Delhi District Court
Fir No: 328/10 1 State vs . Omkar on 30 August, 2014
FIR No: 328/10 1 State vs. Omkar
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : ROHINI, DELHI.
FIR No. 328/10
PS -A. Vihar
U/s. 507/509 IPC
ID No. 02404R0355572011
30.08.2014
STATE VS OMKAR
Date of institution : 14.09.2011
Date of Commission of Offence : 09.11.2010
Name of the Complainant : Shalika Chodhary
Name, parentage & Add. Of the
Accused : 1) Shri Omkar
S/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh,
R/o Village Karala, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 507/509 IPC.
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Date for reserve of Order : 30.08.2014
Date of announcing of order : 30.08.2014
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The present FIR was registered at PS A. Vihar against FIR No. 328/10 State vs. Omkar 1 of 5 FIR No: 328/10 2 State vs. Omkar accused namely Omkar for the offences U/s 507/509 IPC.
2. In brief, case of the complainant is that on 09.11.10 at village Kirari, Mubarakpur road, Delhi and other places within the jurisdiction of PS A. Vihar, accused Omkar in order to insult the modesty of complainant Shailika Choudhary made some sound or gesture intending that the same may be hurt or scene by the complainant or there by intrude upon the privacy of the complainant and also sent the threatening letters and threatened the complainant and her family to kill and thereby committed offence punishable Us/ 507/509 IPC.
3. Investigation commenced and concluded by filing the charge sheet. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was made. Arguments on charge were heard and charge u/s 507/509 IPC was framed against the accused Omkar to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses namely Shailika (complainant) as PW1, Jugbir Singh (father of complainant) as PW2, Nimit (brother of complainant) as PW3. As all the three key witnesses turned hostile, PE was closed by the court as no useful purpose would be served by examining the other formal witnesses. SA and DE dispensed with and final arguments heard on behalf of State as well as accused. Record FIR No. 328/10 State vs. Omkar 2 of 5 FIR No: 328/10 3 State vs. Omkar perused.
5. So far as offence U/s 507 IPC is concerned it provides that:
Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section.
6. So far as offence U/s 509 IPC is concerned it provides that :
"Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
7. PW1 Shailika (complainant) has deposed in her examination in chief that she do not know anything about the FIR No. 328/10 State vs. Omkar 3 of 5 FIR No: 328/10 4 State vs. Omkar present case and do not know the accused Omkar. She further deposed that accused person has not made any remark, sound or gesture at any point of time against her in order to insult her modesty and accused Omkar has never ever threatened her or her family at any point of time. As she was resiling from her previous statement which was given to the police, Ld. APP cross examined her. During cross examination she denied the suggestion that on 09.11.10 at village Khirari Mubarakpur Road accused made some sound or gesture with the intention to insult her modesty or to intrude upon her privacy. She categorically and completely denied the suggestion that accused send threatening letter to kill her and her family at any point of time.
8. PW2 Sh Jugbir Singh (father of complainant ) and PW3 Nimit (brother of the complainant) also deposed on same lines and corroborated the testimony of PW1. PW2 and PW3 were also cross examined by Ld. APP for State however nothing material came out in their cross examination and they failed to support the case of prosecution.
9. Perusal of entire evidence reveals that complainant / victim, father of the victim as well as brother of the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution and categorically denied that accused persons committed any offending act with the victim / complainant. In such kind of cases, evidence of the FIR No. 328/10 State vs. Omkar 4 of 5 FIR No: 328/10 5 State vs. Omkar complainant / victim is the best available evidence and the case can be proved beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimony of said witness only.
10. In the fact and circumstances, case of prosecution is not supported by the key witnesses i.e. the victim, her father and brother as they have deposed nothing incriminating against the accused persons and complainant herself denied the case of prosecution. Upon the testimony of the key witnesses offence has not been proved and accused persons cannot be held guilty. Accordingly accused namely Omkar stands acquitted for the offence U/s 507/509 IPC However his surety bond remain extended till 6 months from today U/s 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(SHILPI JAIN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 30.08.2014.
FIR No. 328/10 State vs. Omkar 5 of 5