Delhi District Court
State vs Arvind @ Annu on 27 October, 2025
CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANSHUL SINGHAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLWT02-019400-2018
Cr. Case: 9994/2018
FIR No.: 291/2018
PS: Moti Nagar
U/s.: 506 Part I / 509 IPC
State
versus
Arvind @ Annu
S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
R/o H.No. Jhuggi No.58, Rakhi Market, Zakhira, Delhi
JUDGMENT
Date of Commission of Offence : 30.07.2018 Date of Filing of Chargesheet : 21.12.2018 Plea of Accused : Not Guilty Date when judgment was reserved : 04.09.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.10.2025 Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by: Sh. Vishal Gupta, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Sunil Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present case in FIR No.291/2018 PS Moti Nagar u/s. 506 (Part-I)/ 509 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 1 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 on 30.07.2018 at about 04:00 PM at A-22, Rakhi Market, Zakhira, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Moti Nagar, accused abused the complainant Ms. Shashi Kala as well as her daughter by saying "behan ki laudi, randi etc" which amounts to word, gesture or act intended to outrage the modesty of the woman. It is further alleged that accused has also threatened the complainant with dire consequences.
COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL
3. Chargesheet was filed against the accused on 21.12.2018 on which cognizance was taken by this court on 24.01.2019. Accused has appeared before the court on 15.07.2019 and copy of the chargesheet was supplied to him on the same day.
4. After due compliance of Section 207 CrPC, arguments on charge were heard, and charge for offence u/s. 506 (Part-I)/ 509 IPC was framed against the accused on 19.11.2019 by this court, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Statement of accused u/s. 294 CrPC was recorded on 13.12.2023.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined three witnesses i.e. PW-1, Ms. Shashi Kala, PW-2, Ms. Sona Kumari, PW-3, ASI Rajesh Kumar and PW-4, Retired HC Suresh Kumar. Further, these witnesses placed the following evidence on record:
S. No. Document Exhibit No.
1. Complaint given to the police Ex.PW1/A
2. Statement of PW-1 u/s. 164 CrPC Ex.PW1/B
FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 2 of 17
CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018
3. Rukka Ex.PW3/A
4. Site plan Ex.PW3/B
5. Arrest memo Ex.PW3/C
6. Personal search memo Ex.PW3/D
7. Application for recording of statement of Ex.PW3/E
complainant u/s. 164 CrPC
6. Further, Ld. APP for the state has placed reliance on the following documents which were admitted by the accused (without admitting the contents thereof, although not disputing the genuineness) in his statement u/s. 294 CrPC:
S. No. Document Exhibit No.
1. Copy of FIR No.291/2018 Ex.P1
2. DD No.25 A dated 31.07.2018 Ex.P2
3. Statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex.P3
7. PW-1, Smt. Shashi Kala deposed that she did not remember the exact date of the incident and she further stated that the incident had taken place in the year of 2018 in July and the incident had taken place at about 04.00 pm -05.00 pm at Milk Shop situated at a short distance from her residence.
7.1. It is further stated by her that on the alleged date, at the aforesaid date when her daughter namely Sona was going at Milk Shop, accused was present in the street and on seeing her daughter, accused started to abuse her daughter by stating that, "Behan Ki Lodhi, Tu mujhse pyar nahi Karti hai" and at that time, accused was present alongwith his two brothers whose name PW-1 did not know.
FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 3 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 7.2. It is further stated by PW-1 that PW-1's daughter came at their residence and apprised to her about the entire incident which accused had committed with PW-1's daughter. It is further stated by PW-1 that when PW-1 went at a medical store to bring the medicines for her son who was suffering from illness and when she was returning towards her residence, PW-1 saw that accused's family members, i.e., his bua and two aunts were giving beatings to PW-1's daughter by their fist and leg blows and PW-1's daughter was caught hold by them from her hairs and when PW-1 tried to rescue her daughter from the clutches of the accused's family member, they caught hold of PW-1 also from her hairs and also gave beatings to her.
7.3. It is further stated by PW-1 that one person came there and rescued them from the clutches of accused's family members and afterwards, PW-1's daughter was taken to Maharaj Aggarsen Hospital for her medical examination. The witness correctly identified the accused. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and discharged.
8. PW-2, Ms. Sona Kumari deposed that the date of incident was 30.07.2018 and the incident had taken place at about 05.00 pm nearby her residence, when she was going at a shop situated at a short distance from her residence. It is further stated that on seeing her, accused started to abuse by stating that, "Randi, Vandi" and when PW-2 asked the accused that why he was abusing her, then accused stated that, he did not tell her.
8.1. It is further stated that at that time no other female was FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 4 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 present there except her. On this, she went at the residence of the accused and made a complaint to his mother whereupon, she did not pay heed and told PW-2 that she may be at her own fault. It is further stated that in the meantime, the younger brother namely Kapil of the accused came there and started shouted upon PW-2 in an aggression and threatened her by stating that, if complaint is lodged against his brother then she will be killed.
8.2. It is further stated that immediately, she rushed towards her residence but the family members of the accused comprising his Bua and his two aunts came towards her residence and on reaching there they started to beat PW-2 by catching her from her hairs. It is further stated that the mother of accused gave a leg blow on her abdomen and his aunts slapped her several time on her face.
8.3. It is further stated that in the meantime, her mother came there from a medical store and when she tried to rescue her, the family members of accused gave beatings to her also. It is further stated that after that PW-2 along with her mother went to the PS and lodged the present case complaint.
8.4. It is further stated that even after the above-mentioned incident, accused used to abuse PW-2 while crossing the way from the front side of her residence. It is further stated that the accused used to abuse other females in the locality. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and discharged.
9. PW-3 ASI Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 31.07.2018, he FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 5 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 was posted at PS Moti Nagar as ASI. On the said day, he was present at PS and the complainant namely Shashi Kala came to PS and made her complaint. He recorded her detailed statement.
9.1. It is further stated that thereafter, he prepared rukka over the said statement and got the present case FIR registered through DO. It is further stated that thereafter, he along with HC Suresh accompanied the complainant, reached the spot at her instance. It is further stated that he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant.
9.2. It is further stated that he searched the accused namely Arvind @ annu at his house i.e. Jhuggi No. 58 Raghi Market Zakhira where the accused was not found though PW-3 told his parents regarding his whereabouts. It is further stated that thereafter, he came back to PS. It is further stated by PW-3 that on 02.09.2018, accused Arvind @ Annu came to PS along with his father namely Sh. Vinod Kumar and accused was inquired and after that he was arrested and personally searched.
9.3. It is further stated that accused was released on police bail after furnishing bail/ personal bond by him. It is further stated that on 22.09.2018, PW-3 moved an application before the Hon'ble Court at Tis Hazari Courts complex for recording the statement of complainant u/s 164 CrPC. It is further stated that during the investigation, PW-3 inquired the daughter of complainant namely Ms. Sona and recorded her statement u\s 161 CrPC.
9.4. It is further stated that during the investigation, except FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 6 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 the present accused no other person was found involved as accused in the present case. After completion of the investigation, PW-3 got the chargesheet prepared against the accused and submitted it before the concerned court for further proceedings. The witness correctly identified the accused. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and discharged.
10. PW-4 Retired HC Suresh Kumar deposed that on 02.09.2018, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar and was on patrolling alongwith ASI Rajesh Kumar. It is further stated that accused Arvind's father produced Arvind in front of him.
10.1. It is further stated that after that ASI Rajesh Kumar enquired the accused Arvind and told him the reason of making the arrest in the present case. It is further stated that after that IO ASI Rajesh Kumar formally arrested the accused and after that IO made personal search of the accused. Thereafter accused was discharged on Police Bail. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and discharged.
11. Since no other witnesses as per the prosecution list of witnesses were remaining to be examined, hence, on submissions of Ld. APP for the State, PE was closed vide order dated 23.10.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s. 313 CrPC
12. Statement of the accused u/s. 313 CrPC was recorded on 18.11.2024 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him. Accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no such incident had taken FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 7 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 place. He has further stated that the younger sister of the complainant namely Vandana used to go to the same tuition class with the accused and that the accused and she were on friendly terms, however, due to objection by family of the complainant, the present concocted case has been filed.
13. Accused also stated that he wishes to lead defence, however, despite repeated opportunities, the accused did not lead DE and stated on 29.07.2025 that he does not wish to lead DE. Accordingly, matter was fixed for final arguments and thereafter, final arguments were heard on 18.08.2025 and on 04.09.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. Ld. APP has submitted that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as testimony of any of the witnesses has not been impeached by the accused. He has further submitted that all the ingredients of offences under consideration are made out in the present case. He has further argued that the prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed against the accused and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimonies. He has argued the offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. As such, it is prayed that accused be punished for the said offences.
15. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel submits that the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to personal enmity and FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 8 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 animosity. It is further submitted that there have been continuous improvements in the testimony of the complainant and there are various contradictions which make her testimony unreliable. Furthermore, it has been argued that accused has never been previously convicted of any offence. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that there are material deficiencies in the case of the prosecution. As such, it is prayed that accused be acquitted of the said offence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
16. I have carefully heard the submissions made by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through all the records at hand and testimony of the witnesses.
17. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that there have been continuous improvements in the statements of the complainant recorded at different stages. He has submitted that the in the initial statement of the complainant recorded by the police, i.e., Ex.PW1/A, the complainant has not even specified the exact words used by the accused against the complainant.
17.1. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that the complainant has stated many additional facts before Ld. Magistrate who had recorded her statement u/s. 164 CrPC. He has further submitted that there was a gap of almost 2 months between the filing of complaint by the complainant with the police and the recording of statement of the complainant by the Magistrate u/s. 164 CrPC. He has thus submitted that the complainant had gotten ample time to improve upon her FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 9 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 statement and falsely implicate the accused in the present matter.
17.2. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that there is further improvement by the complainant in her testimony before the court as PW-1, which makes her an unreliable witness. He has submitted that the improvements are with the objective of falsely implicating the accused in the present matter by whatever means necessary.
17.3. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that there are various contradictions in the testimony of the complainant given by her to the police, to the Magistrate u/s. 164 CrPC and before the court as PW-1.
18. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the complainant has duly explained the omissions in her statement recorded by the police during cross-examination.
18.1. He has drawn the attention of this court towards cross- examination of the complainant as PW-1, wherein the witness has categorically stated that she had told the entirety of facts to the police, however, the police had not recorded complete facts as stated by her. Ld. APP has thus submitted that the omission appearing in the statement of complainant to the police has been duly explained by the witness.
18.2. He has further submitted that contradictions, if any, in the statement of PW-1 are only minor contradictions and too much weightage should not be given to them as the complainant has remained consistent in her testimony in material particulars.
19. I have heard the rival submissions on this point. In her FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 10 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 complaint given to the police, i.e., Ex.PW1/A, the complainant has stated that the accused used to abuse her and when she complained to the parents of the accused, then the accused used to threaten her by saying that he will kill her and her children. No specific date or time of the alleged incident has been mentioned in the said complaint.
19.1. It is further pertinent to note that in her statement given to the Magistrate u/s. 164 CrPC, i.e., Ex.PW1/B, the complainant has again not mentioned the date or time of the alleged incident, rather she has stated that she does not remember the same.
19.2. Furthermore, in her statement u/s. 164 CrPC, the complainant has for the first time told about the alleged incident that has happened with the daughter of the complainant, namely, Sona. It is stated that when the daughter of the complainant, namely, Sona had gone to a nearby shop to buy milk, then a boy had abused her. The specific words used by the boy have also been specified by the complainant in her statement.
19.3. It has further been stated that the entire incident was narrated by the daughter to the complainant, when the complainant returned from the hospital and thereafter, the complainant alone went to the house of that boy. The complainant has further stated that as soon as she reached the house of that boy, he abused her and threatened to kill her. The specific words used by the boy have also been specified by the complainant in her statement.
19.4. It is further to be noted that in her statement u/s. 164 FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 11 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 CrPC, the complainant has stated that she does not know the name of the said boy, however, she had told his name to be Arvind, i.e., the accused, in her complaint given to the police, i.e., Ex.PW1/A. 19.5. It has further been stated that thereafter, the relatives of that boy, i.e., his mother, and paternal aunts ( chachi and bua) and the boy came to the house of the complainant and beat up her daughter. It has further been stated that at that time the boy slapped her and abused her. The complainant further states that at this time, she returned from the market and saw the all the persons are beating up her daughter. That thereafter, the complainant requested another boy who was going for his tuition to save her daughter and the boy got down from his bicycle and saved her daughter.
19.6. It has further been stated that when the complainant had objected to the behaviour of the boy and his relatives, then the paternal aunt (chachi) of the boy hit her with her leg and threatened to kill her. It has further been stated that the boy keeps circling on his bike and whistles at her and keeps abusing her.
20. At this stage, it is to be noted that there are several contradictions in the statement of the complainant given to the Magistrate u/s. 164 CrPC, i.e., Ex.PW-1/B and her statement given before the court as PW-1, and the same are discussed as follows:
20.1. Firstly, in her testimony as PW-1, the complainant has stated that she does not remember the exact date of incident, FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 12 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 however, the incident had taken place in July, 2018 at around 04:00 Pm to 05:00 Pm, whereas in her statement u/s. 164 CrPC, she had stated that she does not remember the date and time of the incident. It is further to be noted that no time, date or place has been mentioned by the complainant in her complaint to the police Ex.PW-1/A, however, the explanation given is that the same was told by her to the police, however, it was not recorded.
Be that as it may, there is no explanation as to why the date and time were not told to Ld. Magistrate who recorded her statement u/s. 164 CrPC or for not telling the exact date before this court.
20.2. Secondly, the words specified by the complainant in her testimony are "Behan ki lodhi, Tu mujhse pyar nahi Karti hai"
and the words specified by the complainant in her statement u/s. 164 CrPC are "Randi, Madarchod bahut apne aap mein banti hai" and "Randi, Madarchod, Behan ki lodhi, bhonsdi ki bolne ke layak nahi hai". Whereas, the victim, PW-2, Ms. Sona Kumari has specified the words as "Randi, Vandi". It is to be noted here that there is an apparent contradiction in the words allegedly used by the accused as told by the witnesses.
20.3. Thirdly, it is to be noted that the complainant in her statement u/s. 164 CrPC had stated that the daughter of the complainant had gone to the milk shop twice, however, in her examination before the court only one incident has been mentioned and the complainant does not mention about the alleged second visit of the daughter of the complainant to the milk shop or the words used by the accused at that time.
FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 13 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 20.4. Fourthly, the complainant in her statement u/s. 164 CrPC had stated that she had gone to the house of the boy and he had also abused her and threatened her, however, no such thing has been mentioned by her in her statement before the court. It is also to be noted that during her cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that she did not go to the house of the accused.
20.5. Fifthly, the complainant had stated in her statement before the court that she was also beaten by the bua and two aunts of the accused, however, same has not been mentioned by her in her statement u/s. 164 CrPC.
20.6. Sixthly, the complainant in her statement u/s. 164 CrPC had stated that while the bua and two other aunts of the accused were giving beatings to the daughter of the complainant, the boy had also come there and he had beaten and abused the daughter of the complainant. However, no such thing has been mentioned by her in her statement before the court.
20.7. It is to be noted here that the statement of the complainant given by her u/s. 164 CrPC, i.e., Ex.PW-1/B, has been duly put to her during cross-examination, and questions have been put to her only thereafter.
20.8. It is also to be noted that the complainant during her cross-examination has stated that she had told the exact abusive words used by the accused to the police officials, however, same were not recorded by the police. The complainant, however, admitted that the said fact was not told by her to Ld. Magistrate FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 14 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 recording her statement u/s. 164 CrPC.
21. In respect of the testimony of PW-2, Ms. Sona Kumari, it is to be noted that the witness has nowhere stated that the accused had threatened her that he will kill her and the alleged threat was given by the brother of the accused, namely, Kapil who has not been made an accused in the present matter.
21.1. It is further to be noted that the allegations regarding the alleged beating given to the witness is against the family members of the accused and there are no allegations against the accused in this regard.
21.2. It is further to be noted that apart from the words used by the accused at the milk shop, no specification of other words used by the accused or the time, date or place of usage of such words or such abuse has been mentioned by the witness.
22. In respect of the testimony of PW-1, Ms. Shashi Kala, it is to be noted that the witness has nowhere stated that the accused had threatened her that he will kill her and it is nowhere stated that the accused abused the complainant in any manner.
22.1. It is also to be noted that the testimony of PW-1 in respect of the alleged abuses to her daughter are hearsay and hence, according to the rules of evidence, inadmissible.
22.2. Secondly, there is an apparent contradiction in the words as described by the complainant, i.e., PW-1 and the words described by PW-2, i.e., the daughter of the complainant.
23. If there exists a contradiction in the material particulars of FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 15 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 the prosecution's case, i.e., discrepancies which go to the root of the matter and affect the core substratum of the prosecution version, such inconsistency creates a reasonable doubt regarding the veracity and reliability of the evidence adduced.
24. In criminal jurisprudence, it is a well-settled principle that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, when material contradictions are found, the benefit of such doubt must necessarily enure to the accused, as no conviction can rest on evidence that is uncertain, inconsistent, or unreliable on vital aspects of the case.
25. As noted above, there are several omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and that of her daughter. Furthermore, there is no allegation regarding commission of offence of criminal intimidation by the accused in the testimonies of either PW-1 or PW-2. Furthermore, there is contradiction in material particulars in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 in so far as the words used by the accused are concerned so that the commission of offence u/s. 509 IPC is shown to have been committed by the accused.
26. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. Considering the discussion on the above issues, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
27. Resultantly, the prosecution has failed to prove the FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 16 of 17 CNR No. DLWT02-019400-2018 offences beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. As such, accused, namely, Arvind @ Annu, S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar is acquitted of commission of offence under Section 506 (Part-I) / 509 Indian Penal Code.
Digitally signed
ANSHUL by ANSHUL
SINGHAL
SINGHAL Date: 2025.10.27
16:09:26 +0530
Announced in Open Court (Anshul Singhal)
on 27.10.2025 JMFC-04, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Note: This judgment contains 17 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed ANSHUL by ANSHUL
SINGHAL
SINGHAL Date: 2025.10.27
16:09:32 +0530
(Anshul Singhal)
JMFC-04, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 291/18 State vs. Arvind @ Annu Page No. 17 of 17