Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Aggarwal on 5 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT ARORA
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
STATE Vs. SANJAY AGGARWAL
FIR No.256/17
PS: Preet Vihar
JUDGMENT:
A Case No. 1837/18 B Name of the Complainant ASI Shish Pal Singh
Name of the accused & his Sanjay Aggarwal s/o Sh. Jai Prakash
C R/o A-5, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi
parentage and address
D Offence complained of : 3 D.P.D.P. Act
Date of commission of 10.11.2017
E
offence
F Date of Institution 03.05.2018
G Offence charged 3 D.P.D.P. Act
H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
I Order Reserved on 03.05.2018
J Date of pronouncement 05.05.2018
Final Order Acquitted of offence u/s 3 D.P.D.P.
K
Act.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION ALLEGATIONS
1. The story of the prosecution as per charge sheet is as under:-
2. On 11.11.2017, PW1 ASI Shish Pal Singh (Investigating officer) alongwith Ct. Monu was on patrolling duty. When they reached near FIR No. 256/17 State V. Sanjay Aggarwal NO:1 OF 5 C-62, Preet Vihar, Delhi, they noticed that a flex board advertising "Happy Diwali Aggarwal Properties Contact for Sale, Purchase & Collaboration" with address and telephone number was affixed on an electricity pole of BSES in front of abovesaid address. Photograph was taken, tehrir was prepared and FIR was registered. The flex board was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/D. Thereafter, investigation was conducted. After the completion of the investigation charge-sheet U/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property was filed.
3. Accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act was framed against accused and read out to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
5. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited four witnesses. As the accused has admitted the registration of the FIR and had not insisted for the physical production of the case property, the MHCM as well as duty officer were dropped. Ct. Monu was also dropped being a repetitive witness and even otherwise recording of his testimony would not change the result of the case.
6. IO/ASI Shish Pal, PW1 has deposed in terms of the prosecution case. Tehrir prepared by him was proved as Ex. PW1/B, site plan is Ex. PW1/C, photograph of sticker is Ex. PW1/A and seizure memo is Ex.
FIR No. 256/17 State V. Sanjay Aggarwal NO:2 OF 5 PW1/D, FIR is Ex. PW1/E, pabandinama of accused is Ex. PW1/F and disclosure of accused is Ex. PW1/H.
7. After completion of PE, statement of accused was recorded wherein he denied all the allegations.
8. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
9. Ld. APP for state contended that the witness of the prosecution i.e. IO has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the flex board was affixed by the accused on the electricity pole of BSES in front of the C-62, Preet Vihar, Delhi and the offence of 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act is made out.
10. I have perused the entire record including the statement of witness i.e. PW1.
11. It is trite to say that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
12. In the instant case there are many loop holes in the version of the prosecution story. It is pertinent to note the cross-examination of PW1. He admitted that he did not obtain CDR/CAF regarding the phone number mentioned on the flex board nor he recovered the FIR No. 256/17 State V. Sanjay Aggarwal NO:3 OF 5 mobile phone in which the SIM was inserted. He admitted that he had not recorded statement of any other witness who had acknowledged that accused is having a property business office in the name and style of Aggarwal Properties. He did not even click the photographs of the said office. He neither made any inquiry from where accused got that flex board nor joined any public witness in the investigation.
13. Thus, in the first place the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the said flex board advertising property business. There is no evidence on record to show that accused was having any concern with the said property business. Moreover, no investigation was conducted in this regard. Similarly, there is one phone number mentioned on the flex board pasted on an electricity pole, however, there is no evidence to connect the accused with the said mobile. IO did not collect the CAF from the concerned mobile company to show that the accused was subscriber of said mobile. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove that accused was in any manner related to the said business or the flex board was pasted by him or at his instance. Admittedly there is no eye witness and the accused is only alleged to be a beneficiary of the property business by way of flex board. Moreover, IO had admitted that he had not investigated from where the flex board was got prepared by accused. The examination of printing press officials would have provided additional corroboration to the version of prosecution. They could have provided the name of person on whose behalf that flex board was prepared and the same would have been vital piece of evidence. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the allegation against the accused.
FIR No. 256/17 State V. Sanjay Aggarwal NO:4 OF 5
14.CONCLUSION In view of my above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are several loop holes in the prosecution story which give rise to doubt in the mind of the court as regards the alleged investigation and inclines the court to give benefit of doubt to accused.
15. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions accused is acquitted of offence u/s 3 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act.
16. As per section 437-A of the Cr.P.C as inserted vide the Amendments Act which came into force on 31.12.2009, accused shall furnish fresh personal bond and surety bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- today which shall remain intact for a period of six months from today.
17. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED ON 05.05.2018 (AMIT ARORA) ACMM (E)/KKD/Delhi/05.05.2018 Certified that this judgment contains 5 pages and each page bears my signatures.
AMIT Digitally signed by AMIT ARORA DN: c=IN, o=OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE....., 2.5.4.20=5d03bd2902bae524e47208 1070b034ee609e5ec0ad1936d93a04 ARORA 29d51816814c, ou=HIGH COURT,CID
- 6309251, postalCode=110092, (AMIT ARORA) st=Delhi, cn=AMIT ARORA Date: 2018.05.05 16:45:03 +05'30' ACMM (E)/KKD/Delhi/05.05.2018 FIR No. 256/17 State V. Sanjay Aggarwal NO:5 OF 5