Virender Aggarwal v. State

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to RePorter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SIINIL GAUR. I' (Oralr

1. lmpugned herein is the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC in FIR No. 56412000, registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi, in respect of an incident of 8th August, 2000 at about 5:00 p.m. Petitioner is alleged to have extended a threat to kill the first informant- Sh. Pawan Garg from a land-line phone number 6561516 on Crl. Rev. Petition No.249 of 2008 Page L 2011:DHC:1982[1]:tl I mobile No. 9810090337 of the first informant (PW-3) and the threat extended was:- "yet jomeen mainay lay lee hai agar ismey ghosney ki koshish ki to goli say uda duga"

2. Upon registration of the FlR, this matter was investigated into and it went to trial, wherein first informant- Sh. Pawan Garg had deposed as PW-3 and there is deposition of Call Boy Mukesh (PW-l) 'and of police official- Jagpal Singh (PW-2) as well, apart from the deposition of the lnvestigating Officer (PW- 5). Petitioner/accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., recorded by the trial Court, had denied this incident and had stated as under:- "l am innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Complainant wanted to grab certain land belonging to Jain Community and against this I had lodged certain complaint to police,"

3. No evidence was led by the petitioner/ accused in his defence before the trial Court. The trial of this case had culminated in the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC and the trial Court upon hearing the petitioner on the question of sentence, released him on probation for a period of six months, which was unsuccessfully t"' f) Crl. Rev. Petition No.249 of 2008 Page[2] tr challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Sessions Court.

4. In this revision petition, petitioner's Counsel as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have been heard and the record of this case has been perused. 5, As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, conviction of the petitioner is bad in law as Mukesh (PW-1) has not supported the case of the prosecution and call details have not been proved on record and petitioner has been framed in this case at the instance of first informant, who is an influential person.

6. To the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State urges that the conviction of the petitioner is based upon the evidence of the first informant, who has no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner and there is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner by the two courts below and that there is no illegality or infirmity in the conviction of the petitioner, requiring any interference by this Court.

7. What has been enunciated by the Apex Court in "Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar" (2002) 6 SCC 650, is as under:- Crl. Rev. Petition No.249 of 2008 Page 3 A rJ "ln the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High court to interfere in exercise of its revisional iurisdiction. lt has repeatedty been held that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the Trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional iurisdiction in such cases is not warranted,"

8. A close perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the deposition of the first informant- Sh. Pawan Garg is consistent and reliable and there is no meaningful challenge to it. ln this view of the matter, the absence of call details would cause no dent to the prosecution case. During the course of hearing, petitioner's Counsel had wondered as to how the first informant- Sh. Pawan Garg had come to know that the call was made on his mobile from land-line at Adhchini. On this aspect, the deposition of lnvestigating Officer (PW-5) needs to be taken note of. The lnvestigating Officer (PW-5) has stated in his evidence that he had made enquiries from MTNL and had found that call in question was made on the mobile phone of the first informant from the aforesaid place. Apart from this, the prosecution case cannot be dented on the aforesaid aspect CrL Rev. Petition No.249 of 2008 Page 4 \ because the first informant- Sh. Vijay Garg (PW-3) has not been questioned in cross-examination as to how he came to know that the call was made from Adchini. In any case, nothing material hinges upon it. In view of the fact that the first informant- Sh. Vijay Garg (PW-3) had no animus against the petitioner and the plea of the petitioner taken at trial being not substantiated, would not call for any interference by this Court, as I find no blatant illegality in the prosecution version and in the face of the evidence of the first informant- Sh. Vijay Garg (PW-3), it cannot be said that the conviction of the petitioner is unwarranted or has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

9. ln view of the aforesaid, I find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the courts below. Finding no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, this revision petition is dismissed while upholding the conviction and Sentence imposed upon. the petitioner. Trial Court to ensure compliance of the sentence imposed.

10. This petition stands accordingly disposed of. July 15, 20lI rS,^ Gaur, J. CrL Rev. Petition No.249 of 2008 Page 5