Delhi District Court
State vs . Meera Gupta on 3 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV GUPTA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04, SOUTH
DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Meera Gupta
FIR NO: 218/10
P. S Sangam Vihar
U/s Section 3 of Prevention of Damages
to Public Property Act 1984.
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 2529/3
Date of its institution : 24.07.2010
Name of the complainant : Mukut Mani, S/o Sh. Daya Ram,
R/o Executive Engineering SouthIII,
G.K. Opposite, Sadik Nagar, New
Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 28.06.2010
Name of the accused : Meera Gupta, W/o Sh. Satish Gupta,
R/o H. NO. 773, F3 Block, Near Shiv
Mandir, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : Section 3 of Prevention of Damages
to Public Property Act 1984.
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 08.04.2016
Final Order : Acquittal
Date of orders : 03.05.2016
FIR no. 218/10 State Vs. Meera Gupta 1/5
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is a case prosecuted by the State against the accused for having committed an offence under the provisions of Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act 1984 (herein after referred to as "the act").
2. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.06.2010, at F3 Block near Aggarwal sweets Sangam Vihar New Delhi, Sh. Mukut Mani, the then JE (Civil), Delhi Jal Board, (complainant) along with his staff and labourers was getting a public hydrant installed. However, while the hydrant was being installed a crowd gathered at the spot and one woman namely Ms. Meera Gupta (accused) destroyed the hydrant.
3. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out by PS Sangam Vihar and a charge sheet was filed against the accused. Charge was framed against the accused Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act 1984, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined four witnesses. Complainant Sh. Mukut Mani, the then JE Civil, Delhi Jal Board deposed as PW1. He proved copy of his request letter to police dated 20.06.2010 as Ex. PW1/A. His complaint to police regarding destruction of Hydrant as Ex. PW1/B, arrest memo as Ex. PW1/C and personal search memo as Ex. PW1/D. The witness did not support the case of the prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. W/Const. Rakhi, deposed as PW2 being a witness of the investigation. ASI Balwan Singh, who was the then Duty Officer, deposed as PW3. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/B. Investigating officer of the case, Inspector Satish Bhati deposed as PW4. All the witnesses were cross examined and thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
5. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 281 Cr.PC, wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to her. She denied all the allegations against her and took a FIR no. 218/10 State Vs. Meera Gupta 2/5 defence that she was not present at the spot. However, she did not lead any evidence.
6. At this juncture, it would be apropos to refer to section 3 of the Act. Same is reproduced here in below:
Section 3 Mischief causing damage to public property.
(1)XXX (2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being
(a) Any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;
(b)XXX
(c)XXX
(d)XXX
(e)XXX Shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 6 months, but which may extend to 5 years and with fine.
7. In order to, prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove that accused committed mischief i.e. she caused destruction to public property with the intent or knowledge that the same is likely to cause wrongful loss to public.
8. The complainant while deposing as PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution. He deposed that when he along with his staff went to install the hydrant, police had yet not reached, so he went to inform the police and in the meanwhile, in his absence, the hydrant was destroyed. He further deposed that public persons informed him that the same was destroyed by accused Meera. The witness also deposed that accused was arrested in his presence at the PS whereas in the arrest memo, the place of arrest has been shown as the spot of the incident which raises doubts as to the fairness of the investigation.
9. Coming to the testimony of other eye witness PW2 Ct. Rakhi, she deposed that she FIR no. 218/10 State Vs. Meera Gupta 3/5 accompanied SI Chander and other police officials to the spot where JE Mukut Mani was present with staff, which is in contradiction to the version of PW1. She deposed that the accused had pulled the pipeline in her presence. However, in the cross examination she could not even tell the approximate size of the pipeline as to whether it was 10 ft. or 30 ft. She could not even tell as to how many police officials were present at the spot or even the time when she reached at the spot. She also deposed that no photographs of the spot were taken in her presence. In these circumstances, her testimony does not appear to be reliable.
10. It has come on record that the JE was accompanied by his staff and labourers and also that a crowd had gathered at the scene of the incident. However, IO made no attempts to record the statement of any other DJB Official accompanying the JE or of any public person present there. In her cross examination, IO stated that she had asked public persons to become witness but none agreed. However, admittedly this fact was not mentioned in the charge sheet or in the case diary. No notice was given to any public person in this regard. Failure to join any public person again raises doubts as to the fairness of the investigation.
11. As per the case of the prosecution, public hydrant is stated to have been damaged. However, there is nothing on record to suggest whether the same was actually installed or was not installed after being damaged. If the same was not installed, why was it not seized by the IO. Even otherwise, photographs of the spot have not been duly proved. There are no photographs to suggest any damage to the public hydrant. In view of above, doubts are raised as to the veracity of prosecution's version that the hydrant suffered damage.
12. In the light of foregoing discussion and findings, it is concluded that the case of the prosecution suffers from various lacunae. The sole public witness, complainant himself, has not supported the prosecution's case. The failure of IO to join any other FIR no. 218/10 State Vs. Meera Gupta 4/5 public witness further dented the case of the prosecution. Further still, the very fact as to whether any damage was caused to the hydrant has not been sufficiently established by the State. As such prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Accordingly, accused Meera Gupta is acquitted of the offence Under Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act 1984. She be set at liberty. Bail bonds U/s 437 A of Cr.PC be furnished.
Announced in the open court (Gaurav Gupta)
on 03.05.2016 Metropolitan Magistrate04,
South, New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 5 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Gaurav Gupta)
MM04, South, New Delhi/ 03.05.2016
FIR no. 218/10 State Vs. Meera Gupta 5/5