Delhi District Court
State vs . Dalip @ Chottu on 12 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPINDER SINGH
A.C.M.M.01 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
State vs. Dalip @ Chottu
FIR No. : 33/18
U/S : 4(a) DPT & MAT Act
PS : Paharganj
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 2684/18
b) CNR no. : DL CT020075652018
c) Date of institution of the case : 20/02/2018
d) Date of commission of offence : 20/01/2018
e) Name of the complainant : ASI Swatantra
f) Name & address of the : Dalip @ Chotu
accused S/o Lt. Sh. Ram
R/o Shop. no. 5620, Basant
Road, Paharganj, Sonu
Travels, Delhi
and Vill. Balamjan Chander
Banshi Tola PO & PS
Maheskut Distt Khagariya
Bihar
g) Offence charged with : 4(a) DPT & MAT Act
h) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
i) Arguments heard on : 12/07/2018
j) Final order : Convicted
k) Date of Judgment : 12/07/2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused Dalip @ Chottu has been sent to face trial with FIR No. 33/18 State Vs. Dalip @ Chottu 1 / 4 the allegations that on 20/01/2018 at 07:30 p.m. at Shop no. 5620, Basant Road, Paharganj, within the jurisdiction of PS Paharganj, accused was found touting and thereby alleged to have committed an offence U/s 4(a) DPT & MAT Act. Investigation was carried out.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr. P.C. was filed by investigating officer (hereinafter called as IO). After supply of copies to accused, notice U/s 251 Cr. PC for offence U/s 4(a) DPT & MAT Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. PW1 SI Pawan Yadav is the IO and deposed about investigation conducted by him. He deposed that on 20/01/2018 investigation was marked to him and he reached the spot where complainant ASI Swatantra Kumar told him that accused was soliciting the foreign tourists on the pretext of providing cheap hotel, taxi, food etc., that he interrogated the accused and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW1/A, that he conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/B, that he prepared site plan Ex. PW1/C at the instance of complainant, that he recorded statement of witnesses and filed chargesheet. During crossexamination, he deposed that no public witness was joined investigation as none agreed for the same.
5. PW2 ASI Swatantra Kumar is the complainant who deposed that on 20/01/2018 at about 07:33 PM he alongwith Ct. Ravinder were on petrolling duty and at Basant Road, Munjia Chowk, Paharganj they saw accused was FIR No. 33/18 State Vs. Dalip @ Chottu 2 / 4 doing touting and was offering cheaper accommodation, railway tickets, air tickets, transportation, etc., that he requested some tourists to join investigation but one of them agreed, that he prepared the rukka Ex.PW2/A and handed over the same to Ct. Ravinder who got the FIR registered, that he handed over further investigation to SI Pawan Yadav, that site plan Ex. PW1/C was prepared at his instance. He correctly identified the accused. During his crossexamination he deposed that no written notice was served upon public witness who refused to join investigation. He denied the suggestion that accused was not touting.
6. Record transpires that during course of trial, accused admitted FIR Ex. A1 vide his separate statement in terms of Sec. 294 Cr.PC. Therefore, the said document can be read in evidence without formal proof of same.
7. On conclusion of PE, memorandum of statement of accused U/s 281 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him in toto. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence in his favour.
8. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
9. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. 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.
FIR No. 33/18 State Vs. Dalip @ Chottu 3 / 4
10. Perusal of the testimony of PWs shows that they have supported the prosecution version fully. PW2 has deposed in no unclear terms that while patrolling, he found accused trying to influence the tourists by offering cheaper accommodation, tickets, transportation, etc., and due to this act, tourists were feeling annoyed. The testimony of PWs have remained unrebutted as during their cross examination, accused had merely given a suggestion that he has been falsely implicated and that PW2 ASI Swatantra Kumar was not on patrolling duty. Just because no notice has been served upon the public witnesses who refused to join the investigation, the case of the prosecution cannot be looked with suspicion. The testimony of police officials is having equal weightage as that of public witnesses when no motive of their's has been attributed by the accused for his false implication. The testimony of witness is reliable and inspires confidence of this court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWs.
11. Thus, in view of the testimony of PWs, prosecution has successfully proved that accused had committed the offence u/s 4(a) DPT & MAT Act by persuading/touting the tourists and therefore he stands convicted of offence u/s 4(a) DPT & MAT Act. Parties be heard on point on sentence.
Digitally signed by BHUPINDER BHUPINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.07.13
12:35:14 +0530
Announced and dictated in (Bhupinder Singh)
the open Court on 12/07/2018 ACMM(01)/Tis Hazari Court
12/07/2018
FIR No. 33/18 State Vs. Dalip @ Chottu 4 / 4