Light, Defence Colony, revisionist came on a motorcycle make Pulsar bearing registration number DL3SB6400. PW1 Ct. Veer Bhan and PW4 Ct. Aiyazuddin were on antisnatching picket duty at the said red light on the date of incident. Revisionist was stopped by the police officials and asked to produce his DL and RC but he failed to produce. Revisionist is alleged to have misbehaved with the aforesaid police officials and pushed them due to which they fell down and sustained injuries. Revisionist was found involved in the commission of offence in the case and therefore, he was charge sheeted to face trial for committing the offence punishable under section 186/332/353 IPC.
3. Charge for offence under section 186/332/353 IPC was framed against revisionist, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of revisionist under section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded wherein, revisionist claimed innocence CR No. 41/15 2 of 7 and alleged false implication. Revisionist denied to lead defence evidence.
4. Vide judgment dated 30.09.2014, revisionist was found guilty and convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 186/332/353 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 07.10.2014, revisionist was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs. 500/ for offence under section 186 IPC. He was further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ each for offences under section 332 & 353 IPC.
5. Revisionist, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2014 and order on sentence dated 07.10.2014, has filed the present Revision Petition.
6. Upon notice, respondent made appearance through Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. No formal reply to the revision has been filed on behalf of respondent.
7. I have heard the submissions advanced by Shri Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for revisionist and Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
8. It was submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that learned MM failed to appreciate the complaint lodged by revisionist against the erring police officials for their illegal acts and misuse of power. He further submitted that learned MM failed to notice the CR No. 41/15 3 of 7 material contradiction and improvements rendering the prosecution case to be doubtful. It was further argued that there is no substantial evidence on record to corroborate the allegations of complainant which go against the revisionist. Learned counsel for revisionist, after drawing attention of this court to the testimony of prosecution witnesses, submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against revisionist and therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court.
9. Per contra, it was submitted by Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State that impugned judgment and order passed by learned MM is based on correct appreciation of facts and law and it does not call for any interference by this court.
10. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record.
11. I have gone through the impugned judgment of learned Trial Court and find that on appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned MM has rightly convicted the revisionist for having committed the offence punishable under section 186/332/353 IPC. Presence of revisionist at spot on the alleged date of incident is not disputed. The contention of revisionist is that the police officials demanded bribery from him, which he refused and due to this, they became angry and dragged him to the picket behind Defence Market CR No. 41/15 4 of 7 and in the scuffle, they themselves suffered injuries. He further alleged that he was beaten when he refused to bribe them. The place of incident is a public place. Revisionist has himself admitted that he was not having RC at the time, when he was stopped and asked to show the RC by PW1 Ct. Veer Bhan and PW4 Ct. Aiyazuddin. The factum of presence of these police officials at the place of occurrence has also been proved by public witnesses Sunil Kaushik and Daya Shanker Chaubey.
12. Revisionist has miserably failed to prove on record that he was beaten up by PW1 Ct. Veer Bhan and PW4 Ct. Aiyazuddin on the alleged date and time of incident. The photograph Ex.PW1/D1 does not prove that due to beatings given by the aforesaid police officials, he suffered injuries. Photograph itself has not been duly proved on record as per law.
13. It is a matter of record that PW1 Ct. Veer Bhan and PW4 Ct. Aiyazuddin had suffered injuries. Learned MM has rightly rejected the contention of revisionist that the police officials received injuries as they had fallen down during scuffle by observing that it is hard to believe that PW1 Ct. Veer Bhan and PW4 Ct. Aiyazuddin would fall down on their own and receive injuries on their knees and hands. Learned MM has opined that such injuries are possible only when a person is pushed and he tries to guard himself from fall. PW1 Ct. Veer CR No. 41/15 5 of 7 Bhan and PW4 Ct. Aiyazuddin are public servants. They were discharging their duties when the revisionist were stopped to show his DL and RC. Both the witnesses remained firm and consistent throughout their testimony. There is no material contradiction in their deposition. They do not have any ill will with the revisionist. Revisionist has also failed to bring any previous enmity with the police officials. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to discard and disbelieve the testimony of the police officials.
14. The allegation of bribery has not been proved on record by the revisionist against PW1 Ct. Veer Bhan and PW4 Ct. Aiyazuddin. The alleged complaint made by revisionist against these police officials to the DCP is not sufficient to conclude that they demanded bribery from him and when he refused to pay, they have booked him in a false case. Any person can make any complaint against anybody but unless and until the allegations are proved, the complaint cannot be believed.
15. In view of aforesaid reasons and observations, I find that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2014. A well reasoned judgment has been passed by learned MM while appreciating the contentions of both the parties. Accordingly, I concur with the findings given by learned MM and affirm the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2014.
16. So far as sentence awarded to revisionist is concerned, this CR No. 41/15 6 of 7 court is of the considered view that learned MM has rightly imposed the sentence as per law. The sentence which has been imposed is reasonable and fully justified. I do not find any reason to interfere in the sentence awarded to revisionist by learned MM.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the view that revision lacks merit and same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision preferred by revisionist is hereby dismissed.
18. Revisionist is directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount in terms of section 437 A Cr.P.C. Revisionist is directed to surrender before the court of learned MM on 02.06.2015 for suffering the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him vide order dated 07.10.2014.
19. Copy of judgment be given to revisionist free of cost. A true copy of the judgment along with TCR be sent back to court concerned. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e 25th May, 2015 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No. 41/15 7 of 7