Delhi District Court
State vs . Khem Chand on 21 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAWANI SHARMA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 185/2018
ID 3651/2019
U/S. 188 IPC
PS Ranjit Nagar
State Vs. Khem Chand
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 3651/2019
2. Date of commission of offence 30.6.2018
3. Name of complainant HC Mukhtar Khan
4. Name of accused Khem Chand
s/o. Sh Surja
r/o. H NO. 3026 Ranjit Nagar
Delhi.
5. Offence complained of U/s. 188 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 21.5.2019
1. FACTS IN BRIEF/ CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION: Accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 30.6.18 at about 7.30 PM at H NO. 3026 Gali NO 4A Ranjit Nagar Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Ranjit Nagar, he being the landlord of the said house had kept a tenant Sh. Vinod Kumar without police State Vs. KhemChand; FIR No. 185/18; PS Ranjit Nagar 1/5 verification.
2. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS: After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police against accused. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. Copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused and the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge.
3. NOTICE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED: Notice for offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC was given to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION: In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 3 witnesses. The testimony of the said witnesses in brief is as under :
(a)PW1 is HC Mukhtyar Khan i.e. the complainant. PW1 deposed that on 30.6.18 he alongwith Ct. Rakesh were on police verification duty in the area and when they reached at H NO. 3026 Gali NO 4A Ranjit Nagar where one Vinod met us and on inquiry he informed that he had been residing in said house for last 2 years and his police verification has not been done by the landlord. Witness stated that he met the landlord/the accused, who is present in the court today(correctly identified) and after explaining the offence chargesheeted him.
State Vs. KhemChand; FIR No. 185/18; PS Ranjit Nagar 2/5
(b)PW2 is Ct. Rakesh. PW2 had accompanied the IO to the spot. His testimony is similar to that of PW1.
(c)PW3 is Sh. Vinod i.e. the tenant. PW3 deposed that on 30.6.18, police officials had inquired from him and further stated that he had not filled any police verification form.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED: Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. In the said statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused admitted the allegations. Accused had not led any evidence in his defence.
6. ARGUMENTS OF LD. APP FOR STATE AND ACCUSED: Ld APP for the State had argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ld APP for the State had also argued that the factum of keeping tenant without police verification by accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted in this case. On the other hand, accused has submitted that he was not aware about the notification.
7. REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
(i) Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is State Vs. KhemChand; FIR No. 185/18; PS Ranjit Nagar 3/5 supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
(ii) It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
(iii) In the light of the above discussed legal position, I shall now step forward to divulge my opinion on the respective fate of the accused.
(iv) PW1 who was the complainant deposed that while on patrolling duty, they came to know that the accused had kept the tenant without police verification. PW2 who was alongwith the IO corroborated version of PW1. The tenant who was examined as PW3 supported prosecution case. Nothing substantial in the favour of the accused has came on record despite being cross examined. Thus, prosecution has successfully brought on record that accused State Vs. KhemChand; FIR No. 185/18; PS Ranjit Nagar 4/5 had not complied with the order of MHA and violated the order of concerned ACP and had not submitted the tenant verification form in the police station. Thus, the aforesaid cumulative and corroborating testimonies of PWs clearly proves that the accused has violated the orders of ACP concerned.
8. CONCLUSION: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is hereby convicted for said offence.
Judgment dictated and BHAWANI SHARMA
pronounced in the open Court ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI
i.e. the 21st of May 2019
(This judgment consists of 5 pages)
State Vs. KhemChand; FIR No. 185/18; PS Ranjit Nagar 5/5
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAWANI SHARMA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 185/2018 ID 3651/2019 U/S. 188 IPC PS Ranjit Nagar State Vs. Khem Chand ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE Present: Ld APP for State.
Convict in person with Ld counsel.
I have heard Ld APP for State as well as Ld counsel for convict on the point of sentence and have perused the record.
It is submitted by Ld counsel for convict that convict belongs to poor strata of the society. It is further submitted that convict is not a previous convict. Convict has prayed for a lenient view.
On the other hand Ld APP for State submitted that the convict be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offence in question.
In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 188 IPC. No previous conviction has been alleged or proved against convict. The convict is not involved in any such case, as State Vs. KhemChand; FIR No. 185/18; PS Ranjit Nagar stated by him. Convict is having a family to support.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused belongs to the poor strata of the society, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be met if the convict is admonished.
Needless to say that the convicted person shall be entitled to the benefit u/s. 12 of the Probation of the Offender's Act and no disqualification shall be attached with the conviction as the accused has been admonished in the instant matter. Digitally signed by BHAWANI BHAWANI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2019.05.23 16:45:39 +0530 Announced in open Court BHAWANI SHARMA i.e. the 21st of May, 2019 ACMM:WEST DISTT:DELHI State Vs. KhemChand; FIR No. 185/18; PS Ranjit Nagar