Delhi District Court
1 State vs . Praveen Kumar Gupta on 8 February, 2007
1 State Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMEER BAJPAI, M.M
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR NO. 623/98
P.S. Seema Puri
State Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta
U/s 353/186/332/506 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case : 34/00
2. Name of complaiant : State
3. Date of commission of offence : 15.09.1998
4. Name of accused, parentage and
address : Praveen Kumar Gupta s/o Sh.
Bhagwan Singh r/o 87B, Pocket
J & K, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of or proved : 353/180/332/506 IPC
6. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded not guilty.
7. Final order : Convicted
8. Date of such order : 08.02.2007
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.9.1998, there was a encroachment removing program of enforcement department, and works department of the MCD. In the supervision of Om Prakash Sharma, CI and Rajender Prasad J.E, the police force including SHO, Addl. SHO Seema Puri was present. At about 12.00, the enforcement reached at Pummy Sweets and started removing the encroachment done at both sides of the shop, the Pummy Sweets. The owner of the Pummy Sweets i.e. Praveen Kumar Gupta @ Pummy came to the bulldozer, and started abusing. The accused caused hindrance , and obstructed the encroachment removal work. A crowd gathered on the spot, the accused started scuffle and then picked up a brick and threatened to kill the officials. The accused then jumped on the buldozer, and started beating the operator and his helper. The accused torned the clothes of the operator and also scuffled with the police personnel.
2. After supplying of documents to the accused a charge u/s 353/186/332/506 IPC was framed to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2 State Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta
3. To prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses.
After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded in which accused pleaded innocence however he has not led any evidence in his defence.
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. To prove its case first witness examined by the prosecution is PW1 Om Prakash deposed that on 15.9.1998, he was posted as licensing inspector in MCD at Shahdara, South Zone. On that day, there was encroachment removal program of works Department, licensing Department, and hearth department of MCD. The further deposition of PW1 is that he along with other MCD staff, and police staff was removing the encroachment in front of J & K pocket and when reached at Pummy Sweets and started removing the encroachment, the owner of Pummy Sweets along with his employees and public persons raised objection to remove the encroachment. The owner of the Pummy Sweet started abusing him along with other members of party, and owner and other employees started pelting stones upon the police party. The above persons also torned the clothes of members of party. PW1 further deposed that the above persons also taken out Danda, and attacked upon the party. Addl. SHO, P.S. Seema Puri also received grievous injuries on his leg caused by above persons by Danda. MCD officers also received some minor injuries. By this act of the owner of Pummy sweet obstructed them, and police personnel while they were discharging their duties. Above said persons also threatened to kill them. He made a complaint to the SHO, P.S. Seema Puri ex.PW1/A. He came to know the name of the owner of Pummy Sweet as Praveen Kumar Gupta at the spot. PW1 further deposed that he could not identify the accused due to lapse of 4/5 years.
6. PW2 Rajender Kumar J.E, MCD besides deposing on the lines of the prosecution story, and that of the PW1 deposed that the owner of Pummy Sweets and other persons tried to stop the JCB machine which was used for removing the encroachment. The owner of the Pummy sweets torned the cloth of he driver of JCB machine and started scuffling with him. The owner of Pummy Sweets and other persons started pelting stones upon MCD and police party. This witness 3 State Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta identified the accused in the court. This witness further deposed that the accused along with other persons assaulted and obstructed him. PW3 HC Santosh deposed that on 15.9.1998, being the D.O on receiving a complaint from SHO P.S. Seema Puri recorded the FIR Ex.PW3/A, and proved his endorsement on rukka as PW3/B.
7. The deposition of PW4 Sagli Ram is that in the year 1998 he was posted as Asst. Commissioner, MCD, Shahdara, South Zone, Delhi. He had made a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C to prosecute the accused Praveen Kumar u/ 353/332506/186 IPC as accused obstructed the MCD employees while they were discharging their duties. This witness proved his complaint as Ex.PW4/A.
8. PW5 Dinesh deposed that 4/5 years ago he used to run a bulldozer on the MCD. On that day of incident he was operating the bulldozer in Seema Puri area to remove the encroachment along with the help of Dharmender and the employee of MCD as well as Delhi Police. AT about 4/5.00 pm, they were removing the encroachment in the D.G. Area. Public persons gathered there, and all of a sudden quarrel took place, and public persons told the MCD employees to go from there and they did not allow to run the bulldozer in that area. Therefore, they left that area and went to other place. Nothing more was happened in his presence. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Ld. APP.
9. The deposition of PW6 is the same on the lines of the prosecution story and that of the deposition made by PW1 & PW2 besides that the owner of the shop Praveen Kumar Gupta @ Pummy the accused present in the court came out and shouted at MCD officials. Praveen wanted to stop the MCD officials and indulged in brick pelting and manhandling the staff . Praveen got up on the bulldozer and gave fist blows to the driver and operator and torned of their clothes. The stones and bricks lying on the footpaths were used and thereby one of them hit his leg resulting into injuries and he had been given medical treatment at GTB Hospital. This witness also deposed that Praveen caused obstruction to the encroachment removal program, and manhandled the government operation machinery.
10. PW7 Ct. Udmi Ram also deposed on the lines of the prosecution story besides deposing that the owner of the Pummy Sweets Praveen Gupta came there and got on the bulldozer, and started manhandling the driver and gave him beatings, 4 State Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta and also torned his clothes. The owner also taken out brick, and threatened the MCD staff, and police staff to kill if they did not remove the bulldozer. PW7 also identified the accused Praveen Gupta in the court.
11. The deposition of PW8 Dharmender is also on the lines of the prosecution story. He deposed that on 15.9.1998, he went to P.S along with his bulldozer to remove the encroachment. When he started removing the encroachment near the sweet shop at about 12.00 noon, one Praveen Gupta owner of Sweet Shop came there and started abusing him and MCD staff. Praveen Gupta got up on the bulldozer and torned the shirt of the driver Vinesh. He further deposed that he was the helper on the bulldozer and accused slapped and punched him. This witness also identified the accused in the court.
12. PW9 Dr. T.Gupta, proved the MLC ex.PW9/A, and opined that the nature of the injury simple blunt.
13. PW10 SI Suresh Pal also deposed on the lines of the prosecution story, and also supported the prosecution case, and deposed about the formalities done during the course of investigation.
14. As far as the charge u/s 353 IPC is concerned, PW1 deposed that the owner of Pummy Sweets obstructed the MCD officials and police personnel while they were discharging their duties. PW2 deposed that the accused obstructed the officials while they were discharging their official duties, and further the owner of the Pummy Sweet tried to stop the JCB machine. PW6 also deposed that accused Praveen Kumar Gupta caused obstruction to the encroachment removal program and manhandled the government operation machinery. PW9 and PW10 also deposed that the accused obstructed the officials and manhandled with the staff. Besides deposing this PW1 and PW2, deposed that the owner of Pummy sweets and other persons pelted stones on police party. PW1 deposed that the accused torned the clothes of members of the party. PW6, PW7 and PW9 also deposed that accused got up on the bulldozer and gave fist blows to the driver and helper and torned off their clothes. The above deposed facts are more than enough to prove that the accused used criminal force on the complainant Om Prakash Sharma and Rajender Prasad Kaushik as well as on other officials who were executing the 5 State Vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta encroachment removal program. The accused has clearly committed the offence u/s 353 IPC, and hereby convicted for the same.
15. As far as the offence u/s 186 IPC is concerned, the facts mentioned in the above para are sufficient to prove that the accused has also committed the offence u/s 186 IPC, and also convicted for it.
16. As far as the offence u/s 332 IPC is concerned, PW9 Dr. T.Gupta has proved the MLC ex. PW9/A of Narender Mohan, the SHO Seema Puri. PW9 has opined that the nature of the injury is simple blunt. PW1, and PW2 deposed that the owner and other employee starting pelting stones upon the police party. PW6 also deposed that the stones and bricks lying on the footpath were used, and one of them hit his leg. Even PW7 has also deposed that the owner has also taken out brick. There is no evidence on record to show that it was the brick or stone thrown by the accused Praveen Kumar which had hit the injured Inspector Narender Mohan. Therefore, the accused has to be given benefit of doubt for the offence u/s 332 IPC, and hereby acquitted for the same.
17. As far as the offence u/s 506 IPC is concerned PW1 deposed that accused persons also threatened to kill him, and the officials. PW7 also deposed that accused threatened to kill the MCD and police staff. Considering this evidence, including the other evidence the deposition of these witnesses regarding the threat cannot be disbelieved. But as the accused is not shown to have used any deadly weapon, I hold him guilty only under part (1) of section 506 IPC, and convict him accordingly.
18. In view of the above discussion and considering the material brought, and proved by the prosecution on record, I have no hesitation in concluding that prosecution has proved his case successfully beyond any shadow of doubt. Accused Praveen Kumar Gupta is convicted for the commission of offence punishable u/s 353/186/506 (i) IPC.
Order on sentence will be passed after hearing the accused. Announced and Dictated in open court on 08.2.2007 ( SAMEER BAJPAI ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KKD COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI