Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the facts and circumstances of the present case and corroborative testimonies of all the PWs, the delay in registration of FIR is found not to be fatal to the prosecution case.

Now, this Court proceeds to decide the liability of the accused persons for the offences punishable under section 342 IPC and 427 IPC. Section 342 IPC reads as under :­ "Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

Mischief is punishable under section 427 I.P.C.
It is deposed by both the complainant(PW3) and his son(PW1) that the accused persons damaged their Maruti car by breaking the glasses of the car with the help of the stones. It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsels that the said car was not damaged by the accused persons namely Rajesh and Ashu Mongia and it is also vehemently argued by ld. counsels that Maruti Car of the complainant which is allegedly damaged by the accused persons got seized by the IO on 27.03.2000 i.e. six days after the incident. In this regard, PW­6 HC Rajesh (Photographer) has deposed that he was the Crime Team member and on the instructions of the IO, he took photographs of the damaged Maruti Car bearing NO. DL­8CA­9864 on 21.03.2000 and exhibited three negatives of the same as Ex. PW­6/A (collectively) and positive thereof as Ex. PW­6/B (collectively).
The photographs of the impugned vehicle were taken on the same day i.e. on 21.03.2000 (date of incident) and PW­6 has duly proved the photographs of the vehicle Maruti Car bearing no. DL­8CA­9864. A bare look at these photographs Ex. PW6/B which were taken on the same day, clearly shows the broken glasses of the car from the front side. Broken Glasses have certainly destroyed or diminished the value or utility of the car and, therefore, offence punishable under Section 427 IPC is also made out in the present matter.
Another aspect which the Court has to keep in mind while dealing with such cases is that the common intention or state of mind and the physical act, both may be arrived at the spot and essentially may not be the result of any pre­determined plan to commit such an offence. This will always depend on the facts and circumstances of the case,

39 Accordingly, to attract applicability of Section 34 IPC, the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention before a person can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another. The ultimate act should be done in furtherance of common intention. Common intention requires a pre­arranged plan, which can be even formed at the spur of the moment or simultaneously just before or even during the attack. For proving common intention, the prosecution can rely upon direct proof of prior concert or circumstances which necessarily lead to that inference. 40 In the present case in hand, PW­3 Paltoo Mal Jain and PW­1 Satender Kumar Jain have categorically deposed that all the accused persons gave beatings to them and that in order to save their lives, they tried to run away but accused persons gave beatings to them upto their car and further that all the accused persons have also broken the glasses of their car. Considering the overall testimony, it can be easily deciphered that both the accused persons namely Rajesh Mongia and Ashu Mongia had a common intention of causing injuries upon the person of PW­1 Satender Kumar Jain and PW­3 Paltoo Mal Jain. Furthermore, both the accused persons were inside the factory where the complainant and injured were confined. Both the accused persons namely Rajesh Mongia and Ashu Mongia acted in furtherance of their common intention and also caused mischief i.e. breaking the glasses of the car by stones. 32 In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt for offences punishable u/s 323/342/427/34 IPC against the accused persons namely Rajesh Mongia and Ashu Mongia. Both the accused persons are held guilty for the offences punishable under section 323/342/427/34 IPC and accordingly are hereby convicted. Let they be heard on the point of sentence on 12.05.14.