Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak Bhateja on 24 June, 2019
In The Court of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan
Magistrate02, (Mahila Court), South East, New Delhi
State Vs. Deepak Bhateja
FIR No: 279/2017
PS: Amar Colony
U/s: 354/506/509 IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 07.10.2017
CRC no. : 4620/2017
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet.
Name & address of the accused : Deepak Bhateja
S/o Sh. C.R. Bhateja
R/o H.No.E223, Amar Colony,
Lajpat NagarIV, New Delhi.
Offence Complained of : U/s 354/506/509 IPC
Offence Charged of : U/s 354/506/509 IPC
Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted u/s 354/506 IPC
Acquitted u/s 509 IPC
Date of arguments : 21.06.2019
Date of announcing of order : 24.06.2019
State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 1/17
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.07.2017 at around 5.13 PM, when the complainant reached back home from work, she found one red colour Maruti Swift car having number DL8CNB2685 parked in a wrongful manner at the back lane of her house which was obstructing the movement of her car and did not allow her car to move ahead. Thereafter, she gave horn and waited for it to be removed, however, none came to remove the same and thereafter, she stepped out of her car and dialed 100 number since the aforesaid vehicle was found unattended and wrongfully parked. While she was informing the police about the said vehicle, one person came towards her and since he had heard her talking to the police and as soon as she disconnected the call, the aforesaid person informed the complainant that the car belong to him and since she had called the police, he would want the police to come and thereafter, also said "I will show you that who am I and what I can do". When the complainant tried to inform him that she made a call since his car was parked in a wrongful manner, but he started hurling abuses to the complainant and told her that neither she nor her father had power to remove his car and told his name to the complainant to be Deepak. When she asked him regarding the aggressive and disrespectful behaviour, at that time, he pushed the complainant by touching her upper body and threatened her by saying "if I ever see you again, then even you would not know that what I will do with you and the police cannot help you as I have resources at high level and my relative is a Governor". While extending the State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 2/17 aforesaid threats to the complainant, he sat in his car and drove away and also hurled abuses at the complainant like "hore and bitch". Thereafter, the complainant felt threatened and pressurised and was in fear. In the meantime, police official reached the spot and she narrated the incident to them.
2. Pursuant to this complaint against accused Deepak Bhateja dated 15.07.2017, FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. Chargesheet was filed on 07.10.2017. Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused Deepak Bhateja. Charge was framed against accused for the offence U/s 354/506/509 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly, matter was listed for prosecution evidence. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined three witnesses.
PW1 Complainant deposed that on 15.07.2017 at around 5.30 PM, when she reached near her house, she found that the car of accused Deepak Bhateja which was of red colour (Maruti swift car) having registration No.2685 was parked outside the back lane of her house. At that time, when she was coming in her car, she found that the same was wrongfully parked and obstructed the lane and her car was not able to pass through or go ahead. Thereafter, several cars came from behind but there was no way to go ahead so they took another road but since she had no option, she kept honking the horn for almost 1015 minutes but no one came to remove the car. Thereafter, State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 3/17 having no option and finding the aforesaid car unattended, she made a call at 100 number. It was almost half an hour when she was waiting for someone to remove the car and was explaining the matter to the police officials and at that time while she was talking, suddenly accused came towards her and started asking her as to how dare she made a call to the police officials and thereafter, even extended threats to her. At that time, she tried to pacify the accused and told him that he should wait for the police to arrive but meanwhile, accused started abusing her in filthy language. Thereafter, accused also told her that he was well connected and even one of his family members was a Governor. Thereafter, accused also told her that he was not scared of the police officials and no one could take any action against him and also told her that she shall have to face dire consequences and also told her "I will show you who am I and what I can do". Meanwhile, accused also told her that nobody had the power to get his car removed. Thereafter, he pushed her from her upper body and while abusing her in filthy language sat in the car and left from the spot. Thereafter, police officials reached her house only and she gave her written complaint to the police vide Ex.PW1/A. At that time, police officials were even not willing to register the matter against the accused as he was trying to influence them. She even reported the matter to senior authorities by sending them online complaints. Subsequently, FIR was registered. Thereafter, her statement was recorded u/s 164 CrPC and the same was Ex.PW1/B. At that time, police officials were even pressurising State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 4/17 her to settle the matter with the accused and to not file the case against the accused and therefore, she even filed her complaint online.
During her cross examination, PW1 deposed that she was presently employed in a private company. At the time of incident also, she was doing private job. At the time of the present complaint, her family consisted her brother, his wife and children. The distance between her house and the house of accused was around 300 metres. She could not tell the exact number of houses between her house and the house of accused but between the same, there was one back lane. It was correct that there was a public park in front of her house. It was correct that there were houses adjacent to her house on both sides. At the time of incident, she used to always park her car on the back lane of her house. Since it was a back lane, usually only one car could pass. Where she used to park her car, there was one dhobi who used to sit at a distance of about 200 metres. It was correct that at the time of incident, aforesaid dhobi was working. At the time of incident, her brother, bhabhi and kids were present at home. There were no security guards in the back lane. The neighbourers who live adjacent to her house also parked their cars in the back lane. The car of the accused was parked in the back lane in the middle of the road. There were other cars parked in the service lane but either on the left side of the lane or on the right side but not in the middle of the service lane. The other cars were not blocking the lane. The aforesaid cars were parked in the entire lane which were either on the right side or the left side. When accused came towards her, he was alone or might be with one child. She did State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 5/17 not know the age of the child. She had stated the fact that accused told her that "he was not scared of the police officials and no one could take any action against him and also told me that I shall have to face dire consequences". She was confronted with statement u/s 164 CrPC and statement Ex.PW1/A. She had disclosed the fact that the accused told her that nobody have the power to get his car removed, in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C and in her complaint. She was confronted with statement u/s 164 CrPC. When accused reached the spot the incident finished within five minutes. She had not given a call to any of her family members when accused misbehaved with her. She had not raised alarm at the aforesaid incidents since the same occurred very suddenly. She had not asked the Dhobi for any help. None of the public persons or neighours gathered on the spot at the time of incident. The place where the incident occurred was at a walking distance from her house. Police reached her house around 6.30 PM and there was only one police official who reached her house. She had narrated the incident to the police official at that time. The police official remained at her house for about 1520 minutes. She had not shown the place of incident to the police on the date of incident. She did not hand over copy of her online complaint to the IO since he was not supportive enough to take her complaint. Her medical examination was not got conducted by the police official. She had informed during her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC that accused had tried to influence the police officials and police officials were not cooperating and were pressurising her to settle the matter with the accused and to not file the State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 6/17 case against the accused. She was confronted with statement u/s 164 CrPC. She had visited the police station only once after registration of FIR but she did not remember the exact date of visiting the same. Police officials had recorded her statement on that day. Police officials had taken her to the place of incident on the day of incident and she identified the spot to them and there were two police officials at that time. Police officials did not record the statement of her brother in her presence. She did not visit the police station on the day of incident. No public person remained on the spot when the incident occurred. Witness denied all the suggestions put to her.
PW2 Const. Pramod Kumar deposed that on 15.07.2017, he was posted at PS Amar colony. Upon receiving 100 number call, he alongwith IO SI Roop Singh went to the place of incident i.e. the spot situated at H.No.E 101, Ground Floor, Amar Colony, New Delhi. When he reached the spot, she met the complainant. Thereafter, complainant handed over her written complaint to the IO. Thereafter, IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to PS and got the FIR registered and returned back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC.
During his cross examination, PW2 deposed that after receiving the 100 number call, he alongwith IO reached the spot within 15 minutes i.e. around 5.45 PM. On reaching the spot, they met the complainant and found some public persons present there. The incident had taken place on the back lane of the house of the complainant. The back lane has enough space for two State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 7/17 cars to move and there were some cars parked in the back lane. The written complaint was handed over by the complainant to the IO and the same was written by her on the spot. She did not remember if any relative of the complainant were also present on the spot. They remained at the spot for about one and half hour. He had returned back but IO remained at the spot. IO had inquired about the matter from public persons but no public persons joined investigation. He did not remember if complainant had called any of her family members of the spot. He had not visited the house of the complainant on that day. IO had not prepared site plan in his presence.
PW3 ASI Roop Singh (IO) deposed that he was the IO in the present matter. On 15.07.2017, he was posted at PS Amar Colony. On that day, a PCR call was received vide DD No.40B. Upon receiving the aforesaid DD number, he alongwith Const. Pramod Kumar went to the spot situated at E 101, Ground Floor, Amar Colony. Upon reaching the spot, they met complainant who narrated the incident to him. Thereafter, complainant gave her written complaint to him which was Ex.PW1/A. He endorsed the same vide Ex.PW3/A and handed over the original rukka to Const. Pramod for registration of FIR. Thereafter, at the spot he did not find any eye witness of the incident. No CCTV camera was found at the spot. Thereafter, during investigation, he came to know regarding the whereabouts of accused Deepak Bhateja who was resident of H.No.E223, Ground Floor, Amar Colony. Thereafter, at the instance of complainant, he prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW3/B at the instance of complainant. Subsequently, he served notice u/s State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 8/17 41(a) CrPC to the accused to join investigation which was Ex.PW3/C. Thereafter, he got recorded the statement of complainant u/s 164 CrPC. Recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed before the court.
During his cross examination, PW3 deposed that upon receiving the call, they firstly reached the house of complainant around 06.00 PM. When they reached the house of complainant, they met only the complainant. No other family member of the complainant was present. They remained at the house of complainant only about 10 minutes and thereafter, went to the spot with the complainant. It was correct that the place of incident was a thickly populated area having several houses. The distance between the house of complainant and the spot was around 200 metres. When they reached the spot, they met some public persons but they mentioned that they were not witnesses to the incident. The width of the back lane can accommodate two cars to pass through. There were some cars which were already parked in the back lane. The written complaint was handed over to him by the complainant at the spot. No relative of the complainant was accompanying her when the aforesaid complaint was handed over to him. They had inquired about the matter from the dhobi who sits in the vicinity of the spot but upon inquiry, he refused to join the investigation and stated that he had not seen the incident. After the registration of the present FIR, complainant had approached them to hand over a copy of the online complaint filed by her but since the FIR was already registered, the same was not taken. He had inquired about the matter State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 9/17 from the neighbourers but none of the persons joined the investigation. They did not get the medical examination of complainant conducted since she refused to get it done. Complainant did not hand over to him any other complaint on the same day. Complainant had visited the police station on that day after registration of FIR. She had come alone. It was correct that the accused was living in neighbourhood of complainant. When they met the complainant, she was not found injured and was in her senses. When they reached the spot, the car of the complainant was parked but he did not recall the make of car or the registration number of the car. Witness denied all suggestions put to him.
Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C. and copy of FIR was Ex.A, rukka was Ex.B.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
5. Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
6. Final arguments were advanced.
State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 10/17
7. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the state that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has been argued that the complainant being the victim of sexual assault as corroborated her testimony with her complaint Ex.PW1/A and her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC vide Ex.PW1/B. Further, the complainant being a young educated girl was taken by surprise when the accused suddenly started misbehaving with her because of which she got scared and accused even pushed her and continuously extended threats to her. Further, the complainant had been put to harassment by the accused in public because she objected to the accused for parking his vehicle on the middle of the road and instead the accused had picked up quarrels with the complainant and therefore, accused is liable to be convicted.
8. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. LAC for the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant and admittedly the complainant and the accused are residing in the same locality for several years. It is also argued that there are three witnesses examined by the prosecution among which, PW1 complainant is the sole eye witness and victim in the present matter and remaining witnesses like PW2 and PW3 are formal in nature. It is argued that PW1 being the sole eye witness has not deposed on the lines of her complaint Ex.PW1/A and there are several contradictions in the testimony of the complainant. It is further argued that the conduct of the complainant during the alleged incident by not raising alarm, or calling her family members or even calling any passerby, itself shows that State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 11/17 no such incident occurred. It is further argued that allegedly the incident happened for about five minutes but the complainant did not deem it appropriate to raise alarm or call any of her family member who were present at her residence. It is further argued that the complainant has stated the name and whereabout of the accused in her complaint Ex.PW1/A, which itself shows that the complainant has falsely implicated the accused in a pre planned manner. It is further argued that the allegations of the complainant for being pushed by the accused are also not substantiated since she did not get herself medically examined to show that she had suffered any kind of minor or major injury due to the alleged push. Ld. LAC has also argued that in the present matter, there are several contradictions in the testimony of complainant and therefore, she is not a reliable witness. It is also argued that despite the fact that the place of occurrence was a residential area having several houses and several public persons, none of them were cited as a witness or even examined by the IO (Investigating officer). It is further argued that the site plan of the incident is also vague and due to the aforesaid contradictions, accused is liable to be acquitted. Further, it has been argued that the complainant has levelled false allegations against the accused which are not substantiated by any cogent evidence as none of the public persons present on the spot have supported the story of complainant.
State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 12/17 Court Observations:
9. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as Ld. LAC Sh. Puneet Dhawan, this court has come to the following conclusion:
The prosecution case finds its genesis in complaint dated 15.07.2017 Ex.PW1/A, wherein complainant has leveled allegations against the accused of having misbehaved with her by touching her inappropriately and pushing her by her chest and using abusive language with the intention to outrage her modesty while she was standing near the car of accused which was parked inappropriately in the middle of the back lane of her house and since she had objected to the aforesaid act of the accused, accused misbehaved with her and extended threats to her. It is also averred by the complainant that when she raised the objection, accused started abusing the complainant and showed no fear of law and entered into a criminal assault upon the complainant. However, there is no probable defence raised by the accused for justifying as to how the complainant on having him not misbehaved with her went to the extent of filing the present complaint against him.
10. To the case of prosecution, accused has raised manifold defences. Firstly, that the complaint Ex.PW1/A is vague and bereft of details and the complaint is devoid of merit. It is further argued that the chargesheet does not disclose the manner of commission of offence.
State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 13/17
11. In the present matter, prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses to establish its case. PW1 is the complainant and the victim in the present matter, PW2 and PW3 are formal witnesses Remaining witnesses were formal in nature being police officials who conducted the investigation upon receiving the complaint.
12. PW1 is the star witness of the prosecution as she is the victim and the aggrieved in the present matter who had suffered criminal sexual assault upon her, at the hands of the accused. Further, it was the accused who tried to escape from the spot after misbehaving with the complainant who left the spot by driving away his car. The presence of accused on the spot at the time of incident is not disputed by him and he has admitted the same during his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC and he has also admitted that at the time of incident there was a heated conversation between him and the complainant and thus, the accused was present at the spot at the time of incident are corroborated.
13. In the present matter, accused had been charged for the offence punishable u/s 354/506/509 IPC and to prove the guilt of accused for the aforesaid offences, it was required for the prosecution to prove that the complainant was subjected to assault or criminal force by the accused with an intention to outrage her modesty and the accused knew that her modesty would be outrage thereby. Further, the accused had intentionally committed State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 14/17 physical contact with the complainant and used filthy language against the complainant with the intention to insult her modesty and had also repeatedly extended threats to the complainant with the intention to cause alarm to the complainant and caused criminal intimidation to her.
14. In the present matter, the complainant has deposed on the lines of her complaint and has specifically narrated the manner in which the incident had occurred. She has also narrated the facts of her complaint in corroboration with her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC and reiterated the same during her testimony before the court. Accused has failed to shake the credibility of the complainant by means of crossexamination or by way of leading any probable defence. The factum of the complainant and accused being on spot is corroborated by the fact that the accused admitted the same during his statement u/s 313 CrPC. Further, the accused being fully aware of the fact that he would be apprehended, attempted to run away from the place of incident and subsequently joined investigation.
15. It is settled law that "modesty" is defined as a quality of being modest and in relation to a woman "womenly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". It is reserve or essence of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions, the essence of a women's modesty is her sex and the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The ultimate test for State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 15/17 ascertaining whether modesty of a woman has been outrage is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. For an offence u/s 354, intention to outrage the modesty of a woman or knowledge that the act of the accused would result in outraging her modesty is the gravamen of the offence. By evaluating the evidence, the court must remain alive of the fact that in the cases relating to sexual assault, no self respecting women from any strata of society would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which had no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such as are of fetal nature, be allowed to throw out and otherwise reliable prosecution case.
16. Further, it was held in State Vs. Gurmeet Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 that "the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation."
17. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and in the present facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that accused had on the date of incident outrage the modesty of the complainant having knowledge State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 16/17 and intention for doing so and also was having the intention to touch the complainant inappropriately by pushing her from her chest and also extended threats to her and therefore, offence punishable u/s 354/506 IPC stands proved against the accused and minor contradictions pointed out are not material or fatal to the story of the prosecution.
18. As far as the offence u/s 509 IPC is concerned, the same is not made out against the accused since the complainant has not substantiated the aforesaid allegation of abusive language used against her and her daughters by narrating the same which would draw an inference that such language would amount to insulting the modesty of the woman and therefore, accused stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC.
19. Therefore, in my considered view the guilt of accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, accused Deepak Bhateja is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 354/506 IPC only.
Announced in Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
On 24.06.2019 Metropolitan Magistrate02,
(Mahila Court)/SED/Saket,
Digitally New Delhi.
signed by
SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2019.06.25
12:20:47
+0530
State Vs. Deepak Bhateja; FIR No. 279/2017, PS Amar Colony 17/17