Delhi District Court
State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Sarver S/O Sh. Abrar on 22 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SAVITA RAO, SPL. JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI01,
(SOUTH) SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CA No. 8327/2016
FIR No. : 142/13
P.S. : S.J. Enclave
U/s : 354/354D/506/509 IPC
In the matter of :
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
...... Appellant
VERSUS
Sarver S/o Sh. Abrar
R/o G12/380, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
....... Respondent
Date of Filing : 08.12.2016
Date of Arguments : 10.11.2017 & 22.11.2017
Date of Order : 22.11.2017
O R D E R
1. This is an appeal filed by state aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by Ld. Trial court whereby the accused was acquitted of the offences u/s 354/354D/506/509 IPC.
2. Prosecution case was based upon the facts that on 16.4.2013 at about 6 p.m. CA No. 8327/2016 State Vs. Sarver 1/9 complainant was going back to her home when respondent/accused met her and caught hold her hand. Accused/respondent misbehaved with the complainant and asked her to accompany him, failing which, he would throw tejab on the complainant and would also kill her brother and other family members.
3. After filing of the chargesheet, charge u/s 354/354D/509/506 IPC was framed against the accused/respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses, whereas accused/respondent in his defence, examined two witnesses. After conclusion of trial, Ld. Trial court vide impugned judgment, acquitted the accused/respondent, which judgment is under challenge before this court.
4. Complainant was examined as PW2 before Ld. Trial court who deposed that on 16.4.2013, she left her office at about 6 p.m. and at about 6.15 p.m. when she reached at Green Park Metro Station, accused followed her . He held her hand and misbehaved with her . Accused asked her to go alongwith him failing which, he threatened to throw tejab upon her and also to kill her brother and family members. Complainant thereafter raised her voice upon which accused started using filthy language and told her that if she will deny to come with him, then he will not allow her to get married to any other person. Call was made to police and accused was arrested from the spot.
5. In cross examination of PW2, she stated that she did not know the accused personally but accused used to trouble her in past. She did not know the earlier dates on which the accused had troubled her , however, she had made complaint at P.S. Sangam Vihar. As further stated by complainant, she used to be alone when CA No. 8327/2016 State Vs. Sarver 2/9 accused used to trouble her. On the date of incident also, accused followed her after some distance from her office and she was alone at that time. In answer to question put by counsel for accused, she stated that accused caught hold of her hand and told her " Mere Sath Chal" or else he will throw acid on her face and will also kill her brother. She further deposed in her cross examination, that accused was walking side by side alongwith her and was continuously threatening her.
6. Two witnesses were examined in defence. DW2 was uncle of accused and DW1 was his friend. DW2 stated about the love affair between the complainant and accused for many years and according to him, they were about to get married but some dispute arose between the parties in relation to some money matter. DW2, as admitted, was not present at the spot on the date of alleged incident.
7. DW1 who was friend of accused also stated about the relationship between the complainant and accused who according to DW1 were about to get married but a dispute arose between the accused and brother of complainant due to some money transaction . As further deposed by him, 15 days prior to the date of incident, a quarrel took place between the accused and brother of complainant. He stated that on the date of incident, after finishing his daily work of welding in an apartment, accused and DW1 were on their way. DW1 went to drink water at Metro station and when he came back, he got to know that some quarrel was taking place between complainant and accused and police had been called.
8. Testimony of complainant has remained cogent, consistent and inspires confidence. As is also noted by Ld. Trial court that the complainant has throughout corroborated her previous statement given to the police with the statement given CA No. 8327/2016 State Vs. Sarver 3/9 by her in the court and no major contradiction appeared in her testimony. However, it was noted by Ld. Trial court that the complainant had concealed material fact regarding her relationship with the accused because neither she placed on record the previous complaint filed by her at P.S. Sangam Vihar nor she had been able to specify the dates prior to the incident when accused followed her. On the said basis, the credibility of deposition of complainant, as noted by Ld. Trial court, had been shaken by the defence by bringing DW1 and DW2 in the witness box and also a doubt , as observed, had been raised by mentioning the name and parentage of the accused in her complaint.
9. Accused himself in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had stated about his relationship with complainant for last eight years and his having given friendly loan of Rs. 15,000/ to the brother of complainant, due to which, he had a quarrel with brother of complainant and complainant had told the accused that he will be sent to jail. As stated, the money was returned after 2/3 quarrels. It was further stated that about eight days prior to the date of incident, he had started working at Hauz Khas Apartment and used to take metro at Green Park Metro Station at about 66.30 p.m. On the date of incident, accused was standing at the metro station and was waiting for his colleague when complainant saw him, called someone and talked to that person, subsequent to which police reached there and caught hold of him .
10. The said submission of accused is contradictory to the deposition of his own witness i.e. DW1. Accused in his above statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. does not state about even talking to the complainant what to talk about quarrel having CA No. 8327/2016 State Vs. Sarver 4/9 been taken place with the complainant . According to him, complainant simply saw him , called someone and thereafter he was caught hold by the police, whereas DW1 himself had witnessed the accused and complainant quarreling with each other. As deposed by DW1 in cross examination, he went for drinking water at Metro station itself and whatever had happened at that time is not known to him except the fact that when he reached there, he saw accused and complainant quarreling with each other .
11. Further in terms of statement of DW1, he and accused had come together after finishing their work of welding in an apartment when DW1 had gone to drink water at the metro station and upon his coming back, he witnessed the accused and complainant quarreling with each other. Contrary to above, accused in his statement stated that he was standing at metro station and was waiting for his colleague who was to join him after collecting the tools.
12. With the deposition of DW1 regarding quarrel between the parties and complainant , it is the case of prosecution which stands corroborated to the above extent at least.
13. With regard to the defence that accused asked for return of his money which was returned after 2/3 quarrels and complainant had told the accused that he will be sent to jail, it may be noted that if this was the motivation to falsely implicate the accused, then it would have been done prior to alleged return of the money and not after the return of the same to the accused.
14. Both the accused as well as defence witnesses have stated about the proposed marriage between the complainant and accused whereas complainant CA No. 8327/2016 State Vs. Sarver 5/9 herself has denied the same. The suggestion given to the complainant in cross examination that the accused had asked her for marriage again corroborates the case of prosecution only, by admitting the presence of accused at the spot and his speaking to the complainant on the date of incident and also the fact that it was the accused who was interested in the complainant and was willing to get married to the complainant.
15. In cross examination also, PW2 i.e. complainant has spoken about the accused having troubled her in the past and honestly stated that she did not remember the earlier dates when the accused had troubled her. She stated that she had made complaint at P.S. Sangam Vihar, though she did not know the date, month or year when she had made the complaint to P.S. Sangam Vihar. She has specifically stated that she did not know the accused personally and also did not know his address but did not deny the accused having met her on earlier occasions also , though that was again relating to the trouble caused to her by accused in the area of Sangam Vihar.
16. In the complaint to the police also, she had specifically mentioned that the accused had been troubling her for past many days. Complainant had also specifically stated in her complaint that the accused used to trouble her in the area of Sangam Vihar. It may be noted that in terms of deposition of complainant, previously also accused had been troubling her and complaint was also lodged at P.S. Sangam Vihar in this respect. It is not unlikely that she got to know about the father's name of the accused during that process.
17. Merely because complainant had not placed on record copy of any previous CA No. 8327/2016 State Vs. Sarver 6/9 complaint lodged with police, same does not lead to interpretation of concealment of facts, particularly when it was not clarified on record if the complaint lodged by PW2 was in written or not and whether any action was taken upon that or not.
18. During course of arguments, at the instance of complainant, Ld. APP submitted that complainant lodged complaints with police but none was recorded nor any action was taken and previously once accused was called by police but was let off with warning but he did not mend his ways and rather was encouraged to continue with his misdeeds.
19. It was further submitted by Ld. APP that the day accused was released on bail, he again threatened the complainant and since then, complainant has been forced to leave her job and to stay back at her home to avoid any untoward incident from the side of convict. The said submission of Ld. APP though is not part of testimony of any of the witnesses, but the court is conscious of the ground realities by which many a times the complainants are turned out by the police officials despite the mandate to record all the complaints.
20. A suggestion was also given to PW2 that accused and PW2 used to call each other telephonically, however, no such call details were produced on record by accused to prove his defence.
21. No suggestions were put to complainant regarding any alleged affair between the parties or any loan amount taken by her brother.
22. Even if the contention of accused that accused and complainant were known to each other prior to the incident and were about to get married which could not materialize, is taken as gospel truth, any past relationship between the parties CA No. 8327/2016 State Vs. Sarver 7/9 cannot justify the action of accused in harassing a woman or threatening her to throw acid on her if she does not concede to his demands. Inter personal abuse , whether it is sexual or non sexual, remains a major problem in our society. Sexual abuse against children and women brings with in long term sequelae, both psychiatrically and socially. Apart from sexual gratification itself, sexual abuse against women is often a result of unequal power equations both real and perceived between men and women and is also strongly influenced by patriarchal notions of society, which seems to be the reason that the accused was not willing to take 'No' to his marriage proposal to the complainant, even if the defence of the accused is taken as correct.
23. The charge in the instant matter was framed against the accused for catching hold of hand of complainant with the intention of outraging her modesty, following the prosecutrix despite her disinterest and threatening her with dire consequences. The testimony of complainant in this light has passed the test of credibility and the same cannot be considered shaken merely due to the deposition of DWs who are interested witnesses, whereas DW2 was not even present at the time of alleged incident and DW1 rather had witnessed the quarrel between the accused and complainant and thereby, he corroborated the case of prosecution at least to some extent.
24. In Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2011 titled as Jag Mohan Vs. State of U.P, it was observed that " Of late, crime against women in general particularly the molestation is on increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's right in all spheres, we show little concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on CA No. 8327/2016 State Vs. Sarver 8/9 the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of such cases. A person outraging the modesty of women not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process,which is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. The offender degrades the soul of the helpless female. The courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused of such charges. They must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity . The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of prosecutrix, which are not of fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case".
25. Having discussed as above, prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case against the accused u/s 354/354D/506 IPC. Charge had also been framed u/s 509 IPC for using the foul language with intention to insult the complainant, however, the complainant in her deposition, did not detailed about any foul language used, attracting the culpability of offence u/s 509 IPC. Therefore, charge u/s 509 IPC does not stand proved against the accused. Impugned judgment of Ld. Trial court dated 30.09.2016 is set aside and accused is convicted for the offences u/s 354/354D/506 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court (Savita Rao)
Today on 22.11.2017 Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI01(South)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
CA No. 8327/2016
State Vs. Sarver 9/9