Delhi District Court
State vs Sajjan Kumar on 24 April, 2018
STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MAYURI SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE:MAHILA COURT01: SOUTH DISTRICT:
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
State versus SAJJAN KUMAR
FIR No.310/14
PS F.P. Beri
U/s323/354/354B/509 IPC
CNR No.DLST020016652015
J U D G M E N T
1 Serial No. of the case : 2034835/16
2 Date of commission : 12.06.2014
3 Date of institution of the case : 28.02.2015
4 Name of complainant : Ms. K.D.
(Identity of the complainant has
not been disclosed as the offence
relates to section 354 IPC).
5 Name of accused person : Sajjan Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ramji
Lal R/o S180, Gali No. V5, Bhim
Basti Jonapur, New Delhi.
6 Offence complained of : 323/354/354B/509 IPC
7 Plea of accused : Pleaded Not Guilty
8 Arguments heard on : 13.04.2018
9 Final order : Acquitted
10 Date of judgment : 24.04.2018
FACTS AS ALLEGED BY THE PROSECUTION :
1. It is the case of the prosecution as mentioned in the complaint that on 12th June 2014 at about 10.30am, when complainant FIR No.310/14 Page No.1 of 12 STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR was coming to her house after purchasing curd from nearby shop, at that time, accused who is her Jeth and residing in the same house with her, caught hold of her hair when she was about to enter the house and took her inside by holding her right leg inside the house by dragging her. Accused gave merciless beatings to her and at that time, her mother Ramwati was also present in the house, but she did not help complainant. Accused tore suit of complainant and told her that "Mai Tujhko Chod Kar Chodunga" and gave beatings to her by fists and leg blows. Complainant informed her husband, who informed police. Police recorded her statement.
COGNIZANCE:
2. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned.
CHARGE:
3. Charge was framed against accused for offence u/s 323/354/354B/509 IPC.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
4. Prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case.
a) PW1 Complainant has deposed that in the month of June 2014, FIR No.310/14 Page No.2 of 12 STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR one fine day, at about 10.30am, she was coming to her house after purchasing curd from nearby shop. At that time, accused who is her Jeth and residing in the same house with her, caught hold of her hair when she was about to enter the house and took her inside the house by dragging her. Accused gave merciless beatings to her and at that time, his mother Ramwati was also present in the house, but she did not help PW1. Accused tore suit of PW1 and told her that "Mai Tujhko Chodunga" and gave beatings to her by fists and leg blows. PW1 further deposed that she informed her husband who informed police. Police recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. She pointed out place of incident to the police. Police took her to the hospital, where she was medically examined. PW1 identified accused during her testimony in the court.
b) PW2 SI Satish Lohia has deposed that on 12.06.2014 investigation was marked to him after registration of FIR and he alongwith Ct. Sunil and Lady Ct. Vijeta reached at S5/180, Bhim Basti Jaunapur, where complainant met them. He inquired from her regarding the case and thereafter, prepared site plan Ex.PW2/A at her instance. He tried to trace the accused, but in vain. Thereafter he took complainant to AIIMS Hospital for her medical examination and after collecting MLC, they all came back at the spot. Complainant pointed out towards accused who was standing in front of H. No. S5/180. Thereafter, PW2 interrogated FIR No.310/14 Page No.3 of 12 STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR the accused and arrested accused vide Ex.PW2/B. Supplementary statement of complainant was recorded by PW2.
Thereafter, PW2 alongwith accused and other police staff reached at police station and after medical examination, accused was sent to lockup and on the next day, accused was produced before the court and sent to JC. PW2 has further deposed that on 16.06.2014, statement Ex.PW1/B u/s 164 Cr.P.C of complainant was got recorded before court and he handed over case property to MHC(R). He recorded statement of witnesses during investigation. PW2 identified accused during his testimony in the court. PW3 SI Ramphool testified that on 11.12.2014, investigation was marked to him and he completed the chargesheet and filed before the court.
c) PW4 SI Surekha has deposed that on 12.06.2014 at about 12.05, she received DD No. 34B Ex.PW4/A regarding quarrel and she alongwith HC Ashok reached at H. No.180, Gali No. 5, Bhim Basti, Jaunapur Delhi where complainant and her husband were met. She recorded statement Ex.PW1/A of complainant after inquiry from the complainant regarding the incident. Thereafter, PW4 prepared rukka Ex.PW4/B and handed over to HC Ashok for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, investigation was marked to PW2, who recorded statement of PW4 during investigation. During her cross examination, PW4 revealed that she alongwith HC Ashok had reached at the spot at about 12.30 pm. FIR No.310/14 Page No.4 of 12 STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR
d) PW5 Dr. Humra Shamim has deposed that on 12.06.2014, she examined the complainant vide MLC Ex.PW5/A and had found abrasion on her neck. Patient had alleged history of assault by unknown person and patient had absconded on 13.06.2014 without further treatment and nature of injury was simple.
e) PW6 Ct. Sunil Kumar has deposed that on 12.06.2014, he alongwith IO/PW4 reached at the spot and met the complainant. IO prepared site plan Ex/PW4/A at instance of PW1. Thereafter, PW1 was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre by them and after medical examination, they came back to the spot. IO arrested accused from his house S180, Gali No. 5, Bhim Basti, Jaunapur vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B at instance of complainant. Thereafter, accused was taken to police station by PW4 and PW6. IO recorded statement of PW6. PW 6 identified accused during his testimony in the court.
f) Accused had admitted the FIR, statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C (Ex. P1 to PW3) vide statement dated 30.03.2017, during admission and denial of the documents.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSON U/S 313 CR.P.C.
5. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused and he denied the same.
FIR No.310/14 Page No.5 of 12STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
6. Accused did not choose to examine any witness in defence. Defence evidence was closed.
FINAL AGRUMENTS:
7. Final arguments were addressed and record perused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that accused is falsely implicated due to matrimonial dispute and in order to extract money from him by the complainant. It is further submitted that medical document does not support the testimony of the complainant and there is material discrepancy in the prosecution evidence, while shows falsity of the case.
Ld. APP submitted that testimonies of prosecution witnesses are consistent and accused has not substantiated his defence by leading any defence evidence.
LEGAL PROVISIONS TO BE SEEN:
8. Accused has been charged U/s 323/354/354B/509 IPC.
I. For the offence u/s 323 IPC the prosecution must prove that the accused committed an act with the intention to cause hurt (Hurt is FIR No.310/14 Page No.6 of 12 STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR defined in section 319 IPC), or with the knowledge that hurt is likely to be caused to any person and thus hurt is caused and the same is not covered under section 334 IPC.
II. For offence U/s 354 IPC the prosecution must prove that the accused person assaulted or used criminal force to any woman intending or knowing that it is likely that the modesty of the woman would be outraged.
III. Section 354B IPC provides punishment to any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked. IV. In order to establish charge u/s 509 IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused uttered any word to a woman intending that it may be heard or seen by that woman and he did so with the intention to insult the modesty of that woman.
ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS, APPRECITION OF EVIDENCE & REASONS FOR DECISION:
9. The case of the prosecution heavily relies on the testimony of the complainant who is sole eye witness examined in the case and is also a victim. Her testimony is analyzed carefully and found to be containing material loopholes. The allegations as made in the Complaint Ex PW1/A and in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. are different. While in the Complaint, it is specified that the accused had told the victim that he FIR No.310/14 Page No.7 of 12 STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR would fu** her, in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., it is specified that accused had told her that he would put his penis in her mouth. It is nowhere specified that the victim was told both of these things. In such a circumstance, it is seen that there is material inconsistency in both of these versions regarding what exactly was stated to the victim by accused and what words were employed by he accused. The incident is reported to have occurred on 12.06.2014 and statement Ex.PW1/B was recorded in four days i.e. on 16.06.2014 and hence, there was no such time gape as could have resulted in such changed version of the complainant on account of any memory lapse. There is no explanation by the prosecution to explain this anomaly.
10. Moving further, it is seen that the medical document on record Ex.PW5/A (MLC of complainant) does not corroborate the allegations made by her. According to the Complaint Ex.PW1/A, she was severally beaten and dragged with her right leg from outside of her house towards inside. However, there is not a single abrasion or injury reported over her legs. Only injury reported in the MLC is abrasion over her neck. It is strange that the nature of injury is simple, despite the allegations that she was severally (buri tarah) beaten by the accused.
11. It is amusing to note that in the MLC, the history as disclosed to the police was "alleged history of assault by an unknown person". Accused is a relative (brotherinlaw) of the Complainant and the FIR No.310/14 Page No.8 of 12 STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR Complaint was made without any delay. There is no explanation offered by the prosecution regarding why the name of the assailant was not disclosed to the police as that of accused, when PW1 knew accused quite well. I find that the Complainant was examined by doctor in Jai Prakash Apex Trauma Centre on the day of the alleged incident but she did not disclose the name of the assailant/s, who allegedly gave beatings to her despite the fact that she knew the accused even prior to the incident and this also throws a doubt over the story of the prosecution and strengthen the defence of false implication. Perusal of the MLC also reveals that complainant was fit for statement at the time of examination. I am enlightened by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Rehmat Vs. State of Haryana" cited as '1996 (3) RCR 588' (Crl. Appeal No. 178179 of 1989). The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below for easy reference: "10.......Ordinarily, in a medicolegal case, the doctor is supposed to write down the history of the injured but admittedly in this case, medical papers of Padam Singh (PW4) do not indicate the name of the assailant. The names were disclosed only at the time when the complaint was recorded by SI Narain Singh at about 09.00 PM, which was treated as a formal FIR......"
12. According to the statement of PW1 under section 164 Cr.P.C., (Ex.PW1/B) during the occurrence, she had screamed for her help and the dahi wali lady, one water tanker wala and a neighbour named Shanti had come to rescue her. However, none of them have been joined in the FIR No.310/14 Page No.9 of 12 STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR investigation by the police to throw light upon the actual incident, especially in the wake of the fact that there was case registered against accused and his other family members by the complainant. In the case at hand, considering the discrepancies as above, such nonjoining of public / independent witnesses further shatters the case of the prosecution. It is further interesting to note that such version regarding the public persons having rescued the complainant, does not find mention either in her complaint or in her testimony. Rather, in complaint Ex.PW1/A, complainant has mentioned that she had somehow managed to rescue herself, which is contrary to her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Though in a case of sexual offence, the sole testimony of a victim may be sufficient if it rings truth, it is equally true that in a case where past discord is reported, it is expected from an IO to join an independent witness as well in the investigation in order to cull out the truth and rule out false implication. However, the same was not done in this case. It is further interesting to note that even the husband of the accused was not joined in the investigation by IO. In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW1 admitted the suggestion that prior to the registration of the present case, she had filed a case for dowry demand in Ghaziabad and that case was settled and after settlement, her husband was not residing with her. In the complaint it is mentioned that her husband had come home and was narrated the entire incident and he called police. It is seen that while according to PW2 complainant was met at the spot, according to PW4 both complainant and her husband were met at the spot. Such discrepancies throws doubt on the very FIR No.310/14 Page No.10 of 12 STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR presence of husband of accused at his house in the immediate aftermath of the incident.
13. It is an admitted case that there was prior litigation between the Complainant and her husband and that accused was also an accused in that case lodged on the Complaint of PW1. That matter is stated to have been compromised. According to the accused while explaining circumstance against him in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Complainant used to extort money from him always and he had come to India just a few days prior to the alleged incident and Complainant had visited his house, picked up a quarrel and falsely implicated him in this case. Complainant stated in her crossexamination that accused used to work in Dubai and had come to Delhi only 810 days prior to the incident. Considering the loopholes in the testimony of PW1, false implication can not be ruled out. Testimony of PW1 is not foolproof and there is no independent corroboration of her testimony. Despite the version of PW1 regarding the availability of public witnesses in her home and having helped in her rescue, none of them was examined by the prosecution in support of the version of PW1. According to Complainant, at the time of incident, only her motherinlaw and accused were present at home. Through her crossexamination, it comes to light that in the same house, apart from the room of accused and her room, room of Bablu (elder brother of accused) is also situated where he is residing alongwith his whole family. Complainant has also disclosed that one other brother Sushil also has a family and she stated FIR No.310/14 Page No.11 of 12 STATE V. SAJJAN KUMAR that Sushil and his wife were in the hospital to take care of their daughter, thereby implying that Sushil and his family also used to reside in the same house. She has not accounted for the absence of other family members of accused, apart from Sushil, his daughter and wife. She did not even tell where the sons of Sushil were at the time of the alleged offence. As far as absence of Sushil, his daughter and wife are concerned, according to her, they had been to hospital to take care of their daughter. However, this fact is not substantiated by any medical document in proof of illness of the daughter.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, accused Sajjan is acquitted for offence U/s 323/354/354B/509 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (MAYURI SINGH)
on 24th April 2018 M.M./Mahila Court01/South District
New Delhi/24.04.2018
Digitally
signed by
MAYURI
MAYURI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2018.04.25
16:18:28
+0530
FIR No.310/14 Page No.12 of 12