Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Suresh Chand Sharma vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 May, 2022

Author: Jasmeet Singh

Bench: Jasmeet Singh

$~35
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.REV.P. 349/2022
       SURESH CHAND SHARMA                                ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Advocate for Mr.
                          Anwesh Madhukar, Advocate
                          versus
       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                              ..... Respondent
                          Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sabharwal, Ld. APP
                          SI Raj Kiran, PS Parliament Street
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
                          ORDER

% 31.05.2022 CRL.M.A. 11162/2022-EX.

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

This is a legal aid matter and has been argued very ably by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Madhukar, Advocate. She has assisted the Court with the facts as well as legal submissions.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Court, wherein the sentence of the petitioner was reduced from Rigorous imprisonment of one year to imprisonment till the rising of the Court on the same day.

The learned Sessions Court also ordered that the payment of fine be increased from Rs.10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- to the State for the commission of offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and in default the petitioner would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The brief facts of the case are that, on 21.04.2013, the petitioner was traveling in a DTC bus bearing No. DL1PC0385 of Route No. 408. PW-1, ATI (DTC) was on ticket checking duty on the said bus and when he asked the petitioner to produce his ticket/ pass, the petitioner failed to produce the same as he was not having any ticket for travel.

The petitioner was thus asked to deboard the bus near Patel Chowk, Chambery, Ashoka Road, New Delhi at around 2:20 PM. When he deboarded, it is stated suddenly the petitioner picked up a bamboo stick and hit the bus and thereafter also hit the bus with a stone, as a result of which the left side triangular glass of the bus was broken. The accused was apprehended at the spot and was arrested.

The charges were framed against the accused under Section 124/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 subsequent to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Vide judgment dated 28.08.2019, the learned MM, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, held the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 and Section 124/177 MV Act,1988.

In the Revision Petition before the learned ASJ, Fast Track Court, Patiala House Courts, the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. He denied breaking the glass window of the bus and rather alleged that it was the DTC staff present at the spot who misbehaved and beat him. The petitioner also states that neither the bamboo stick nor the stone used for damaging the left side window of the bus have been found. He further states that there are contradictions in the case of the prosecution and there is no incriminating evidence against him. He further submits that as per the D.D. No. 16A dated 21.04.2013, there is no mention that the petitioner had thrown any stone on the bus, as a result of which the window pane had broken. The petitioner stated that the Trial Court had not appreciated the evidence correctly and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Revision court on 08.02.2021 held as under:-

"6. In the present case to prove the case against the accused, witnesses which have been examined by the prosecution were those who were present at the spot at the time of commission of offence. PW-1, Mr. Roop Ram, ATI (DTC) is the official who was posted on the duty of ticket checking on that day. He asked tickets from the appellant and found that appellant was traveling without ticket and he deboarded the accused and further deposed that after deboarding from the bus appellant hit the bus with a bamboo stick and hit the glass of the bus with the help of stone. The testimony of PW-1 is further corroborated by PW-2, Sh. Raghubir Singh, Retired, ATI, (DTC) who was also on the ticket checking duty on the day of the incident in the same bus and he has also supported the version of PW-1 with respect to the traveling of accused without tickets and hitting by him the window of the bus with the help of a stone. PW-3, Sh. Sajjan Kumar, who was the Driver of the DTC bus, has also corroborated the statements of PW-1 and PW-2. PW- 5, ASI Raj Kumar, who investigated the case, his testimony is also in consonance with the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. PW-7 Sh. T.U. Siddiqui, Civil & Rural Engineer has proved the inspection report of the vehicle as Ex.PW7/A.Photographs and negatives of the bus are proved by PW-6 HC Ajitender as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively."

In the judgment of the trial court and the subsequent judgment of the revision court, no inconsistency could be brought out in the evidence of the witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses, which has already been upheld by two courts now. PW-1 and PW-2 are the eye witnesses to the incident who not only saw but also identified the petitioner. I cannot agree with the stand taken by the petitioner that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

According to me, the learned Sessions Court has already taken a very lenient view in the matter, and I find no reason to interfere in the same.

The petition is thus dismissed.

JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 31, 2022 / (MS) Click here to check corrigendum, if any