Delhi District Court
State vs . Mam Raj on 29 June, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA, MM06 SOUTH WEST ,
DWARKA, DELHI
STATE Vs. Mam Raj
JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR No. of the case : 78/09
(b) The date of commission of : 06.03.2009
offence
(c) The name of complainant : Arindiya Chaterji s/o Sh.Asit
Chaterji R/o Vill. Bagdola,
Sector 8 Dwarka Delhi c/o
Harpal Singh.
(d) The name, parentage etc. of : Mam Raj s/o Sh. Shish Ram R/o
accused Village Khuddan P S & Distt.
Jhajjar, Haryana
(e) The offence complained of/ : 285 IPC
proved
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The date of institution : 12.06.2009
(h) The final order : Convicted
(i) The date on which order was : 29.06.2012
reserved
(j) The date of such order : 29.06.2012
k) Brief statement of the reasons
for the decision
1. The allegation against the accused is that on 6.3.2009 at about 6.15 at Sector 3, Phase III, near Vardhman Plaza Dwarka, the accused being FIR No. 78/09 St. Vs. Mam Raj 2 the driver of JCB machine while digging the land in a negligent manner damaged the main pipe line of Inderprastha gas Limited as the result of that gas leaked from the gas pipe . For the said offence FIR 78/09 P S Binda Pur for offences u/s 285 IPC was registered. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused in court.
2. From the material on record Charge was framed against the accused for the offence U/s 285 IPC on 29042011, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To support its case the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. PW1 Anindya Chatterjee is the complainant. PW2 Joydeep Bhattacharya is the spot witness. PW3 Sh. Babloo photographer took the photographs of the spot and the offending vehicle. PW4 Pawan Kumar Yadav Contractor has deposed regarding giving of instructions to work with care to the accused. PW5 Sh. Rajesh register owner of the offending vehicle produced the offending vehicle before the police official and identified the accused as driver of the offending vehicle. PW6 SI Shanti Prakash duty officer registered FIR no. 78/09. PW7 H C Karan Singh MHCM produced register no. 19. PW8 ASI InderPal is the IO of the case. PW9 Constable Sanjay assisted IO in investigation of the case and arrest of the accused.
4. The prosecution version as adduced in the evidence is that on 6.3.2009 PW8 ASI Inderpal was posted at P S Binda Pur. On that day, on FIR No. 78/09 St. Vs. Mam Raj 3 receiving DD no. 40 A Ex.PW6/C he went to Sector Phase III, Dwarka alongwith PW9 Constable Sanjay at the spot. They saw at the spot a JCB machine was parked near excavation points. They came to know that IGL pipe lines had been damaged during excavation. They met PW1 Anandiya Chaterjee , Site Engineer IGL and PW2 Joy Deep Bhatacharya, Deputy Manager IGL at the spot. PW1 Anandiya Chaterjee gave his complaint Ex.PW1/A regarding breaking of pipe line to IO. I.O prepared tehrir Ex.PW8/A and sent the same through PW9 Ct. Sanjay for registration of FIR. After sometime, PW9 Ct. Sanjay came back to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka. IO prepared site plan Ex.PW8/B. PW3 Babloo, photographer was called at the spot and photographs were taken which are Ex.PX1 to Ex. PX4. The JCB was seized vide memo Ex. PW8/C. I.O recorded statements of witnesses and tried to search for the accused at the spot but the accused could not be found. Case property i.e JCB was taken to P. S and deposited in mal khana. Next day, the owner of the JCB PW5 Sh. Rajesh came to the police station alongwith the accused and identified him as the driver of the JCB on 06.03.2009. I.O gave notice Ex. PW8/D to the registered owner PW5 Rajesh Kumar who gave his reply at point A identifying the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. I.O seized the documents including seizure memo of DL vide memo Ex.PW8/E. The copies of tax invoice , sale certificate, fitness and insurance was seized vide memo Ex. PW8/F. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/A and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW 8/G. FIR No. 78/09 St. Vs. Mam Raj 4 Accused was released on bail from P S. I.O recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation , filed the charge sheet against the accused in court. PW4 Pawan Kumar contractor stated that he had called JCB for doing digging work in Sector 3 Phase 3 Dwarka which was being driven by the accused and that the excavation was to be done carefully as there were underground IGL pipe lines at the spot.
5. Thereafter the accused was examined U/s 281/313 Cr PC and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused. The accused submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused choose not to lead any DE and the matter was accordingly posted for final arguments.
6. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and the Ld counsel for the accused and have perused the material on record.
7. In the present case, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 6.3.2009 at about 6.15 at Sector 3, Phase III, near Vardhman Plaza Dwarka, the accused being the driver of JCB machine while digging the land in a negligent manner damaged the main pipe line of Inderprastha gas Limited as the result of that gas leaked from the gas pipe. To discharge its onus, the prosecution has inter alia examined as many as 9 witnesses including registered owner FIR No. 78/09 St. Vs. Mam Raj 5 of the offending vehicle Sh. Rajesh as PW5 and the contractor as PW4 Sh. Pawan Kumar . PW5 had identified the accused as the driver of the offending JCB on 6.3.2009 vide his endorsement at point A on notice Ex.PW8/D. PW4 Sh. Pawan Kumar Yadav has also identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. He has stated that he had taken work order from BSES for laying underground cable in Sector 3 , Phase III, Dwarka and for that purpose , he had called a JCB for doing digging work on 6.3.2009 . The JCB was being driven by the accused . That he had asked the accused to do digging work with due caution as there were underground pipe lines of IGL at the spot and mile stone indicating the presence of pipe lines was also put on the ground. The seizure of the offending JCB from the spot on 6.3.2009 vide memo Ex.PW8/C also connects the accused with the offending vehicle. The testimonies of PW4 Pawan Kumar Yadav and PW5 Rajesh have been corroborated on record by the testimonies of other witnesses including testimonies of PW8 ASI Inder Pal and PW9 Ct. Sanjay. The prosecution witnesses have been corroborated with each other in material particulars and the version of the prosecution appears to be trustworth. The prosecution witnesses have been cross examined at length but nothing materially damaging the prosecution version could be elicited on record.
8. It has been urged on behalf of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It appears that there is nothing on record even by way of a suggestion to afford any reason as to why the accused was FIR No. 78/09 St. Vs. Mam Raj 6 singled out by the complainant and falsely implicated, as alleged by the accused. There is no hint of any acrimony past or present between the complainant and the accused and in these circumstances, even from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent man, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant and the plea of false implication does not appear to be believable.
9. It has been urged on behalf of the accused that no public witness was joined in this case by the IO and as such the prosecution version is unbelievable. It appears to be the settled law that merely because public witnesses have not been joined in investigation does not falsify the case of the prosecution. Reference might be made here to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tahir Vs State 1996 SCC 515 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the value of the evidence of police officials and has observed as follows:
"No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force and there is no rule of evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The rule of evidence however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials after careful scrutiny FIR No. 78/09 St. Vs. Mam Raj 7 inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of a conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the credit worthiness of the prosecution witnesses."
10.When the test laid down in Tahir Supra is applied to the facts of the present case, it appears that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have remained credit worthy and believable. The version of the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence and the witnesses have corroborated each other in material particulars and the version of the prosecution has also been corroborated by the documentary evidence on record. It appears that the ratio of Tahir supra is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the non joining of public witnesses does not make the prosecution case unbelievable.
11. The prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the commission of the offence through ttestimonies of PW4 Pawan Kumar Yadav and PW5 Rajesh who hve deposed that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on 06.03.2009 and was doing the excavation work at the spot. The reply of registered owner of JCB at point A on notice Ex. PW8/D identifying the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle on 6.3.2009 also connects the accused with the commission of the offence. The seizure of the offending vehicle from FIR No. 78/09 St. Vs. Mam Raj 8 the spot on 6.3.2009 vide memo Ex.PW8/C also corroborates the version of the prosecution. The prosecution has thus enable to connect the accused with the offending vehicle and has been able to establish that the accused while operating the offending vehicle on 6.3.2009 damaged the IGL pipe lines at the spot. It also appears that there are no material contradictions in the statements of the PWs of such a nature as to discredit the version of the prosecution. The testimonies of the PWs have remained credit worthy and the PWs have corroborated each other in material particulars.
12.In the light of above discussion, all the ingredients of section 285 of the Indian Penal Code have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 285 IPC. Copy of this judgment be provided to the accused free of cost. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence separately.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY on 29rd June , 2012
(SHARAD GUPTA)
MM06/DWARKA/DELHI
FIR No. 78/09 St. Vs. Mam Raj
9
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Mamraj
P.S.: Binda pur
U/s: 285 IPC
FIR No. 78/09
ORDER ON SENTENCE
29.06.2012
Present : APP for the State.
Convict in person with counsel.
Arguments on quantum of sentence heard. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the guilt of the convict stands proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is not entitled to lenient view and may be punished with maximum imprisonment and fine.
On the other hand Ld. defence counsel has argued that the convict Mam Raj is the sole bread earner of his family and undue hardship will be caused to his family member in case he is sentenced to incarceration. The accused has shown remorse and an inclination to rehabilitate himself in his life. Thus, he has prayed that a lenient view may be taken against the convict.
I have considered the rival contentions and gone through record. Though the convict has been convicted but his financial condition and young age is also to be taken into consideration by the court. Furthermore, the objective of criminal law is not only to punish but also to reform the accused and to transform them into productive members of the society.
FIR No. 78/09 St. Vs. Mam Raj 10 Taking into consideration aforesaid facts, including the nature of the offence proved, the fact that no injury was caused to any peson in the incident , the remorse shown by the accused and his inclination to rehabilitate himself in his life , a lenient view deserves to be taken against him. Accused is accordingly sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ for offence u/s 285 IPC . ID SI 30 days. Fine paid. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. A copy of the judgment and order be supplied to the convict.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN ( SHARAD GUPTA )
COURT ON 29rd June 2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 78/09 St. Vs. Mam Raj