Delhi District Court
Fir No. 306/2015;Ps G.K.I State vs . Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 1 Of 22 on 3 October, 2019
In The Court of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan: Metropolitan
Magistrate02 (Mahila Court), SouthEast, Saket Courts:New Delhi
State v. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr.
FIR No. 306/2015
U/s: 354/506/509/34 IPC
P.S G.K.I
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution : 19.04.2016 Criminal Case No. : 88857/2016 Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet
Name & address of the accused : 1. Maninder Singh Dhindsa S/o Late Sh. Rattan Singh R/o H.No.M52, G.K.I, New Delhi.
2. Madan Singh S/o Sh. Natthu Ram R/o H.No.M52, G.K.I, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 354/427/506/509/34 IPC Offence charged of : U/s 354/506/509/34 IPC Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. Final order : Acquitted Date of arguments : 01.10.2019 Date of announcing of order : 03.10.2019 FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 1 of 22 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has stated that she had threat to life, outraging her modesty and assault committed by her father in law. Further, on 08.07.2015 at around 11.30 PM in the night, her father in law broke the CCTV camera for the second time on the same day when they were repaired. When she went to see as to what her father in law (accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa) was doing, he started abusing her and calling her names like prostitute, bitch and other dirty things. He started to push the complainant and even touched her inappropriately. He further outraged her modesty and kept trying to hit her. Meanwhile, her mother in law and husband tried to save her but even her husband was hit by her father in law. Earlier in the evening, her driver accused Madan Singh was roaming around with sharp knife in his hand outside her bedroom. He then helped coaccused Maninder Singh Dhindsa in destroying the CCTV camera. On the next day, accused Madan Singh told the complainant that there was no purpose for her to approach the police as the same would not be fruitful. Further, the accused persons had threatened to kill the complainant by gun and the aforesaid behaviour of the accused has been a regular feature and she feared for her life.
2. Pursuant to this complaint dated 10.07.2015 against accused, FIR was registered on the same day and the matter was investigated. Chargesheet was filed on 19.04.2016. Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused. Vide order dated 13.09.2017 charge was framed against accused FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 2 of 22 persons for the offences punishable U/s 354/506/509/34 IPC. Accused persons 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 has examined four (4) witnesses during trial: PW1 complainant (victim) deposed that on 08.07.2015, at around 6.00 PM, her servant/accused Madan Singh was found roaming outside her bedroom at corridor and he was having one knife in his hand. After 1015 minutes, her fatherinlaw namely, Maninder Singh Dhindsa came into the house in drunken condition and he started to abuse her in filthy language by saying "bitch and prostitute and abusive language in punjabi" as few months back, he used to get young girls to their house in the absence of her mother in law for which, she had objected but he threatened her by saying that she should not tell the same to any other person. On the aforesaid date, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa with the help of coaccused Madan Singh took a knife and cut off the connection of the CCTV camera. Thereafter, kept abusing her in filthy language. Meanwhile, her mother in law asked her husband and the complainant to go to the police station and report the matter to the police. Thereafter, they even gave a call to the CCTV camera people to rectify the problem and install the CCTV camera. Thereafter, at around 7.00 PM, the aforesaid CCTV camera official came and rectify the problem. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband went to police station at around 9.30 PM to lodge a complaint. After returning back from the police station and FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 3 of 22 went to the basement of the house to do some work and heard some noises coming from the ground floor of accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa i.e. her fatherinlaw using abusive language. Thereafter, she again saw that the accused was breaking the CCTV camera and pulled the wire of the same with his hands. Meanwhile, her mother in law also came on the ground floor and accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa started abusing her and held her by her hand and started abusing her in filthy language. At that time, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa kept holding her hand tightly only till the time her husband came to rescue her and when her husband tried to help her, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa slapped her husband. Thereafter, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa held her by her neck and threatened her that he shall kill her. All this while, aforesaid accused kept hurling abusing her. During this time, her mother in law and her husband were trying to help her by taking her away from accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa but accused again threatened by saying that he shall kill her by his gun. He also threatened her mother in law and her husband. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband went to a bedroom and locked the door. On the next day i.e. 09.07.2015, they again went to the police station to file a complaint, but the police officials did not help them and they returned back home. At that time, accused Madan Singh told them that nothing shall happen to the accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa since he was well connected. Thereafter, again on 10.07.2015, they visited the police station in early morning and at the Women Cell which was situated at the aforesaid PS informed regarding the behaviour of the accused persons and gave a written complaint at the PS. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged on her FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 4 of 22 complaint Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, her statement was recorded u/s 164 CrPC before the Ld. Magistrate which was Ex. PW1/B. She had shown the place of incident to the police officials who had prepared site plan at her instance.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW1 deposed that she was B.A. LL.B. She married to Dhruv Dhindsa on 05.05.2013. It was correct that she had mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW1/A that Sh. Madan Singh was roaming outside her bedroom at corridor. (Witness was confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A wherein the word corridor was not mentioned). She voluntarily stated that her bedroom was situated in the corridor area of the house. She had mentioned the fact in her complaint that after 1015 minutes, her father in law namely Maninder Singh Dhindsa came into the house in drunken condition. (witness was confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A wherein it was not so recorded). She did not remember whether she had mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW1/A before the police that accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa used to get young girls to their house in the absence of her mother in law for which she had objected but he threatened her by saying that she should not tell the same to any other person. However, she had given her statement before the Magistrate. She had given her statement Ex. PW1/A to the police at her residence and the same was written also by her at her residence. She voluntarily stated that as on the day of incident i.e. 08.07.2015 when she went to PS to make a complaint, she was directed by the police official that he would meet at her residence when he would come to meet her father in law at her residence. She again stated that FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 5 of 22 she wrote the complaint Ex. PW1/A at PS and signed the same on 10.07.2015 at her residence. It was correct that Ex. PW1/A was written by her on 10.07.2015. It was correct that on the day of incident i.e. 08.07.2015, neither the complainant nor her husband and mother in law made any call at 100 number. She voluntarily stated that her father in law was an influential person and as at earlier occasion, they had asked for help from police regarding the bad behavior of her father in law and they were not taking them seriously. She had given her written complaint to the police on 08.07.2015 in the night. The house in which she was residing was in the name of her parents in law but she was not aware as to who was the owner of the said house, her mother in law or her father in law. The house was having basement, ground floor, first and second floor. At the time of incident, she was living on the ground floor but at present, she was residing on the second floor. At the time of incident, accused No.1 was also residing on the ground floor. The ground floor had two big bedrooms, one small bedroom, living room, kitchen and washroom. She was occupying one room of the ground floor. Her mother in law and father in law had one room, however, due to the ill behaviour of accused Maninder Singh, her mother in law was also occupying first floor. The mother of accused No.1 was not residing with them in the aforesaid property. Whenever grandmother of her husband visited Delhi from Gurdaspur, she used to live on the ground floor and she alongwith her husband used to shift on the second floor in the guest room. At the time of incident, they had four CCTV cameras installed in their house and the same were installed by them on the suggestion of police officials. The CCTV FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 6 of 22 cameras was installed prior to 23 months of the date of incident. The CCTV cameras installed in the ground floor was able to cover the area/entire corridor of the ground floor. The DVR of the same was installed in the basement and the same was in the possession of all the family members. They had handed over the CCTV footage of the date of incident to the police officials. She had seen the same after playing it in the presence of police officials. She did not remember the date when she had given the aforesaid CCTV footage to the IO and the same was probably handed over within 23 days. She did not know if she had signed any seizure memo of the handing over of aforesaid CCTV footage. She had never demanded back from the police officials the aforesaid DVR. It was correct that all the family members and servants/maids of the house knew regarding the installation of the CCTV cameras. The CCTV camera was also installed on the first floor. She had not seen the DVR of the day of incident of the first floor camera. She did not know if police officials had seized the CCTV footage of the camera installed on first floor. She did not know if she had given any bill to the IO regarding repair of CCTV cameras prior to the incident. She did not remember if she had stated in her complaint that the same was being filed upon the asking of her mother in law. (witness was confronted with complaint Ex.PW1/A wherein the aforesaid fact was not recorded). She had not stated the time of 7.00 PM in her complaint Ex.PW1/A regarding the fact of CCTV people who had come and rectify the problem but she had stated that the same was repaired on the same day in the evening. (witness was confronted with the time as the same had not been mentioned in her complaint Ex.PW1/A). She FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 7 of 22 did not remember if she had stated that when she returned back from police station at 9.30 PM, she had gone to the basement of the house for some work and at that time accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa used abusive language towards her. (witness was confronted from point A to A1 of the statement recorded before the court and her statement Ex.PW1/A wherein the aforesaid fact was not recorded). It was correct that she had not stated regarding the fact that accused had taken out the wire of the CCTV camera when she saw him breaking the same. She had written in her complaint that at the same time, her mother in law also came at ground floor and accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa started abusing her also. (she was confronted with Ex.PW1/A wherein it was not so recorded). It was correct that she had given her statement before Ld. Magistrate but she did not remember the exact date of recording the same however, it might be after 34 days of the incident. She had made an earlier complaint regarding the behaviour of accused to PS G.K.I in May, 2015. It was correct that after the present incident, one more case was pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as accused had thrown her out of her bedroom and did not allow them to use the kitchen of the house. Her husband was working as a Project Engineer in Circle Events. She did not have personal knowledge whether her husband was running any guest house in the third floor of the same building where all of them were residing at ground and first floor. She did not know in whose name the house M52, G.K.I was purchased. She did not remember whether she had specifically mentioned in her complaint that at that time accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa kept holding her hand tightly only till the time her husband came to rescue FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 8 of 22 her. (witness was confronted with Ex.PW1/A wherein it was not so recorded). She did not remember whether she had specifically mentioned in her complaint that at that time accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa held her by her neck. (witness was confronted with Ex.PW1/A wherein it was not so recorded). She did not remember whether she had stated in her chief examination that "accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa had also threatened my mother in law and my husband. Thereafter, I alongwith my husband went to the bedroom and locked the door. On the next day, that is on 09.07.2015, we again went to the police station to file a complaint but the police officials did not help us and we returned back home". (witness was confronted with point B to B of her chief examination recorded on 18.12.2017). She did not remember if she had filed any written complaint with the DCP concerned on 09.07.2015. she had stated in her statement to the police official u/s 161 CrPC that "on 10.07.2015, we visited the police station in early morning and at the women cell which was situated at the aforesaid PS and gave a written complaint at the PS". (witness was confronted with the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC and her complaint dated 10.07.2015 Ex.PW1/A wherein the aforesaid fact was not stated). It was correct that the statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC Ex.PW1/B was in her own handwriting. The aforesaid sheets on which she had recorded her statement u/s 164 CrPC was handed over to her by the Ld. Judge. She had stated in her statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex.PW1/B the fact that "accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa used to get young girls to our house in the absence of my mother in law for which I had objected but he threatened me by saying that I should not tell the same to any other person".
FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 9 of 22 (witness was confronted with the statement Ex.PW1/B wherein the aforesaid fact was not stated). Witness denied all the suggestions put to her.
PW2 Smt. Suniti Dhindsa (mother in law of the complainant) deposed that her husband/ accused namely, Maninder Singh Dhindsa used to get young girls in her absence and even in her presence, at her house. He was a habitual drunker and he physically and mentally tortured her throughout her married life. For the sake of aforesaid conduct of her husband, she alongwith her family members including her son and his wife, installed a CCTV camera at the main entrance of their house and at the corridor area. On 08.07.2015, her husband alongwith his driver namely Madan Singh came at the house in early evening time and cut off the wire of CCTV camera with the help of knife. Her husband used to threaten to throw her out of the house and to kill her. She told her son to get repair the CCTV camera and the same was duly repaired. Thereafter, at around 11.30 PM in the night, she could hear some ruckus/noises in the house and upon hearing the same, she came down on the ground floor and found that accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa had again broken the CCTV camera by taking out of its wire. Thereafter, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa started manhandling her daughter in law by abusing her and pushing her. During that time, he was also hurling abused at her son and he also hit her son and threatened all of them by saying that he shall throw them out of the house. At that time, accused also threatened to kill them by gun. Thereafter, she told her son and daughter in law that they should go to their respective bedrooms and report the matter to the police in the FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 10 of 22 morning. Even prior to the aforesaid incident, in the evening her son and daughter in law had visited the police station and had filed a complaint regarding the behaviour of the accused persons but the police officials had not taken any action. All this while, accused Madan Singh at the behest of accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa was holding a knife in his hand with the intention to threaten them and also told them that nothing could go wrong with accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa as he had connections in the police. Thereafter, she alongwith her children went to the police station and lodged a complaint to the police, upon which the present complaint was registered. IO inquired about the incident from her and recorded her statement.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW2 deposed that her statement was recorded by the police after 23 days of the incident at PS G.K. She stated to the police in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that "my husband / accused namely, Maninder Singh Dhindsa used to get young girls in my absence and even in my presence, at my house." (witness was confronted from the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. wherein it was not so recorded though the same had been stated by her during her examination in chief). It was correct that she had not stated in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C regarding the fact that"he is a habitual drunker and he physically and mentally tortured me throughout my married life. For the sake of aforesaid conduct of my husband, I alongwith my family members including my son and his wife, installed a CC TV Camera at the main entrance of our house and at the corridor area" though stated by her during her examination in chief. She FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 11 of 22 voluntarily stated that she had narrated the aforesaid fact to the police official but she did not know whether he recorded the same or not. It was correct that she had not stated in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C regarding the fact that"on 08.07.2015, my husband alongwith his driver namely Madan Singh came at the house in early evening time and cut off the wire of CC TV Camera with the help of knife. My husband used to threaten to throw me out of the house and kill me. I told my son to get repaired the CC TV Camera and the same was duly repaired" though stated by her during her examination in chief. It was correct that she had not stated in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C regarding the fact that "thereafter at around 11:30 p.m in the night I could hear some ruckus / noises in the house and upon hearing the same, I came down on the ground floor and I found that accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa had again broken the CC TV Camera by taking down its wire"
though stated by her during her examination in chief. It was correct that she had not stated in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C regarding the fact that "during that time he was also hurling abuses at my son and he also hit my son and threatened all of us by saying that he shall throw us out of the house. At that time, accused also threatened to kill us by gun. Thereafter, I told my son and daughterinlaw that we should go to our respective bedrooms and report the matter to the police in the morning. Even prior to the aforesaid incident in the evening my son and daughterinlaw had visited the PS and filed the complaint regarding the behaviour of the accused persons but the police officials had not taken any action. All this while accused Madan Singh at the behest of accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa was holding a knife in his FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 12 of 22 hand with the intention to threaten and also told us that nothing can go wrong with accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa as he had connections in the police." though stated by her during her examination in chief. To her knowledge, the date of incident was of 08.07.2015. She did not make a call to the police on 100 number on 08.07.2015. There were about two matters pending between her and accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa. It was correct that a matter between her and accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa was also pending in the Family Courts. She was not having good relations with her husband Maninder Singh Dhindsa for about 56 years. The first case that was filed against her husband was in late 1990's. She had been working with a PSU since 1977 till 2012. Witness denied all the suggestions put to her.
PW3 Dhruv Dhindsa (husband of complainant) deposed that he did not remember the exact date of the incident. However, in the year 2015 on one day, in the evening when he was present at his aforesaid address alongwith his wife and mother. On that day, around 6.30 PM to 7.00 PM, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa being his father came home in a drunken condition and started destroying and cutting the wires of CCTV cameras installed in the premises. At that time, when his wife objected to the same, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa started abusing his wife in filthy language and misbehaved with her. Thereafter, they called some person to repair the CCTV camera and at that time, it was around 9.30 PM. Thereafter, they went to concerned PS to file their complaint. They returned back home around 10.30 PM and at that time, accused came back home and at that time, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa alongwith accused Madan Singh came back home FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 13 of 22 and they again destroyed the wires of the CCTV camera. At that time, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa again abused his wife in filthy language and pushed her and at that time, accused Madan Singh who was their driver was carrying one knife in his hand and was intimidating his wife. Thereafter, the aforesaid accused persons were threatening them with dire consequences. IO recorded his statement.
During crossexamination, PW3 deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO at PS. Police officials had recorded the statement of his wife on that day. The same was recorded after two days. He told the police officials that " On that day, around 6.30 PM to 7.00 PM, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa (present in the court today, correctly identified by the witness) being my father came home in a drunken condition and started destroying and cutting the wires of CCTV cameras installed in the premises. At that time, when my wife objected to the same, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa started abusing my wife in filthy language and misbehaved with her. Thereafter, we called some person to repair the CCTV camera and at that time, it was around 9.30 PM. Thereafter, we went to concerned PS to file our complaint. We returned back home around 10.30 PM and at that time, accused came back home and at that time, accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa alongwith accused Madan Singh " in his statement to the police. (witness was confronted with statement u/s 161 CrPC wherein the aforesaid fact was not recorded). The statement was Ex.PW3/A. It was correct that there was one litigation pending between him and the accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa. The aforesaid litigation with his father started in May, 2015. He got married FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 14 of 22 in the year 2013. The CCTV cameras were installed in their house in May June, 2013. The police officials did not reach the spot when accused persons had broken the CCTV camera at around 10.30 PM. They had given a call to the police on 100 number but he did not remember from which mobile phone number, the aforesaid call was made. Police officials did not reach the spot on the 100 number call. It was correct that the police officials did not reach the spot on the date of incident. Police officials came to their house on next day in the afternoon. When the police officials visited their house, he alongwith his mother, wife, grandmother and accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa were present at home. Police inquired about the matter from them on that day. No inquiry was conducted by the police officials from his grandmother. CCTV cameras were installed on all floors in the entire house. He did not know if police officials had seized the broken CCTV cameras. The DVR of all the CCTV cameras were installed in the basement area. They had seen the DVR on that day. They had shown the CCTV recording to the police officials and also given the CCTV footage to the police officials. Police officials did not hand over to him any document pertaining to seizure of aforesaid articles or CCTV footage. He did not give the DVR to the police officials. He had the bills of purchase of CCTV cameras but he did not hand over the same to the police official. He did not have the bill of the repair of CCTV camera. It was correct that some proceedings were pending at the DM court which was pending under Senior Citizen Act which had been filed by accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa against her for eviction of house No.M52, G.K.I, New Delhi.
FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 15 of 22 PW4 ASI Meena Arora deposed that on 10.07.2015, his duty hours were from 08:00AM to 04:00PM. At about 12.25 PM, he received rukka from ASI Vijay Pal. On the basis of said rukka, he registered the present FIR Ex.PW 4/A. He also made endorsement on the rukka, which was Ex.PW 4/B. Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to the accused persons but they did not ask anything from the witness.
IO of the present matter has expired during trial and therefore, was not examined as a witness.
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 persons did not examine any witness in their defence.
6. Final arguments were advanced.
7. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. APP for the State that in the present matter the guilt of the accused persons have been proved. It is further argued that the complainant, her mother in law and her husband have clearly deposed the manner in which the accused persons misbehaved with them and therefore both the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences charged.
FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 16 of 22
8. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for accused persons that in the present matter the accused persons have been falsely implicated since the complainant being the daughter in law of accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa wanted share in his property and also for the reason that accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa had strained relations with his wife/PW2 Suniti Dhindsa for past several years, aforesaid complainant and PW2 in connivance with each other have leveled false allegations upon the accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa and his driver Madan Singh. It is also argued that in the present matter the complainant had occupied the property of accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa and it is only when the accused refused to part away from his property and asked the complainant to leave his premises, complainant had filed several false cases against him and his driver since the driver that is accused Madan Singh was loyal to him. It is also argued that the alleged weapon which was a gun or any sharp object, that the accused persons were carrying were never recovered from their possession. Further, despite the fact that the complainant, PW2 and PW3 were family members of the accused and all of them were residing in the same premises, no 100 number call was made by the complainant on the alleged date of incident that is 08.07.2015. Further, the complainant did not even filed her complaint to the police on 09.07.2015 but it was only as an after thought that she filed her complaint after a delay of more than 48 hours, on 10.07.2015. Further, the aforesaid delay in registration of FIR is fetal and has not been explained by the complainant. It is further argued that there are several contradictions in the testimony of the complainant as compared to PW2 and FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 17 of 22 PW3. Further, PW1 and PW2 have been confronted with their statements made at the time of registration of FIR, with the testimony recorded before the court. It is also argued that there is considerable improvement in the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 which renders their testimony in probable. It is further argued that on the alleged date of 08.07.2015, the complainant did not make a call at 100 number and also did not visit the police station. Though the complainant has alleged that she went to police station on the date of incident, no such DD entry of the complainant is available on record. It is also argued that the DVR report of the alleged CCTV camera installed in the premises of the complainant were never seized by the IO and the non seizure of the same is a material lapse on behalf of the IO, since the same would have proved the innocence of the accused persons as no such incident occurred. It is also argued that there is considerable improvement in the statement of the complainant as compared to her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC and the same is made despite the fact that the complainant is well educated and has qualified her examination of law. It is further argued that the testimony of the complainant is unreliable as she has not substantiated the date when she wrote her complaint, signed the same or gave it to the police for registration of FIR and more so, the broken CCTV cameras were also not seized. It has also been argued that the complaint is devoid of merit and does not corroborate the testimony of witnesses and therefore both the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 18 of 22 Court Observations:
9. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:
In the present matter, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and PW1 being the complainant, PW2 being the mother in law of the complainant are the victim in the present matter and PW3 is the husband of the complainant. Remaining witness PW4 examined by the prosecution was formal in nature. PW1 is the complainant and the victim in the present matter. PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses who was present at the time of incident. In the present matter, accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable u/s 354/506/509/34 IPC. To prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 354/506/509/34 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that the accused persons had on the date of incident had used or uttered words or made sound or gesture with the intention to insult the modest of the complainant and had committed an act with an intention to outrage her modesty and threatened her.
10. While testifying as PW1, complainant was not able to even mentioned the date of incident with clarity. Further, the complainant during her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC has stated several facts which are not part of her complaint or her testimony recorded before the court. There are several contradictions pointed out by the counsel for accused during cross FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 19 of 22 examination of the complainant and PW2 and PW3 which dislodge the allegations of the complainant.
11. In the present matter, the star witness of the prosecution is the complainant. The complainant in her testimony before the court has not narrated the incident dated 08.07.2015, the manner in which she has narrated it in her complaint Ex.PW1/A. Further, the complainant does not mention regarding any complaints made by her regarding the incident in such detailed, the manner has stated during her statement recorded U/sec 164 Cr. P. C. If we carefully peruse the record and confine ourself to the incident dated 08.07.2015, the allegations of the complainant are not substantiated by her in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC or in her testimony recorded before the court. PW2 being the mother in law of the complainant has also not corroborated the factum of the accused being misbehaving or assaulting the complainant when she reached the spot and has narrated the incident in a different manner as compared to PW1. Further, PW2 and PW3 have not corroborated in material aspects the testimony of the complainant and do not inspire confidence. Further, the testimony of PW2 lacks credence since being the mother in law of the complainant is an interested witness and has admitted of having sour relationship with accused Maninder Singh Dhindsa. Accused persons cannot be held liable for causing any insult to the complainant as the complainant failed to narrate any such insulting language or gestures used against her by the accused persons or if any threats were extended by the accused persons to the complainant. Further, the complainant has not narrated if the accused had used or uttered any word with the intention to insult her FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 20 of 22 modesty or had intruded into the privacy of the complainant by misbehaving with her. Further, there are no specific allegations or averments against accused Madan Singh and the averments made are bald in nature and are not substantiated by any other witness.
12. The improvement in the version of PW1 is crucial as Ex. PW1/A is a hand written complaint admittedly prepared by her and there is no justification or plausible ground as to why the complainant was unable to narrate the incident explicitly or elaborate upon the details particularly when the same has been written on the same day and thus without being under any influence. The very fact that the complainant did not mention about the aforesaid fact and was never taken for medical examination from the place of incident itself shows that the complainant had not suffered any injury upon the alleged beatings given to her by the accused. Further, the allegations of touching the complainant with the intention to outrage her modesty are also not sustainable as the same are completely vague and do not inspire confidence. The complainant has levelled general allegations against the accused and the same are devoid of merit as the complainant has not explained the same even during her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC.
Further, the story of the complainant cannot be believed as she herself has admitted during her crossexamination that at the place of incident, there were several public persons but none was examined by prosecution. Therefore, there was nothing to lend support to the testimony of PW1 apart from bald averments made in the complaint and her testimony before the court.
FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 21 of 22 Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the guilt of the accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In view of the above discussion and considering the material, available on record, the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, both accused persons are acquitted for the offences U/s 354/506/509/34 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 03.10.2019 Metropolitan Magistrate02
(Mahila Court)/SED/Saket
Digitally New Delhi.
signed by
SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2019.10.03
16:45:11
+0530
FIR No. 306/2015;PS G.K.I State Vs. Maninder Singh Dhindsa & Anr. 22 of 22