Delhi District Court
State vs . Ved Prakash on 23 April, 2022
_________________________________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-03, ROHINI COURTS,DELHI
_________________________________________________________________________
State Vs. Ved Prakash
FIR No. 77/2021
PS. KNK Marg
U/s. 174A IPC
Cr. Case No. 2012/2021
JUDGMENT
1) The name & parentage of accused : Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Pooran Chand R/o D-2, BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
2) Offence complained of : u/s 174A IPC 3) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 4) Final order : Convicted 5) The date of such order : 23.04.2022 6) Date of Institution : 16.03.2021 7) Judgment reserved on : 22.04.2022 8) Judgment announced on : 23.04.2022 Present: Sh. Ashish Kajal, Ld. APP for the State. Sh. DD Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Ved Prakash FIR No. 77/2021 PS. KNK Marg Page No. 1 of 8 U/s. 174A IPC Cr. Case No. 2012/2021 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused failed to appear at a specific time and date before the court of Ld. ASJ-01(POCSO), North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No. 243/19, PS KNK Marg and the accused was declared proclaimed offender by the said court vide order dated 07.01.2020 and thereby, committed a cognizable offences punishable u/s 174A IPC.
2) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the accused for offence u/s.
174A IPC was filed in the Court and after complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., arguments on charge were heard. Vide order dated 17.03.2021, charges were framed u/s. 174A IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses.
4) PW1 Ravinder Kumar Sehrawat, JJA/Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Ld. ASJ- 01(POCSO), North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, brought the summoned record i.e. judicial file of case FIR No. 243/19, PS KNK Marg i.e. State Vs. Ved Prakash and Kalandra u/s 41.1(C) Cr.P.C. pending before the court of Sh. Vinay Singhal, Ld. ASJ-01(POCSO), North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, which contains the order dated 07.01.2020 of Sh. Manish Khurana, the predecessor Judge of the said court, whereby the accused was declared proclaimed offender. The copy of order is Ex. PW 1/A(OSR). The true copy of Kalandra and alleged documents are collectively Ex. PW 1/B(OSR). The copy of report of process server regarding the execution of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. and copy of statement of son of accused are Ex. PW 1/C(OSR) and Ex. PW 1/D(OSR) respectively. He was duly crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel.
________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Ved Prakash FIR No. 77/2021 PS. KNK Marg Page No. 2 of 8 U/s. 174A IPC Cr. Case No. 2012/2021
5) PW2 HC Ravinder, deposed that on 24.02.2021, he alongwith Ct. Akshay patrolling in the area and got information through secret informer that one person namely Ved Prakash who is wanted in case FIR No. 243/19 and has been declared PO, was roaming at BJRM Hospital and could be caught. He alongwith Ct. Akshay and secret informer reached BJRM Hospital and secret informer pointed out towards the accused Ved Prakash. He alongwith Ct. Akshay immediately arrested the accused and prepared the arrest memo Ex. PW 2/A. On enquiry, the accused revealed his name as Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Pooran Chand R/o D-2, BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and also revealed that he has been declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 07.01.2020 of Sh. Manish Khurana, Ld. ASJ- 01(POCSO), North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, which is Ex. PW 1/A. The kalandra was prepared u/s 41.1(C) Cr.P.C. which is Ex. PW 1/B. The information with respect to arrest of the accused was given to his wife namely Smt. Sanchi. The accused was medically examined vide MLC No. 171319 at BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, which is Ex. PW 2/B. He gave information on 25.02.2021 at PS KNK Marg with respect to arrest of the accused through General Dairy Entry No. 0005A dated 25.02.2021 which is Ex. PW 2/C. He was duly crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel.
6) PW3 Ct. Pankaj deposed that on 02.03.2021, he was posted as Constable at PS KNK Marg. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO/ASI Santosh. On that day, he alongwith IO went to Tihar Jail Court Complex, Delhi, whereupon the permission of the court, the accused Ved Prakash was interrogated and formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW 3/A bearing his signature at Point A. Accused was personally search vide Personal Search Memo Ex. PW 3/B bearing his signatures at point A. His statement was recorded by the IO. He correctly identified the accused in the court on 30.03.2021. He was duly crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Ved Prakash FIR No. 77/2021 PS. KNK Marg Page No. 3 of 8 U/s. 174A IPC Cr. Case No. 2012/2021
7) PW4 Ct. Akshay Poonia deposed that on 24.02.2021, he was posted as Constable at PS Jahangir Puri. On that day, he alongwith HC Ravinder were on patrolling duty and during patrolling, when they reached near BJRM Hospital, one secret informer met them who secretly informed that one wanted accused, who had been declared proclaimed offender in case FIR No. 243/2019 PS KNK Marg, u/s 354/376 IPC and Section 6/10 POCSO Act is roaming in BJRM Hospital and could be apprehended, if immediately raided. Upon receipt of the secret information, he alongwith HC Ravinder and secret informer immediately went in the complex of BJRM Hospital and when they reached near residential quarters of hospital, the secret informer pointed towards one person to be the same person, who had been declared proclaimed offender. He alongwith HC Ravinder apprehended that person and upon enquiry that person disclosed his identity as Ved Prakash. He correctly identified the accused in the court on 30.03.2021. HC Ravinder requested 45 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed to join and left the spot without disclosing their identity. Accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 4/A respectively, bearing his signature at Point A, by HC Ravinder in the Kalandra u/s 41.1(C) Cr.P.C. vide DD No. 5A dated 25.02.2021. Information with respect to his arrest was given to the wife of the accused. HC Ravinder also gave information to PS KNK Marg regarding the arrest of the accused Ved Prakash, who was proclaimed offender in case FIR No. 243/2019, PS KNK Marg. Accused was got medically examined in BJRM Hospital. The kalandra U/s 41.1(C) Cr.P.C. which is already Ex. PW 1/B was prepared by HC Ravinder bearing his signature at Point A. His statement was recorded by the IO in the present case. He was duly crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels.
7) PW5 Insp. Ajeet Pal Tomar, deposed that on 26.02.2021, he received an order dated ________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Ved Prakash FIR No. 77/2021 PS. KNK Marg Page No. 4 of 8 U/s. 174A IPC Cr. Case No. 2012/2021 07.01.2020 from the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Manish Khurana ASJ-01, (POCSO) North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, which has already been Ex. PW 1/A on the basis of the abovesaid order Duty Officer registered a case U/s 174A IPC. He further handed over the aforesaid case to ASI Santosh Kumar. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
8) PW6 IO/ASI Santosh Kumar, deposed that on 26.02.2021, he was marked the investigation of FIR No. 77/2021, PS KNK Marg, U/s 174A IPC which has already been Ex. P2. On 02.03.2021, he alongwith Ct. Pankaj went to Tihar Jail and interrogated and formally arrested the accused Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Puran Chand vide arrest memo which had already been Ex. PW 3/A. On 03.03.2021, he produced the accused before the Hon'ble Magistrate and the accused was sent to judicial custody. On 03.03.2021, he went to PS Jahangir Puri and examined the witnesses HC Ravinder and Ct. Akshay and recorded their statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. After the investigation was completed, charge-sheet was prepared in all respect and the same was submitted before the Hon'ble Court. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
9) Statement of accused U/s 294 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and he admitted the genuineness and preparation of General Diary no. 124A dated 25.02.2021 which is Ex. P1, FIR No.77/2021, PS KNK Marg as Ex. P2, FIR No. 243/2019 as PS KNK Marg as Ex. P3 and Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. P4.
10) After Prosecution evidence, statement of the accused has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C in which the stand of the accused is of general denial. Accused has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials. However, the accused have opted to lead defence evidence.
________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Ved Prakash FIR No. 77/2021 PS. KNK Marg Page No. 5 of 8 U/s. 174A IPC Cr. Case No. 2012/2021
11) In defence, accused did not examine any witness as defence witness despite opportunity being given.
12) I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
13) It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
14) It is stated by Ld. APP for State that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution has totally supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, accused has admitted the preparation and genuineness of General Dairy no. 124 A, FIR No. 77/21 in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Moreover, in the statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w 281 Cr.P.C., no sufficient explanation has been given by the accused and he simply pleaded that he is innocent, which goes against the accused. Moreover, no DE has been led by the accused despite opportunity being given. It is further stated by Ld. APP for the State that the order of the court declaring accused as proclaimed offender is a conclusive proof regarding non-absence of accused in the court at specific date and time u/s 82(3) Cr.P.C.
It is stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that accused has been released by the Ld. Sessions Court on interim bail and he could not surrender after the expiration of interim bail due to bad health of his wife and accused at no point of time run away from the trial of the case. Moreover, one incident pertaining to the theft has been committed at the house of the accused and he also got the FIR registered at PS Jahangir Puri ________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Ved Prakash FIR No. 77/2021 PS. KNK Marg Page No. 6 of 8 U/s. 174A IPC Cr. Case No. 2012/2021 and if accused has the intention of absconding, then why he would have visited PS Jahangir Puri for registration of FIR.
Ld APP for the state relied upon the judgment of Honourable Apex court in Neel Kumar versus State of Haryana (2012) 5 SCC 766 and in Phula Singh versus State of HP AIR 2014 SCC 1256 in which it is held that if accused remained silent or in complete denial and did not furnish any explanation while answering to the questions under section 313 Cr.P.C., then court can take adverse inference against him and consider it as an additional link in the chain of circumstances to sustain charge against him.
15) Section 174A of IPC provides punishment for non appearance in response to a proclamation u/s 82 of Act 2 of 1974 and lays down that:-
"whoever fails to appear at a specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. 1973, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that Section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
16) In the present case, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution totally support the case of the prosecution and corroborate each other testimonies. Moreover, the order passed by the court of Sh. Manish Khurana, Ld. ASJ-01 (POCSO), North, Rohini Courts, Delhi dated 07.01.2020 is a conclusive proof u/s 82(3) Cr.P.C. that accused failed to appear before the court on a specific date and time despite issuance of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused. Moreover, no sufficient explanation has been given by the accused during recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. The accused has also do not examine any witness in his defence despite several opportunities given to him. The ________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Ved Prakash FIR No. 77/2021 PS. KNK Marg Page No. 7 of 8 U/s. 174A IPC Cr. Case No. 2012/2021 arguments addressed by Ld. Defence Counsel is only regarding the fact that the non- appearance of the accused before the court on a specific date and time is unintentional and due to the bad health of his wife, which is of no avail in the present case as emotions cannot overlook the law of the land which is supreme.
17) It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. There is no controversy to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt occurring in the prosecution case. The general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.
18) In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances and material available on record, the prosecution has proved the charges u/s 174A IPC against the accused Ved Prakash beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Ved Prakash is hereby convicted for the offence u/s174A IPC.
19) Let the copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
20) Let convict be heard on quantum of sentence. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL Announced in open Court GOEL Date: 2022.04.23 on 23st April 2022 16:50:02 +0530 (Mayank Goel) MM-03/North District Rohini Courts/Delhi
________________________________________________________________________________ State Vs. Ved Prakash FIR No. 77/2021 PS. KNK Marg Page No. 8 of 8 U/s. 174A IPC Cr. Case No. 2012/2021