Delhi District Court
Fir No.1424/14 State vs . Govind Ps: Rajouri Garden on 1 June, 2015
FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden
IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT03),WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
State Vs. Govind
FIR No :1424/14
P.S. Rajouri Garden
U/s 354/511 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Case Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0046212015
2. Date of complaint : 06.12.2014
3. Name, parentage & address of : Govind
the accused S/o Late Sh. Ganpat
R/o Vega bond in front
of G.G.S. Hospital,
Raghubir Nagar, New
Delhi
4. Offence complaint of : U/s 354/511 IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Convicted
7. Date of Order : 30.05.2015
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION :
1. Accused has been forwarded by the SHO of PS Rajouri Garden to face trial U/s 354/511 IPC.
2. In a nut shell, the prosecution story is that complaint was State Vs. Govind Page No. 1 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden made by complainant PW victim on 06.12.2014 that on 06.12.2014 at about 7.30 p.m. when she was going towards Rajouri Garden metro station then accused namely Govind tried to touch on her cheeks. On this complaint, FIR was registered, accused was arrested and after completion of remaining investigation, Charge Sheet was filed in the Court.
3. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused free of cost U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Finding a prima facie case, accused was charged U/s 354/511 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution to prove its case examined four witnesses namely PW1 victim, PW2 Ct. Suresh Chand, PW3 ASI Senser Pal and PW4 ASI Ranbir Singh.
6. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately wherein accused denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials and he did not commit any illegal act and the contents of the State Vs. Govind Page No. 2 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden complaint and the FIR are false and frivolous. Accused chose not to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State as well as the Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and thoroughly.
8. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined formal witness like PW3 ASI Senser Pal and he deposed that on 06.12.2014 on receiving a rukka from Ct. Suresh Chand vide DD Entry No.59A in the register no.2, he made the endorsement Ex.PW3/A on the rukka and registered the present FIR and the computerized copy of same is Ex.PW3/B and he handed over the rukka as well as copy of FIR to Ct. Suresh Chand and as the FIR was registered by using of Computer system, so he gave a certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the correct registration of FIR and the same is Ex.PW3/C.
9. Prosecution also examined its most crucial witness i.e. complainantcumvictimcum eye witness namely PW1 victim and she deposed that it was last year incident i.e. 2014 and she was going to Rajouri Garden Metro Station from her home and in the way just State Vs. Govind Page No. 3 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden before the Rajouri Garden Metro Station, accused Govind present in the Court and correctly identified was along with 4 or 5 unknown persons present at the spot and the accused tried to touch and kiss her but she stopped him and slapped him and many people gathered there who caught the accused and beat him and she called to the police at 100 number and forbid the people to beat him and the PCR van came at the spot and accused was taken to the police station Rajouri Garden where she along with her mother reached later. She further deposed that her mother wrote the complaint on her behalf and same was signed by her which is Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A and she received the copy of FIR and other persons present along with accused did not do any act against her and she cannot say whether those persons knew the accused or not. She further deposed that she was called in the Court and her statement was recorded in the Court and her statement is in the sealed cover sealed with the seal of 'SS' and the sealed cover is opened with the permission of the Court and her statement recorded by the Court of Ms. Swati Singh, Ld. MM, West, THC, Delhi is taken out from the sealed cover in her presence and shown to her and she has identified her signatures on the statement at point A and her statement given before the Ld. Magistrate is Ex.PW1/B. State Vs. Govind Page No. 4 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden
10. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW4 ASI Ranbir Singh, Investigating Officer and PW2 Ct. Suresh Chand and they deposed that on 06.12.2014 on receiving a PCR call in respect of the present case, they reached at the spot and there they met the complainant, who told them about her complaint and accused was caught by the PCR staff with public persons and the accused was handed over to them and complainant gave written complaint Ex.PW1/A to the IO ASI Ranbir Singh and IO ASI Ranbir Singh endorsed the same and got the FIR registered through Ct. Suresh Chand and accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/B and accused was sent for medical examination to Guru Gobind Singh Hospital in the custody of Ct. Suresh Chand. PW4 ASI Ranbir Singh further deposed that he prepared Site Plan at the instance of the complainant which is Ex.PW4/A and during investigation, accused admitted his guilt and he recorded the same which is Ex.PW4/B and after medical examination, accused was brought to the Rajouri Garden Police Station and kept in the lock up and produced before the Court on 07.12.2014 and accused was remanded to judicial custody. PW4 ASI Ranbir Singh further deposed that during investigation, he got the statement of complainant recorded U/s 164 CrPC before the Court of Ms. Swati State Vs. Govind Page No. 5 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden Singh, Ld. MM, Delhi and his application in this regard is Ex.PW4/C and he collected the statement of complainant recorded U/s 164 CrPC on his application Ex.PW4/D and certified copy of the statement of the complainant recorded U/s 164 CrPC collected by him is Ex.PW4/E and he recorded supplementary statement of complainant U/s 161 CrPC on 08.12.2014 and he collected the PCR form in respect of information to the police by complainant and the same is Ex.PW4/F and the certified copy of DD Entry No.54A regarding receiving the PCR call is Ex.PW4/G and the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is already Ex.PW3/C was collected by him from the Duty Officer in respect of correctness of registration of FIR by using of computer and he proved the further investigation conducted by him and he prepared the challan and charge sheeted the accused. Ld. APP for the State contended that prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused should be accordingly convicted.
11. On the other hand, accused has raised the only defence that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials and he did not commit any illegal act. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that PW1 victim cum complainant stated that her mother wrote the complaint on her behalf and same was signed by her and State Vs. Govind Page No. 6 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden the complaint is Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A. While, PW4 ASI Ranbir Singh, Investigating Officer in his cross examination denied the suggestion that the complaint was not written by the complainant. Ld. counsel for the accused further contended that this shows that there is contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and this fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that as per the complaint Ex. PW1/A, complainant has alleged that accused tried to touch her cheeks. While PW1 victimcumcomplainant in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC i.e. Ex.PW1/B and in her testimony given in the Court stated that accused tried to touch and kiss her by his lips. Ld. counsel for the accused further contended that this shows that there is inconsistency in the version given by complainant in her complaint from the version stated by her in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC and in her testimony and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that PW1 victim stated that many people gathered there who caught the accused and beat him. Ld. counsel for the accused further contended that the Investigating Officer has not made any such public persons present on spot as a witness in the present case. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that PW1 victim stated that PCR van came at the spot and the accused was taken State Vs. Govind Page No. 7 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden away to police station Rajouri Garden. Ld. counsel for the accused further contended that no PCR van official was made a witness by the Investigating Officer. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that this shows that investigation has been conducted in the defective manner and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that PW1 victim in her cross examination admitted that she did not know the accused and his name prior to the incident. Ld. counsel for the accused further contended that the Investigating Officer has not got conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that as per the MLC of the accused, there is no marks of any external injury on the accused while PW1 victim stated that many people gathered there who caught the accused and beat him. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that this shows that the accused was not present at the spot of incident. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that all these aforesaid facts taken together throws doubt on the prosecution story and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused and the accused should be accordingly acquitted.
12. Keeping in view the defence taken by the accused that he has State Vs. Govind Page No. 8 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden been falsely implicated in this case by the police officials and he did not commit any illegal act. To prove his defence, accused has neither led any evidence nor placed on record any document to prove it. So, the defence taken by the accused is of no use to the accused.
13. Keeping in view the contention of Ld. counsel for the accused that there is contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as to whether the complaint has been written by the complainant or the complaint has been written by her mother and this fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. Also, considering the contention of Ld. counsel for the accused that there is inconsistency in the version of the complainant from her complaint Ex.PW1/A and in her statement U/s 164 CrPC and in her testimony and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Both the said contentions of Ld. counsel for the accused does not holds good due to the reason that minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of crucial witnesses as whether the complainant wrote her complaint or the mother of the complainant wrote on her behalf are minor variations. Further, there is no major difference in the version given by the complainant in her complaint Ex.PW1/A that accused tried to touch her cheeks from the statement U/s 164 CrPC i.e. Ex.PW1/B of State Vs. Govind Page No. 9 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden the complainant and the testimony given by the complainant i.e. PW1 victim in the Court as the complainant has stated that accused tried to touch and kiss her by his lips. Also, PW1 victim in her cross examination has clarified that she has told the same to her mother but her mother has not recorded the same in the complaint made by her to the police. Further, on the whole, it shows that the accused has tried to touch on the face of the complainant. Thus, it is only the minor variations and the minor variations are bound to occur in the testimony of ocular witnesses. Relying upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Babasaheb Apparao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 1461 wherein it has been laid down that "some discrepancies in the ocular account of a witness, unless these are vital, cannot per se affect the credibility of the evidence of the witness".
14. Keeping in view the contention of Ld. counsel for the accused that the PCR Van official and the public person present on the spot were not made witness by the Investigating Officer and this shows that the investigation has been conducted in the defective manner and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. This contention of Ld. counsel for the accused does not holds good State Vs. Govind Page No. 10 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden due to the reason that merely because the investigation has been conducted in a defective manner, it does not entitle the accused to be acquitted. Further, relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Father Shepherd Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2007 (2) CCC 472 wherein it has been laid down that "merely because the investigation has been conducted in a slipshod and defective manner and some lacunae have been left by the investigating officer, an accused cannot be acquitted."
15. Keeping in view the contention of Ld. counsel for the accused that although accused was not known to the complainant but the Investigating Officer has not got conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Also, considering the contention of Ld. counsel for the accused that as per the MLC of the accused there is no marks of any external injury on the accused, while as per version of PW1 victim many people who gathered on the spot caught the accused and beat him and this shows that accused was not present at the spot of incident. Both the said contentions of Ld. counsel for the accused does not holds good due to the reason that accused was caught red handed on the spot and the complaint Ex.PW1/A was made by name against the accused and PW1 victim has correctly identified the State Vs. Govind Page No. 11 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden accused in the Court. Further, PW1 victim in her cross examination has stated that the police asked the name of the accused and then she could know the name of the accused. This shows that PW1 victim has clarified that how she came to know the name of the accused. This further proves that there was no motive on the part of the victim to falsely implicate the accused. As a general rule, the purpose of Test Identification Parade is to aid in the investigation and the Test Identification Parade could be only used for corroboration but the evidence of identification of the accused in the Court by the witness is a substantive evidence and failure to hold the Test Identification Parade does not make the evidence of identification at the trial inadmissible. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India 2011 (2) SCC 490 has laid down that "The evidence of identification in Court is substantive evidence and that of the identification in TIP is of corroborative value and in appropriate cases, Court may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration". Relying upon the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura, 2014(4)SCC 747 wherein it has been laid down that "evidence of identification of an accused in Court by a witness is a substantive State Vs. Govind Page No. 12 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden evidence whereas that of identification in Test Identification Parade is, though a primary evidence but not substantive one and the same can be used only to corroborate the identification of the accused by a witness in the Court". In the present case, PW1 victim cum eye witness has correctly identified the accused in the open Court which is a substantive piece of evidence and such identification by the eye witness has not been shaken or contradicted. Also, PW1 victim in her examination in chief stated that many people gathered there who caught the accused. This shows that accused was caught red handed on the spot. Also, the complaint Ex.PW1/A was made by name against the accused. Relying upon the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura, 2014(4)SCC 747 wherein it has been laid down that "if the witnesses are trustworthy and reliable, the mere fact that no Test Identification Parade was conducted, itself would not be a reason for discarding the evidence of those witnesses. In present case, PW1 victim being complainant cum victim is a trustworthy witness as she being victim has no reason to omit the real culprit and to implicate other falsely. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in State vs Subhash Pagi & Anr. 2004(4) Crime 343, wherein it has been held that, "Evidence of a victim or injured State Vs. Govind Page No. 13 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden witness stands on a different footing as injured witness generally does not have any reason to omit the real culprit and implicate other falsely." Further, the mere fact that as per MLC of the accused there are no marks of external injury on the accused, it does not proves that accused has not been beaten up by the people who gathered at the spot. Also, accused has not given any suggestion in the cross examination of any of prosecution witnesses that he was not present at the spot of the incident. Further, accused has not led any evidence to prove that he was not present at the spot of incident. Even, accused has not raised the said defence in his statement U/s 313 CrPC that he was not present at the spot of incident. So, the presence of accused on the spot of incident is not disputed.
16. Keeping in view the fact that the essential ingredients of offence U/s 354/511 IPC are that accused attempt to assault or attempt to use criminal force to any woman intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. To prove it, prosecution has examined its most crucial witness namely PW1 Victim i.e. complainant cum Victim cum eye witness and she stated that she was going to Rajouri Garden metro station from her home and in the way just before the Rajouri Garden metro station, State Vs. Govind Page No. 14 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden accused present in the Court and correctly identified was along with 45 persons present at the spot and the accused tried to touch and kiss her but she stopped him and slapped him and many people gathered there who caught him and beat him. She further deposed that she called the police at 100 number and the PCR Van came at the spot and the accused was taken away to police station Rajouri Garden. This shows that accused was caught red handed on the spot. PW1 victim has also correctly identified the accused present in the Court. So, there is no dispute on the identity of the accused. Also, no motive on the part of PW1 victim to falsely implicate the accused is proved by the accused. Also, PW4 ASI Ranbir Singh, Investigating Officer and PW2 Ct. Suresh Chand have fully corroborated the version of PW1 victim that the accused was caught red handed on the spot. Further, PW4 ASI Ranbir Singh and PW2 Ct. Suresh Chand have proved the arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW2/A and personal search memo of the accused Ex.PW2/B. Also, version of PW1 victim is consistent in her testimony given in Court as well in her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC i.e. Ex.PW1/B. Thus, prosecution is able to prove all the essential ingredients for the Offence U/s 354/511 IPC that accused attempted to assault or attempted to use criminal force upon the victim with an intention to outrage her modesty.
State Vs. Govind Page No. 15 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden
17. Keeping in view the fact that testimony of PW1 victim is clear, convincing and reliable and no material has come on record which falsify her evidence and the other PWs have fully corroborated the version of PW1 Victim. Also, all the essential ingredients of offence punishable U/s 354/511 IPC has been fully established against accused Govind. I am of the considered view that prosecution is able to prove its case against accused Govind beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Govind is accordingly convicted for the offence punishable U/s 354/511 IPC.
Let, accused be heard separately on the point of sentence on 01.06.2015.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 30.05.2015 (EKTA GAUBA) Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court03/West Tis Hazari Court, Delhi State Vs. Govind Page No. 16 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT03),WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Govind FIR No :1424/14 P.S. Rajouri Garden U/s 354/511 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE 01.06.2015 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Govind produced from custody with Ld. counsel Sh. Randeep Singh nominated by DLSA.
This case is fixed today for orders on the point of sentence.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Ld. counsel for the Convict contended that convict Govind is the bread earner of his family and is aged about 22 years old and has an old aged widowed mother and one younger sister to look after and therefore, convict Govind may kindly be released on probation by taking a lenient view. Ld. counsel for the convict further contended that convict Govind is not a previous convict and therefore, the convict Govind may kindly be released on probation. State Vs. Govind Page No. 17 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden Ld. counsel for the convict contended that lenient view may kindly be taken.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has contended that maximum possible sentence should be given to the convict Govind as the convict is a vegabond.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for convict.
Keeping in view the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ajahar Ali v/s State of West Bengal 2013 (3) SCC (Cri) 794 wherein it has been held that "benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 cannot be extended to the accused considering the heinous crime i.e. crime against women that accused had committed and social conditions prevailing in the society and so the benefit of probation is not available to persons convicted of offences U/s 354, 354A, 354B, 354C and 354D IPC".
In view of the fact that in the present case, convict Govind while walking on the road, just before Rajouri Garden Metro Station, although being a stranger to the victim, attempted to kiss the victim and the convict was caught red handed on the spot and in view of the fact that the offence against the women are on the increase in the city and it is a serious public order problem if the young boys are attempting to kiss the unknown young girls while State Vs. Govind Page No. 18 FIR No.1424/14 State Vs. Govind PS: Rajouri Garden walking on the public roads and in view of the facts and circumstances, Convict Govind does not deserves the benefit to be released on probation.
I am of the considered view that interest of justice will be served if for the offence punishable U/s 354/511 IPC, convict Govind is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine in the form of compensation of Rs.1000/ to the victim and in default of payment of the same, the convict Govind shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Convict Govind be given benefit of Section 428 CrPC. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of judgment has been supplied to the convict free of cost on the date of judgment itself i.e. 30.05.2015.
Copy of order on sentence be supplied to the convict today itself free of cost.
Copy of complete file be also supplied to the convict today itself free of cost.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. on 01.06.2015 (Ekta Gauba)
MM (Mahila Court03)
West,THC,Delhi/01.06.2015
State Vs. Govind Page No. 19