Delhi District Court
State vs Parikshit Gupta on 15 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS.AMBIKA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
FIR No.: 263/05
State V/s Parikshit Gupta
U/S 411 IPC
PS Gulabi Bagh
CC No. 187/2G
U. ID No.0240IR125907/2006
Date of Institution :05.09.2006
Date of commission of offence :15.12.2005
Name of the complainant : ASI Pramod Kumar
Name and address of accused : Parikshit Gupta @ Mani S/o Ajeet
:Gupta R/o B-1/105, Gali no. 4, B-
:Block, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi
Offence charged with : u/s 411 IPC
Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Convicted
Date on which order has been reserved :29.11.2014
Date of pronouncement of Judgment :15.12.2014
JUDGMENT
1 The Prosecution has filed the charge sheet against the accused Parikshit Gupta S/o Sh. Ajeet Gupta u/s 411 IPC. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
2 That on 15.12.2005 accused was caught by the police on the disclosure statement and recovered a golden chain in possession of accused, which he had FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 1/15 received or retained knowing or having the reasons to believe the same to be the stolen property and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
3 Upon completion of investigation the challan was filed in the court. The cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned for trial. Copies u/s 207 Cr.P.C were supplied to the accused. The charge was framed against the accused for the offence u/s 411 IPC on 25.04.2008 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 Prosecution in support of its case examined the following witnesses:-
5 PW-1 HC Sushila deposed that on 13.12.2005 she was posted at PS Gulabi Bagh and was working as duty officer. On that day, she had received a complaint from Smt. Satya Prabha and on the basis of same present FIR was registered by her which is Ex. PW1/A. 6 PW-2 HC Anand Singh has deposed that on 15.12.2006 he was posted at PS Subzi Mandi as Duty officer from 5PM to 1AM and about 12.05 AM he received a rukka sent by ASI Pramod Tyagi through Ct. Suraj Pal and on the basis of the same present FIR was registered.
7 PW-3 Smt. Satya Prabha deposed that she do not remember the date but it was December, 2005. On that day, she was going to market alongwith Namita, who is teacher, and when she reached in front of police station, Pratap Nagar, they hired auto for going Kamla Nagar. Namita sat inside the auto and she was about to sit, then, one pulsar motorcycle came and two persons were sitting on motorcycle. Both of them were wearing helmets. The pillion rider of the bike had snatched her chain and he was able to take away the chain and chain locket fell down on the road which she picked up. She could not read registration number of motorcycle. She further deposed that the person who snatched her FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 2/15 chain was tall and having long hair and he was around 6 feet. Thereafter, she went to police station and police recorded her statement and same is Ex. PW3/A. She had identified her chain in TIP proceedings which was conducted by Ms. Savita Rao, Ld. MM which is Ex. PW3/B. 8 PW-4 Suraj Pal deposed that he do not remember date, month and year. He do not have any knowledge about the present case.
9 PW-5 HC Om Veer Singh deposed that on 14.12.2005, he was posted at the Special Staff of North Delhi. He alongwith Ct. Suraj Pal and ASI Pramod Kumar were on patrolling duty at G. T Road near Robin Cinema. One person was coming from the side of Ghanta Ghar, who turned back after noticing us. They felt suspicion on him and chase him and 10-12 steps he was apprehended. His name was disclosed as Parikshi Gupta. ASI Pramod Kumar took the casual search of the accused and from his possession, a buttoondar knife was recovered. Thereafter, the knife was opened and its measurement was taken and its sketch was prepared. The seizure memo of the knife was prepared with the help of cloth and IO affixed the seal of PK on it. Seal was handed over to him. IO prepared rukka and Ct. Suraj sent to the PS for registration of FIR. IO also sent a telephonic information at their operation call offfice. SI Naseeb Singh arrived at the spot. IO handed over him the documents, seized pullinda and custody of the accused. SI Naseeb Singh prepared site plan at the instance of the ASI Pramod Kumar. The accused was arrested and his personal search was also conducted by SI Naseeb. In the meantime Ct. Suraj Pal also arrived at the spot with copy of FIR. The accused also made disclosure statement that he alongwith his associates Rahess had snatched a gold chain from a lady in the area of Gulabi Bagh and he also disclosed that he kept the chain at his house which he can get recovered and he can also get the co-accused arrested. He correctly identified the accused in the court on that day.
FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 3/15 10 PW6 HC Lal Man deposed that on 07.04.2006, he was posted as HC at
PS Gulabi Bagh. On that day, he along with the SI Ghanshyam had reached to the house of the accused Rahis at 9 A, Moujpur, Vijaya Park, PS Bhajan Pura, Delhi. SI Ghanshyam had interrogated the accused and thereafter, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 6/A. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW 6/B. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide disclosure statement Ex. PW6/C. The information regarding the arrest of the accused was given to his father but the father of the accused refused to sign on the arrest memo. After the medical examination of the accused, he was put behind the bars.
11 PW7 SI Nasib Singh deposed that in the intervening night of 14/15-12-05, he was posted as SI at Operation Cell , North District. On that day, he received information that ASI Pramod Kumar had apprehended one person near Robin Cinema, GT Road Sabzi Mandi. On receiving of DD No.23, Operation Cell North, he went to the spot i.e. Robin Cinema , GT Road, Sabzi Mandi where he met with ASI Pramod Kumar, HC Ombir Singh , const. Suraj Pal and the accused Prikshit Gupta. ASI Pramod Kumar prepared a tehrir and handed over to it to const. Suraj Pal and sent him to the PS for the registration of the FIR. ASI Pramod Kumar had handed over him the custody of the accused and sealed pulanda with the seal of PK containing the knife and the relevant documents. At the instance of ASI Pramod Kumar, he prepared the site plan in case FIR No. 516/05 PS Sabzi Mandi. He recorded the statement of ASI Pramod Kumar and relieved him. After registration of the FIR, the const. Suresh Pal had handed over the copy of the FIR and original tehrir to him. He interrogated the accused. Thereafter, he arrested the accused in FIR No. 516/05 PS Sabzi Mandi. After arrest, he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused. The disclosure statement is already mark B , bearing his signatures at FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 4/15 point B. In his disclosure statement, the accused stated that two days before he along with his friend Rahis had snatched a gold chain from a lady in the area of Gulabi Bagh. Rahis was driving the motorcycle and he was pillion rider. The accused further stated that he could got recovered the same which he had kept in a socks lying in the bed at the first floor of house i.e. C 12/171, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. At the instance of the accused, one gold chain , which was broken in two pieces was recovered from the first floor of the house of the accused. He put the chain in the same socks from which, it was recovered and prepared a pulanda with the seal of NS . The pointing out memo cum seizure memo is marked A. He deposited the case property in the malkhana of PS Sabzi Mandi. He had informed the SI Ghanshyam vide DD No. 14 A, regarding the recovery of the case property. He had handed over the relevant documents of the case to SI Ghanshyam. He identified the accused and case property in the court on that day.
12 PW8 Insp. Ghan Shyam deposed that on 15.12.2005 he was posted as SI at PS. Gulabi Bagh. On that day, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He had collected the relevant documents pertaining to the accused from the SI Naseeb. Thereafter, he formally arrested the accused Parikshit in the Tis Hazari Courts vide memo Exh. PW8/A. Personal search of the accused was also conducted. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide memo Exh. PW8/B. Application for TIP of accused was moved in the Court, however, accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. Application for the TIP of case property was also moved, which was conducted by the Ld. MM Ms. Savita Rao, during which the complainant had identified the case property. Thereafter, the case property was transferred from PS Subzi Mandi to PS Gulabi Bagh. Thereafter, co-accused Rahees was also arrested. At the instance of accused Rahees, pointing out memo was prepared which is Ex.
PW8/C. Disclosure statement of accused Rahees was recorded which is FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 5/15
already Exh. PW6/C. He recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he was transferred. He identified the accused in the court on that day.
13 PW9 Ld. ASJ Ms Savita Rao deposed that on 12.01.2006, an application filed by IO ASI Ram Krishan was marked to her being Link MM to the court of Sh. A. S. Aggarwal, the then Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. She fixed the date of TIP as on 16.01.2006 which was further extended to 17.01.2006 due to non-availability of witness. Application is Ex. PW 9/ A. Witness namely MS Satyaprabha was present outside the Chamber. Witness was identified by IO SI Ghanshyam in her chamber. On that day, IO SI Ghanshyam produced a sealed pulinda which was sealed with the seal of NS. Seal was broken and pulinda was opened, it was found containing one gold chain. IO had also produced similar kinds of chains. After satisfaction that the property brought were sufficient for mixing with the case property, she asked the IO to leave the chamber. The gold chain was mixed up with the other gold chains. Complainant namely MS Satyaprabha was called in chamber and was asked to identify the case property. Witness correctly identified the case property. These proceedings are Ex. PW9/B. She appended the certificate regarding correctness of the proceedings, which is Ex. PW 9/ C. Thereafter, the copy of the proceedings were supplied to the IO on an application filed by him. The proceedings were sealed in an envelope and sent to the court concerned under her seal SR.
14 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused u/s 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.PC was recorded by the court in which he has stated that he is innocent and that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and has also led evidence in his defence.
15. DW1 Ajit Gupta deposed that on 14.12.2005, he was present at his previous house C-12/171, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. At about 7.30AM, his son FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 6/15 namely Parikshit Gupta gone out for playing 100 yd in Hanuman Vatika. From his house. Thereafter, he came to know, he was lifted by the police and falsely implicated in the case. He received call from his wife at about 3.30/4PM that their son namely Parikshit Gupta had gone out from the house for playing and he has not yet turned up. He returned back at his home, and inquired from where he was playing. He came to know from one bakery shop, 4/5 police personnels who were in civil dress had come in Santro Car and he had been lifted by them. He gave information about this on 100 number from his mobile no. He also received the record from DCP, police control room, Delhi. The same is Ex. DW1/A respectively. He further stated that the present case is false case and his son is innocent.
16. DW-2 Parikshit Gupta deposed that on 14.12.2005, he had gone to play at Hanuman Vatika from his house C-12/171, Yamuna Vihar between 7.30 to 8AM. When he was going to at Hanuman Vatika on the way, 4/5 person came in black SANTRO and he was put in it and he was taken to operation cell, Maurice Nagar where he came to know later on. He was tortured there and in the evening two false cases planted upon him. Out of which in Arms Act case, he has been acquitted from the court Shri Neeraj Gaur, Ld. MM, THC, Delhi on dated 05.05.2012. Copy of the same is Ex. DW2/A. When he used to play, at that time one police informer use to met him, he also harassed him for demanding mobile phone/money. On refusal he asked him to involve him in false case. This is the reason he has been falsely implicated by the police in the above two case at his instance.
17 I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and have gone through the record carefully. After going through the complete evidence and records of this case, I am of the view that before reaching at any conclusion, relevant Section be reproduced herein below for ready reference:
FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 7/15
Sec. 411 IPC
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property--
"Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".
18 For the offence u/s 411 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused retained the gold chain having the knowledge or reason to believe that it was a stolen property. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined the PW3 Smt. Satya Prabha, PW5 HC Om Veer Singh, PW7 SI Nasib Singh and PW8 Inspector Ghan Shyam as the main witnesses to the present case. PW3 Smt. Satya Prabha has deposed that in the month of December, 2005 she was going to market and she was taking an Auto for going to Kamla Nagar and when she was about to sit, one Pulsar motorcycle came, on which two persons were sitting. Both were wearing the helmets. The person, who was sitting at the back seat, snatched her gold chain. She identified the case property. Later on, she got the said gold chain released on superdari. However, she failed to identify the accused persons.
19 PW5 HC Om Veer Singh and PW7 SI Naseeb Singh are the recovery witnesses. PW5 HC Om Veer Singh deposed that on 14.12.2005 he alongwith Const. Suraj Pal and ASI Pramod Kumar were on patrolling duty at Old G.T. Road near Robin Cinema. They noticed one person in suspicious condition. He disclosed his name as Parikshit Gupta/accused and from his possession he recovered one buttondaar knife. ASI requested 3-4 public persons to join the proceedings, but they refused. The knife was taken into police possession. The accused made the disclosure that he and his associate had snatched a gold FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 8/15 chain from a lady in the area of Gulabi Bagh and he could got the said chain recovered from his house. Then, he alongwith SI Naseeb Singh and Const. Suraj went to Hanumaan Vatika at Yamuna Vihar, H. No. C-12/171. They went at first floor of the said house and at the instance of the accused, the said gold chain was got recovered inside the bed, which was concealed in a sock. The gold chain as well as the sock were seized vide seizure memo. He also identified the photographs of the gold chain and also the accused present in the Court that day.
20 PW7 SI Naseeb Singh also corroborated the testimony of PW5 HC Om Veer Singh. He deposed that on receipt of DD No. 23, he reached at the spot i.e Robin Cinema, GT Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi where he met with ASI Pramod Kumar, HC Ombir Singh, Const. Suraj Pal and the accused. On interrogation, the accused disclosed that two days before he alongwith his friend Rahis had snatched a gold chain from a lady in the area of Gulabi Bagh and he could got the chain recovered from his house and at the instance of accused, one gold chain was recovered from the first floor of the house, which was wrapped in a sock. He identified the case property and also the accused.
21 PW8 Inspector Ghan Shyam has deposed that he had moved an application for TIP proceedings of the accused, however, he refused to participate in the same. He also identified the accused. As the accused had refused to participate in the TIP an adverse inference is hereby drawn against him.
22 It is alleged by the prosecution that the chain of PW3 Smt. Satya Prabha was stolen, which was recovered from the house of the accused at his instance and he was having the possession or he retained the same with the knowledge or having the reason to believe that the same was a stolen property.
FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 9/15 23 It is argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that the chain, which was
recovered from the accused, was in the broken condition. However, the chain produced by the PW3 Smt. Satya Prabha was not in broken condition. The chain was produced on 23.08.2013 and the PW7 had admitted that the case property, which was produced in the Court that day, is not broken. It is submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel that as the chain, which was recovered was in the broken condition and the chain which was produced was not in the broken condition, therefore, it was not the same chain and accused is not liable for the conviction u/s 411 IPC. However, in my opinion this argument of the Ld. Defence counsel is merit less as it is of the common knowledge that to make the things in the workable condition, the complainant may get the case property repaired. Keeping the chain in broken condition could have of no use to the complainant. Therefore, to use the same she might have got the same repaired. She deposed emphatically on oath that the chain, she had taken on superdari and the chain that she has brought that day in the Court for the evidence, is the same chain. The chain was also identified by the PW7 SI Naseeb Singh. Photographs of the chain was also identified by PW5 HC Om Veer Singh.
24 Coming now to the another argument of Ld. Defence counsel that no public persons were made the witnesses to the recovery proceedings and the recovery was conducted by only police officials. PW5 HC Om Veer Singh has deposed that ASI Pramod had requested 3-4 public persons to join the proceedings, but they refused citing their personal difficulties. In his cross- examination the PW5 HC Om Veer Singh has deposed that no family member approached them during that time. He denied that they had concocted a false story or that he was deposing falsely or that no recovery was affected from the accused.
FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 10/15 25 Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that the testimony of PW5 HC Om Veer Singh and PW7 SI Naseeb Singh should not be believed in as they are the police officials. However, it is well settled law that the testimony of police witnesses is on equal footing with the testimony of any other witness, if their testimony is clear, coherent and reliable. To address this issue, I would like to refer to the following judgment of the Supreme Court of India. In State Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and another (2001) 1 SCC 652, it has been observed:
"In this context we may point out that there is no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused is written. The legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires that such search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses. It must be remembered that search is made to find outa thing or document which the searching officer has no prior idea where the thing or document is kept. He prowls for it either on reasonable suspicion or on some guess work that it could possibly be ferreted out in such prowling. I ti s a stark reality that during searches the team which conducts search would have to meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in such process many such articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn helter- skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made in the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality is to ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto. But, recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code. This Court has indicated the difference between the two processes in the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & anr. Vs. S. Sardar Ali & Ors. (1983 SC 1225). Following observations of Chinnappa Reddy J. can be used to support the said legal proposition: Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which reference was made by the counsel deals with searches and not seizures. In the very nature of things when property is seized and not recovered during a search, it is not possible to FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 11/15 comply with the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure [under the Motor Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of the things seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious reason that all those things are seized not separately but as part of vehicle itself. Hence, it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the investigating officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any articles it is open to the investigating officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But, if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, if is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The Court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
We fell that it is in archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. Hence, when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the Court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the Court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the Court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But, it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions."
FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 12/15 26 It is abundantly clear from the abovesaid judgment that there is no rule of law which enjoins upon the Court not to rely upon the testimony of the police officials in the absence of any independent/public witness. The only concern is to be more cautious and circumspect before placing any reliance on their testimonies. In other words, their testimony is to be subjected to careful scrutinization and assessment as compared to the testimony of any other public person. On the touchstone of these principles, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case, there is no ground not to believe the testimonies of all the police personnels.
27 Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion in my mind, it is crystal clear that law is here that the testimony of police officials is at the same path as the testimony of any other witness, if it is clear, coherent and reliable. The testimony of PW5 and PW7 is clear. Both of them have corroborated each other and deposed that the accused got recovered one gold chain from his house at C-12/171, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, which was wrapped in a sock.
28 It is also argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that there are certain discrepancies in the testimony of PW5 and PW7. However, in my opinion, these discrepancies are minor in nature and they do not hit the root of the case. Both the PWs have struck on their stand that accused got recovered one gold chain, which was identified by the PW3 Smt. Satya Prabha to be her chain, which was stolen from her in the month December, 2005. To bolster my view, I would like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Lal Bahadur and ors Vs State of NCT of Delhi 2013 IV AD (SC) 416. Para 19 of the said judgment is relevant which is as follows:-
" So far as the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as pointed out by the counsel for the appellants , are concerned, we have gone through the entire evidence and found that the FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 13/15 evidence of the witnesses can not be brushed aside merely because of some minor contradictions, particularly for the reason that the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses are trustworthy. Not only that, the witnesses have consistently deposed with regard to the offence committed by the appellants and their evidence remain unshaken during their cross examination. Mere marginal variation and contradiction in the statements of the witnesses can not be ground to discard the testimony of the eye witness who is none else but the widow of the one deceased . Further, relationship can not be a factor to affect credibility of a witness. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Naresh & Others (2011) 4 SCC 324, the Court observe:-
" 30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation,namely , errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence can not be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions , inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.
29 The accused has examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C as DW2 and also brought Sh. Ajit Singh as DW1. It has been deposed by the DW1 that police has falsely implicated the accused in the present case. However, there is nothing on record to show that they have lodged any police complaint or filed any complaint regarding false implication of the accused in the present case. It is the plea of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 14/15 police, then why he had not taken any recourse in law, which was available to him. Further, the accused has failed to bring on record the motive for which the PWs would have falsely implicate him.
30 The recovery witnesses have deposed empathetically on oath that they found in the possession of the accused the gold chain. That gold chain was identified by the complainant to be her gold chain which was snatched by the two bikers in December, 2005.
31 In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused Parikshit for the offence u/s 411 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted for the offence u/s 411 IPC .
Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court Today on 15.12.2014.
(Ambika Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate-06(Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 15/15 IN THE COURT OF MS.AMBIKA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06 CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI FIR No.263/05 State V/s Parikshit Gupta U/S 411 IPC PS Gulabi Bagh ORDER ON SENTENCE Present : Ld. APP for the state .
Convict in person alongwith counsel The convict has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC vide judgment announced on 15.12.2014. Ld. APP for the state seeks for imposition of maximum imprisonment. On the contrary the convict prays for a lenient view. It is submitted by the convict that he has old aged parents to look after and that his mother is handicapped who needs extra care. He also states that he belongs to a very poor family and the persons in his family are dependent upon him as he is the sole bread earner of the family. Further, it is submitted that it his first offence and he is also repenting for the act done.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the pleas put forth on both sides.
Perusal of the record shows that convict Parikshit Gupta was convicted in the present case vide separate judgment dated15.12.2014 under sections 411 IPC. In view of the submissions and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to release the convict on Probation of Good Conduct. Moreover, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dalbir Singh Vs State of Haryana AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1677(1) the convict is not entitled FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 16/15 -2- to the relief of benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
In view of submissions made and the facts of the case, the interest of justice would be served by the orders, if the convict is sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for the period already undergone by him i.e about 35 days with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default SI for five days.
A copy of the judgment dated 15.12.2014 and order on sentence be provided dasti to the convict, free of cost.
Announced in the open court, Today on 09.02.2015 (Ambika Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate -06 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 17/15 FIR No.:263/05 P.S.:Gulabi Bagh 09.02.2015.
Present: Ld. APP for the state
Convict in person with counsel
Probation report has been received. Same is perused. Arguments on the point of sentence heard. Put up for orders at 4.00 PM.
(AMBIKA SINGH)
MM-06(C)/THC/Delhi
09.02.2015
AT 4.00 PM
Present: Ld. APP for the state
Convict in person with counsel
Vide my separate order of even date, the convict Parikshit Gupta is sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC to Simple Imprisonment for the period already undergone by him with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default SI for five days.
Fine paid.
A copy of the judgment dated 15.12.2014 and order on sentence be provided dasti to the convict, free of cost.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(AMBIKA SINGH) MM-06(C)/THC/Delhi 09.02.2015 FIR No.263/05 PS Gulabi Bagh State Vs Parikshit 18/15