Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Kumar And Others on 3 September, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI : M.M. KARKARDOOMA
COURTS : DELHI
STATE V. MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS
FIR NO. 429/2004
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
U/S 292 INDIAN PENAL CODE
JUDGMENT
a. The serial no. of the case : 113/05
b. Date of Institution of the case : 06/5/05
c. The date of commission of the : 9/12/04
offence
d. The name of the complainant : SI Krishan Chand Dahiya
e. The name of the accused, their : 1. Sanjay Kumar s/o Jai Chand parentage and addresses r/o village Dadri, Shahapur, PS Dadri District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. and house of Rambir, Chilla village, Delhi.
(Convicted on 10/3/08)
2. Manoj Kumar s/o Ramvir Singh r/o Chilla Saroda village, Delhi.
f. The offence complained of : U/S 292 Indian Penal Code g. The plea of the accused : Accused Manoj pleaded guilty h. The final orders : Accused Manoj convicted U/S 292 Indian Penal Code i. Final arguments heard : 03/9/08 j Date of judgment reserved : 03/9/08 k. Date of pronouncement of : 03/9/08 judgment
A brief statement of the reasons for decision :
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 9/12/04 at about 8.45 pm at VCD Cassettes Shop, in front of Sita Ram Mandir, Chilla village, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of police station Mayur Vihar, accused Manoj Kumar alongwith coaccused Sanjay was found in joint possession of 15 pornographic Cassettes which they were carrying for the purpose of selling and thereby both the accused committed an offence punishable under section 292/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and within my cognizance. Accordingly, the charge sheet against both the accused under section 292/34 IPC was filed after completion of investigation.
Both the accused were supplied documents in terms of section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr. P.C.).
2 Argument on charge were heard. Submissions of both the parties were considered. Prima facie a case under section 292/34 IPC was found to be made out against both the accused. The accusation was read over and explained to both the accused.
3. On 8/10/03 accused Sanjay Kumar voluntarily pleaded guilty for the commission of offence punishable under section 292 IPC after fully understanding the consequences of pleading his guilt without any coercion, threat or undue influence. Accordingly in view of his voluntary plea of guilt, accused Sanjay was convicted.
4. During the course of trial, accused Manoj Kumar has stated that he wants to plead guilty and does not want that he be tried any further. Therefore, his statement of pleading guilty was recorded separately. Accused pleaded guilty voluntarily without any coercion, threat or undue influence. Hence, keeping in view the statement made by the accused , prosecution evidence was closed.
5. I have heard learned APP for State and accused Manoj Kumar and gone through the entire material available on record.
6. Keeping in view the voluntary plea of guilt made by accused Manoj Kumar and other material available on record, I am of the considered view that prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Manoj Kumar is convicted for the offence under section 292 IPC. Announced in the open Court on this 3rd day of September, 2008 (Raj Kumar Tripathi) Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts: Delhi IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI : M.M. KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI STATE V. MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS FIR NO. 429/2004 P.S. MAYUR VIHAR U/S 292 INDIAN PENAL CODE ORDER ON SENTENCE :
1. I have heard learned APP for the State and convict on the point of sentence.
2. Ld. APP has submitted that maximum punishment as per law be awarded to the convict. Per contra, convict has stated that he is the only bread earner in his family which consists of his wife and one minor daughter. Convict further stated that he has been facing trial in the present case since 2006 till date. Convict prayed for taking a lenient view towards him.
3. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the material available on record.
4. No other previous criminal record has been brought on record by the prosecution against convict except the present case. Considering the aforesaid facts into account, nature of the offence committed by convict and entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, convict is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ and TRC for the offence punishable under section 292 IPC. In default to pay fine, convict is to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Fine paid. Bail bond of convict stands discharged. Surety bond cancelled.
5. Copy of this order and that of judgment be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court On this 3rd day of September, 2008 (Raj Kumar Tripathi) Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts: Delhi