Delhi District Court
(North East) vs Vijay Pal Parcha 1/6 on 18 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03
(NORTH EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
PRESIDED BY: LALIT KUMAR
CA No. 44246/15
State
Through Public Prosecutor
North East, Karkardooma.
Versus
Vijay Pal Parcha
s/o Sh.Jagdish
r/o 14/173, Kalyanpuri,
Delhi.
Date of assignment : 03.07.2013
Date of Arguments : 31.07.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2018
Judgment :
1 By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned
judgment dt. 08.02.2013 whereby Ld.Trial Court has acquitted the
respondent/accused for offence u/s 420 IPC in FIR no.302/99
registered at PS Shahdara.
2 The brief facts, which are relevant for deciding the present appeal are that one Bhagmal s/o Hori Lal lodged the complaint that he had worked with MCD as muster roll worker(safai Karamchari) w.e.f State vs Vijay Pal Parcha 1/6 26.10.94 to 01.11.94 as during those days, Delhi was in grip of infectious diseases. The complainant and other workers were assured that they would be given regular employment as and when vacancies would arise. Thereafter, the vacancies were declared in January 1997 and the workers who had worked during October/November 1994 were taken on employment as muster roll workers in CSE Department, but the complainant was ignored despite the fact that he had also applied for the job of muster roll worker. The complainant further stated that accused Vijay Pal Parcha who was then office bearer of 'Delhi Prantiya Balmiki Mazdoor Sangh' falsely persuaded him to pay sum of Rs.15,000/so that he would manage employment for him. The complainant has paid the said amount to accused Vijay Pal Parcha in December 1996, but neither the job was provided to the complainant nor the said amount was returned to him. It was also came into the notice of the complainant that his younger brother Jitender (since convicted by the Ld.Trial Court) who impersonated himself as Bhagmal was given job in the MCD.
3 Thereafter, chargesheet was filed and the charge was framed for the offence u/s 420 IPC against the respondent/accused Vijay Pal and the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded and the accused has not led any defence evidence and after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, the impugned State vs Vijay Pal Parcha 2/6 judgment was passed in favour of the respondent/accused. 4 Aggrieved with the judgment/order dt.08.02.2013 of the Ld.Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5 Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/accused and the Trial Court Record was called for.
6 I have heard the submissions made by Sh. Zenul Abedeen, Ld.Addl.PP for the State and Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Ld.Counsel for respondent/accused and have perused the record carefully. 7 It is the settled proposition of law that ordinarily, sitting in appeal does not reappreciate the evidence that already appreciated in detail by the Ld.Trial Court for the reason that Trial Court has also an opportunity of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witness. Of course, the same is provided the Trial Court has not committed an error of such an impact that the same was resulted in miscarriage of justice. Reference may be held in judgment of Apex Court in Hussain and Another Vs Union of India and Ashu Vs State of Rajasthan which is dated 19.03.2017 passed in Crl.App. no.509/17. 8 It is argued on behalf of appellant that the Ld.MM has ignored the evidence of the star witness of the case PW5 Bhagmal who is the complainant, as to how respondent/accused Vijay Pal has taken cash of Rs.15,000/ from him for providing employment in the MCD office for him. It is further argued that the Ld.Trial Court has ignored the evidence of PW5 Bhagmal/complainant as to how State vs Vijay Pal Parcha 3/6 respondent/accused Vijay Pal had neither returned the amount nor provided the job to PW5 Bhagmal/complainant. It is further argued that the Ld.Trial Court has ignored the evidence of PW5 Bhagmal/complainant as to how Jitender (since convicted) was doing the job in his name in the MCD office. It is further argued that the impugned judgment dt.08.02.2013 is arbitrary and against all principles of law and has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record. It is further argued that impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and evidence brought on record. It is further argued that the impugned judgment is bad in the eyes of law and is based on the conjectures and surmises and as such, judgment of the Ld.Trial Court dt.08.02.2013 is liable to be set aside. 9 Per contra, respondent/accused has strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court is based on the facts of the case and there is no illegality in the said judgment. It is argued that while passing the impugned judgment/order, Ld. Trial Court has not overlooked the principles of conjunctures and surmises. It is further argued that present appeal is not maintainable in the eyes of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
10 At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant PW5 Bhagmal has deposed before the court that he had given Rs.15,000/ to respondent/accused Vijay Pal for providing his State vs Vijay Pal Parcha 4/6 job in MCD, but respondent/accused Vijay Pal neither provided job to him nor returned the money. To prove this fact, PW5 Complainant Bhagmal has nowhere mentioned as to on which date, he had given Rs.15,000/ to respondent/accused Vijay Pal. Even the testimony of complainant PW5 Bhagmal does not get any corroboration from any other witness to prove the allegations made by him. Moreover, nothing has been recovered from the possession of respondent/accused Vijay Pal and as such the necessary ingredient for offence of cheating could not be proved on record against respondent/accused Vijay Pal. 11 Furthermore, respondent/accused Vijay Pal was posted as a 'Safai Karamchari' and was member of 'Balmiki Mazdoor Sangh, but it has nowhere mentioned that respondent/accused has the authority to provide the job to complainant PW5 Bhagmal. Moreover, it has not come on record that respondent/accused Vijay Pal has ever introduced the complainant PW5 Bhagmal at any point of time. Even Complainant PW5 Bhagmal in his cross examination has deposed that he did not remember as to at which post, respondent/accused Vijay Pal was working.
12 Perusal of record reveals that there is no other independent witness has been produced to corroborate the version of PW5 Bhagmal with regard to the alleged incident. Thus, it creates doubt about the credibility of testimony of the P.W5 and this makes the prosecution story doubtful.
State vs Vijay Pal Parcha 5/613 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the grounds raised in the appeal are merit less and do not call for any interference in the impugned judgment dt. 08.02.2013. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. TCR be sent back to the concerned court along with copy of judgment. Appeal file is consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
LALIT LALIT KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2018.08.18
16:13:47
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (LALIT KUMAR)
th
TODAY ON 18 AUGUST,2018 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE03
NE/KKD COURTS/DELHI.
State vs Vijay Pal Parcha 6/6
State vs Vijay Pal Parcha 7/6