Delhi District Court
State vs . Shilpi Dixit on 27 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SAVITRI,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Case ID No. 577/11
Unique Case ID : 02402R0793472008
State Vs. Shilpi Dixit
FIR No. 198/08
PS : Vivek Vihar
U/s 3 West Bengal Defacement of Property Act
Date of institution: 31.10.2008
Judgment Reserved on: Not Reserved
Date of Judgment: 27.01.2014
JUDGMENT
a) Serial No. of the case 02402R0793472008
b) Date of commission 26.8.2008
of the offence
c) Name of the complainant Sanjeev Kumar
d) Name of the accused Shilpi Dixit D/o Sh. Rajesh Dixit
person, and his parentage R/o H.No. 34, Shiv Mandir Gali
and address. Maujpur, Delhi53.
e) Offence complained or u/s. 3 West Bengal Defacement of
proved Property Act
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) The final order Convicted
h) Date of such order 27.01.2014
FIR No. 198/08 PS Vivek Vihar Page 1 of 6
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF
THE CASE:
1. The present challan was filed on 31.10.2008 on the basis of an FIR u/s. 3 of West Bengal Defacement of Property Act registered on 26.8.2008. Prosecution case is that the complainant/policeman was on patrolling duty on this day at about 8.00 p.m. he reached near Vivekanand Mahila College and found that on the wall of the college one poster was affixed. The length and the width of the poster was about 2 ft and 1.5 ft respectively. The poster was bearing the photograph of a girl and words "Join ABVP Shilpi Dixit" were written on the same. The poster had been affixed by the accused Shilpi Dixit for canvassing purposes. Photograph of the poster was taken. Investigation was carried out. Accused was arrested and released on police bail and after completing the investigation, the challan was filed.
2. After appearance of the accused, Sec.207 Cr.PC was complied with. Notice was framed against the accused on 21.1.2012 for the offence punishable u/s. 3 West Bengal Prevention of Defacement and Property Act, 1976 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses. All of them have supported the case of the prosecution.
4. PW1 is W/Ct. Krishna. She went to the house of accused on 28.8.2008 alongwith the IO. She has proved her signatures on arrest memo FIR No. 198/08 PS Vivek Vihar Page 2 of 6 and also on personal search memo.
5. PW2 is Ct. Satish Kumar. He was alongwith the IO on patrolling duty on date of incident. He has stated the date of incident as 26.7.2008 (which is wrong). IO wrote the rukka Ex.PW2/A and handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR. After registration of FIR in the PS, he handed over the copy of FIR and asal tehrir to the IO. He correctly identified the photograph of poster on which the present case is based. He denied the suggestion that he never reached the spot. In his cross examination, he admitted that the photograph placed on record Ex.P1 was not showing any wall of Vivekanand Mahila College or any gate of the said college. He denied the suggestion that no poster was affixed on the wall of the college or near the gate. He denied the suggestion that no such photograph was taken at the alleged place. He admitted that he had not seen the accused or any other person affixing the poster. He denied the suggestion that photograph Ex.P1 was prepared by trick photography or in connivance with opponents of ABVP. He denied the suggestion that the poster was given to the police by NSUI people which police affixed for registering this case.
6. PW3 is ASI Dushyant Kumar. He is the Duty Officer who proved the FIR.
7. PW4 is HC Raj Kumar. He is the official photographer and he handed over the photograph to the IO. In his crossexamination, he denied FIR No. 198/08 PS Vivek Vihar Page 3 of 6 the suggestion that he did not visit the spot on the call of the IO. He denied the suggestion that he had not taken the photograph at VMC College. He denied the suggestion that he could not tell the number of photographs taken as he never remained involved in the investigation. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P1 was result of trick photography and same was not affixed on wall of VMC college.
8. PW5 HC Sanjeev is the IO of the case. In his examinationinchief, he has given the details of the investigation conducted by him. He has correctly identified the accused present in the court. Even otherwise, her identity was not disputed by her counsel as evidence of PW1 and PW2 was recorded in her absence. In crossexamination, it is stated that he had called the photographer between 8.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. whereas photographer stated that he had left the PS at about 8.15 p.m. on the call of the IO. (These are some minor discrepancies and evidence of witnesses have been recorded about five years later after the incident had taken place. Therefore, these do not affect the merits of the case.) He denied the suggestion that he never called the photographer nor the photographer visited the spot. The prosecution witnesses have been given suggestions that they did not collect any poster from the wall of gate of VMC College, because no poster was affixed. (Perusal of Ex.P1 shows that the poster was affixed with adhesive or gum. Hence, it is not practically possible to collect the same and the only medium to collect them could be photographs which have been taken in the FIR No. 198/08 PS Vivek Vihar Page 4 of 6 present case.) He admitted that neither the accused nor any of her associate was present at the spot. Regarding the cross on the aspect of public witnesses, the prosecution witness stated that though public was passing by but they were not ready to become witness in the present case. IO denied the suggestion that he did not make any writing work at the spot. He had denied the suggestion that poster Ex.P1 was not affixed at the wall or at the gate of VMC College or that he never visited the spot. He has also denied the suggestion that the poster Ex.P1 has been given to him by opponents of the accused belonging to ABVP or NSUI for registering the present false case against her.
9. After completion of PE, statement of accused was recorded wherein she stated that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. She stated that she never studied in Vivekanand Mahila College and never contested any elections in Vivekanand Mahila College and she never got published any posters and she had been falsely implicated by police. She further stated that niether she nor any associate of her affixed posters on the wall of Vivekanand Mahila College and she never violated any rules and regulations. She did not want to lead DE.
10. Today matter was fixed for final arguments. I have heard Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for State. I have perused the record.
11. I have asked certain court questions to the accused. It has come on record that she had joined ABVP in 2008 and she had contested elections of FIR No. 198/08 PS Vivek Vihar Page 5 of 6 Joint Secretary at Shyam Lal College (Evening) where she was a student. Sec.3 of West Bengal Defacement of Property Act provides u/s. 3(2) that where any offence of defacement of property is for benefit of some other person then such person shall be liable unless he proved that offence is committed without his knowledge or consent. In view of the admitted position that accused was Member of ABVP and she had joined the same in 2008 and she had also contested the election in her college and further having regard to the fact that no other person could benefit by affixing poster in her name and further that she had failed to lead any evidence in her favour, I am of the view that she has been unable to prove that the offence in the present case had been committed without her knowledge and consent. In the present case, some material was used to permanently affix the poster shown in Ex.P1 on a wall which was in public view. So the offence of defacement of public view by way of affixing the poster with the help of adhesive is covered u/s. 3 of West Bengal Defacement of Property Act and is established beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused and submissions of her counsel to the contrary are declined. I, therefore, held her guilty.
12. Let she be heard on sentence.
Announced in Open Court (SAVITRI)
today on 27.01.2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Shahdara, Delhi
FIR No. 198/08 PS Vivek Vihar Page 6 of 6