Delhi District Court
State vs Kamal on 17 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. NIDHISH KUMAR MEENA
MM-10, DWARKA COURT (SOUTH WEST), NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSW02-012602-2019
Cr. Case 7818/2019
STATE Vs. KAMAL
FIR No. 612/2018
P.S Kapashera
17.05.2024
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 7818/2019
Date of institution of the case : 15.03.2019
Name of the complainant : Neeraj Bisht
Name of accused and address : Kamal
S/o Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o Jhuggi No. 340,
Sonia Gandhi
Camp, Samalkha,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 229A IPC Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Final order : Convicted
Date when reserved for judgment : 09.04.2024 Date of judgment : 17.05.2024 State Vs. Kamal Page No.1 / 7 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused Kamal (hereinafter referred to as the accused), pursuant to charge sheet filed qua him under Section 229A IPC subsequent to the investigation carried out at P.S: Kapashera, in FIR no. 612/2018.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was admitted to bail in case FIR No. 385/14, PS Kapashera, but the accused failed to appear in the Court (whenever called by the Court) in accordance with terms of bail or bond for many dates without sufficient cause. Consequently, the present case has been registered for commission of offence punishable u/s 229A IPC.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing the arguments, charge for offence punishable u/s 229A IPC was framed qua the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, the accused, vide his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, had admitted the genuineness of copy of FIR No. 612/2018 alongwith certificate u/s 65B of IEA Ex. A1(colly), order dated 02.07.2019, 23.11.2018 and 21.11.2018 of the Court of Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh, Ld. MM, Dwarka Courts Ex. A2 and complaint to SHO by reader in the Court of Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh, Ld. M.M, Dwarka Courts Ex. A3.
State Vs. Kamal Page No.2 / 7MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. The prosecution, in support of the present case has examined three witnesses in total.
5. PW-1 was Sh. Vikas, who deposed that on 30.06.2023, he had produced the original case file with all relevant records of case FIR No. 385/14, u/s 323/341 IPC, PS Kapashera.
6. PW-2 was Ct. Virender Poonia, who deposed that on 18.01.2019, he alongwith IO ASI Gangavir went to the shop of a scrap picker (kabadi) namely Salim, at Sonia Gandhi Camp, Samalkha. They met at secret informer and with whom they had gone to Jhuggi No. 340, Sonia Gandhi Camp. Accused Kamal was present outside the jhuggi. Thereafter, the said PW further deposed with respect to the investigation carried out by the IO in the present case. Through him, arrest memo was exhibited as Ex.
PW2/A and personal search memo was exhibited as Ex. PW2/B.
7. PW-3 was ASI Ganga Vir, who deposed that on 23.12.2018, he received the complaint of this case. He got the FIR registered on the basis of the same. The accused was searched but he was not found. On 18.01.2019, he went to Sonia Gandhi Camp, Samalkha in search of accused and he was found present outside his house. Accused was apprehended and arrested in this case. Thereafter, the said PW further deposed with respect to the investigation carried out by him in the present case.
State Vs. Kamal Page No.3 / 78. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, PW at serial no. 1 Neeraj Bisht and PW at serial no. 3 ASI Bijender Kumar, as per list of prosecution witnesses were dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with.
9. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, P.E was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
10. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
11. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the State Vs. Kamal Page No.4 / 7 prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE:
12. Provision of section 229A IPC is as follows:
229A. Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in court. -- Whoever, having been charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond without sureties, fails without sufficient cause (the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation. --The punishment under this section is-
(a) in addition to the punishment to which the offender would be liable on a conviction for the offence with which he has been charged; and
(b) without prejudice to the power of the court to order forfeiture of the bond.
The main objective of insertion of section 229A in the Indian Penal Code by way of criminal amendment act 2005 was to ensure the presence of accused who had been charged and that the case is not unnecessarily delayed due to non-appearance of the accused person.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
13. A careful perusal of Section 229A of the IPC would show that it is applicable where the accused "has been charged for an offence" and who fails to appear on date fixed for hearing State Vs. Kamal Page No.5 / 7 without sufficient cause wherein the burden of proving the same shall be on the accused person.
14. Ld counsel for accused has argued that the offence under section 229A IPC is not applicable in the present case and has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court as passed in Megha Ram Jat Vs State of Rajasthan Crl.MP 4639/2019. Ld. counsel for the accused submits that as per the above stated judgment, section 229A IPC would only said to have been committed if accused who has been released on bail upon his furnishing only a personal bond remains absent before the trial court on the scheduled date.
15. Perusal of record of case FIR no. 385/14 under section 323/341 IPC registered at PS Kapashera reveals that accused person failed to appear before the trial court on 21.12.2018 due to which direction for registration of case was issued against the accused Kamal u/s 229A IPC. Consequently, the present FIR was registered against the accused under section 229A IPC.
16. The burden to show that there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance was upon the accused person. The word 'sufficient cause' has recently been defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sabarmati Gas Limited vs Shah Alloys Limited |2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9 where the court held that ''sufficient cause is the cause for which party could not be blamed". However during the trial, accused has failed to bring anything on record which shows that due to some reasons which were beyond the control of the accused for which he cannot be blamed led to his non-
State Vs. Kamal Page No.6 / 7appearance before the trial court.
CONCLUSION :
17. Upshot of the above discussion is that the case against the accused persons under section 229A IPC has been made out and accordingly, accused person is convicted of the offence punishable under section 229A IPC.
18. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
Announced in the open court on 17.05.2024, in presence of accused and Ld. Counsel for accused.
(NIDHISH KUMAR MEENA) M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/17.05.2024 It is certified that this judgment contains 07 pages, all signed by the undersigned.
(NIDHISH KUMAR MEENA) M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/17.05.2024 State Vs. Kamal Page No.7 / 7