Delhi District Court
Fir No. 129/2011 State vs . Rukmani & Ors. Ps Ambedkar Nagar 1 Of 23 on 25 September, 2018
In The Court Of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan: Metropolitan
Magistrate02 (Mahila Court), SouthEast, Saket Courts:New Delhi
State v. Rukmani & Ors.
FIR No. 129/2011
U/s: 323/506/354/34 IPC
P.S Ambedkar Nagar
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution : 24.11.2011
Criminal Case No. : 91772/2016
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet
Name & address of the accused : 1. Rukmani
W/o Sh. Ghanshyam
R/o H.No. 20/241, DDA Flats,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
2. Promila (since PO)
W/o Sh. Manohar Lal
R/o H.No. 20/293, DDA Flats,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
3. Chander
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal
R/o H.No. 20/293, DDA Flats,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
4. Jyoti
W/o Sh. Chander
FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 1 of 23
R/o H.No. 20/293, DDA Flats,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 354/506/34 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 323/506/354/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
Date of arguments : 24.09.2018
Date of announcing of order : 25.09.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has stated in her complaint dated 13.05.2011that she was residing at H.No.20/293, DDA Flats, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi as a tenant since 10.03.2010, alongwith her daughter. She had taken the premises on rent for which she had paid Rs.10,000/ in advance and Rs.4,000/ as security. However, after 1012 days of shifting into the aforesaid house, the landlord did not give her any receipt for the aforesaid amount. She had taken the house on rent for an amount of Rs.4,000/ and the same was to be deducted from the amount of Rs.10,000/ monthly. However, the landlord started taking the monthly rent of Rs.4,000/ from the complainant. During the said time, the water and electricity bill of the rented premises started coming more and therefore the complainant raised the issued before landlord namely accused Manohar Lal, due to the said FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 2 of 23 reason, the relations between the complainant and her landlord became sour. Thereafter, the landlord started pressurizing the complainant to vacate the premises and for that the complainant filed the civil suit against him. Thereafter, the accused/landlord Manohar Lal started extending threats to the complainant and also threatened the complainant by saying that they will kill her daughter. On 06.05.2011 at round 06:45 AM, accused Chander, Promila, Jyoti, Rukmani came on the door of the complainant and said "Bahar nikal aaj tera kaam tamam karenger" and started banging on the door of the complainant, however, complainant did not open her door and made a call at 100 number. Police reached the spot and threatened the accused persons that no such complaint against them of such nature should be received. On the same day, after about two and two and a half hours, accused Chander alongwith his relatives again extended threats to the complainant. On 06.05.2011, when the daughter of the complainant had gone to attend her office and used to return home in the evening around 08:30 PM and when the complainant's daughter did not return, she made a call to her daughter who informed her that accused Chander, Jyoti were following her. Thereafter, the complainant went out of her house to look for her daughter in the gali, and at that time she found that her daughter was being beaten by accused Chander, Promila, Jyoti, Rukmani by fists and blow. The worn kurta/clothes of the complainant's daughter were found torn and accused Chander and Jyoti were pulling her daughter by her hair and when the complainant intervened she was also given beatings by all the accused persons by fists and blows. At that time, the public persons present in the gali made a call at 100 number. The FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 3 of 23 accused persons had committed the act with the intention to pressurize the complainant to vacate the premises and had extended threats to the complainant. Thereafter, police had taken the complainant for medical examination to Trauma Center AIIMS but complainant and her daughter refused to get their medical examination since it would have taken time.
2. Pursuant to this complaint dated 13.05.2011 for the incident dated 06.05.2011 against the accused persons, FIR was registered on 13.05.2011 and the matter was investigated. Chargesheet was filed on 24.11.2011. Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused. Vide order dated 14.09.2012, all four accused persons were charged for the punishable U/s 323/506/34 IPC. However, during the evidence all accused were additionally charged for the offence u/s 354/34 IPC vide order dated 04.11.2015. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly matter was listed for prosecution evidence. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led. During trial, accused Promila was declared proclaimed offender vide order dt. 24.09.2018.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined six (06) witnesses during trial: PW1 complainant (victim) deposed that she was residing on rent along with her daughter since 2010. Due to excess charge of water and electricity, she made complaint to accused Promila Rani (since Proclaimed Offender), the owner of the above said house. By this complaint the landlord FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 4 of 23 of the said building became annoyed due to which they started shouting on her and asked her to vacate the house immediately. Thereafter, accused sent a legal notice to her to vacate the house. After giving reply to her, PW1 also filed a civil suit against the landlord. On 05.05.2011, she alongwith her daughter was at her house, at about 6.45 am in the morning, accused Promila, Chander, Jyoti and Rukmani came on her main door and started abusing and pulling her door and they had torn the net of the grill door. They also threatened her to kill if she would not vacate the house. She made a call at 100 number and PCR came 23 times and talked to the accused persons and assured her that local police would come to look after the matter but no police came thereafter. After two and half hours, mother and brother of accused Jyoti came and again started breaking her door and also started threatening by saying that "abhi nikal nahi to jaan se maar denge". Thereafter she again called PCR. PCR came and drama took place as above said. On next day her daughter went for her job. In the evening time at about 08.20 pm she called at the mobile of her daughter and her daughter said that she had reached at Shiv Chowk, Dakshin Puri and she also said that accused Chander and his wife Jyoti were following her and were saying "chhodenge nahi". She gave directions to her daughter to reach home anyhow and ask her not to do anything. After 1520 minutes, when her daughter did not reach home, then she rushed to meet her daughter with her mobile. She saw in the lane that her daughter was lying on the floor and she was crying and shouting and asking for help. She saw that her daughter's kurta was torn and her hair were open. Accused Jyoti and Chander were holding the hair of her daughter and were FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 5 of 23 pulling her badly. Accused Rukmani and Promila (since PO) were slapping her and kicking her. She saw that accused Chander was giving bounce at the face and back side of shoulders to her daughter. She requested them not to beat her daughter and assured them that she would vacate their house and requested them not to give beatings to her daughter otherwise she would die as she was a thyroid patient. After that accused Promila (since PO) and Rukmani caught hold her hair and they started beating her badly and they were also abusing and threatening her. They started beating her and her daughter badly. Accused Chander slapped her many times and he was holding one tape recorder and Promila (since PO) was carrying one paper and pen. They took both of them to Rukmani's house and they pushed them on the bed and Promila (since PO) asked her to write down on paper that she was vacating the house right now. Suddenly she saw that people were shouting "police had come". Accused Chander and Jyoti ran away on the bike. The PCR police officers took her and her daughter to her flat. They told her that after some time local police would come and took their statements. After waiting for a long time one SI Manish Kumar came and asked to take her and her daughter to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. After one hour, he sent her and her daughter to Trauma Centre, AIIMS along with one constable. She and her daughter reached the hospital and there the doctor told them to stay there for about 810 hours. That, suddenly it came into her mind, that her landlord used to tell that they would throw her household, therefore, she got scared and she alongwith her daughter ran away from the hospital, although they were having pain. She and her daughter took pain killer at home. There was FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 6 of 23 muscles injury to both of them. Late in the night at about 2.15 am, accused Chander came along with 23 boys to her flat and started threatening, shouting and abusing her and tried to break her door. She called 100 number. PCR came. Police followed them but they ran away on motorcycle. That, on 05.05.2011, she sent an email to Police Commissioner Sh. B.K. Gupta and made complaint against SI Manish Kumar regarding the whole incident, after also local police did not take any action against the offenders. On 08.05.2011, he received response from the office of Police Commissioner and they directed her to go and meet the police officials at PS Sarita Vihar. Thereafter, on 10.05.2011, she met Addl. DCP and told him everything, who immediately gave directions to ACP Ambedkar Nagar to register the FIR. On 13.05.2011 FIR was registered and her statement was Ex.PW1/A. During crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW1 deposed that she never got herself medically examined in this matter. It was correct that one Head Constable took her to the AIIMS Hospital but she came back from there. The incident occurred on 05th as well as on 06th May, 2011. She did not go to the PS on 06.05.2011 neither her statement was recorded. She did not remember at what time she came back at home. The incident on 06.05.2011 occurred at 8.00 pm. She did not remember at what time she was taken to hospital by police. They came back from AIIMS in a three wheeler scooter. Police official had accompanied them to AIIMS Hospital but she did not get herself examined there. At that time her daughter was wearing Kurta and the same was torn. The torn dress was not seized by the police on FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 7 of 23 06.05.2011. She did not hand over to the police the torn dress even on 15.03.2011 when she made her complaint. She had given a written complaint to Addl. C.P. Sh. Ajay Chaudhary. No copy of such a complaint was on record. It was correct that she lived on the first floor and one Mr. Gupta was residing at the first floor at the time of incident. She was not on talking terms with Mr. Gupta. She did not know how many families were living in the same lane where she was living. She was not on talking terms with any of the neighbours. Several people had seen the incident but she did not know what were their names. Police did not come at the spot on 13.05.2011. After 56 days of registration of FIR, police came to her house for inquiry. She had verbally told the police about the injuries received on her body. Her statement was not recorded again at her house. She did not remember how many times the police came to her house for inquiry/investigation. She was a tenant since 10.03.2010. She had filed a civil suit against the landlord seeking protection of her possession which was granted and in this case the dispute of electricity and water was also settled. She could not say if an eviction suit was filed against her by accused. It was wrong to suggest that no such incident took place and she had filed this case only to secure the possession. It was wrong to suggest that she initiated these proceedings since rent was demanded from her. It was correct that she had also filed another case against the present accused as well as 12 other persons. She never prevented the accused from going to the 2nd floor. It was wrong to suggest that she was into liasoning work. She was not an advocate. It was wrong to suggest that despite being well aware with the procedure of law she did not report the matter instantly.
FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 8 of 23 She had told the entire facts of the incident to the police. She had also told the police about the fact of accused persons tearing of the clothes of her daughter. She gave the torn clothes of her daughter to the police but the police refused to take it. She did not posses a camera enabled mobile phone at the time of incident. It was wrong to suggest that on 05.05.2011 police came to her house but she did not open the gate. It was wrong to suggest that police came upon her 100 number call. SI Manish Kumar took her to Trauma Center Hospital for her medical examination. It was correct that she did not get herself medically examined in the hospital. Vol. It was because the Doctor asked her and her daughter to remain under observation for 810 hours despite the fact that she and her daughter had not sustained any physical injuries but only internal injuries and therefore she had apprehension that the accused persons may forcibly throw out her articles from her rented accommodation in her absence if she remain admitted in the hospital. Vol. On that night accused Chander brought three four boys to her house who ran away on her 100 number call. She did not go for her work on next day. She left her house after two three days of the incident when she had to go to the police station Sarita Vihar. There was one another FIR U/s 354A/509 IPC filed by her daughter against neighbour namely Boby. The distance between her present rented accommodation and the rented accommodation in which she used to reside at the time of present incident, was hardly half kilometer. It was wrong to suggest that she was in dispute with her present landlord. Thereafter, the witness was questioned if there was any criminal case pending against her that had been filed by her neighbours to which she answered in negative. She FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 9 of 23 further deposed that she had never been called to the police station regarding any complaint against her. She did not remember if her daughter got lodged FIR no.673/15 PS Ambedkar Nagar dated 05.07.2015 against one Boby. Sh. Jeet Singh was father of Boby. She did not know if father of Boby lodged complaint against her on 05.07.2015. She did not know if Smt. Kanti Devi lodged complaint against her on 28.02.2015, 15.03.2015. It was correct that she had filed a suit for injunction against Manohar Lal which was decreed in her favour wherein the court restrained Manohar Lal and Promila Rani upon their undertaking that they shall not disposes her forcibly. It was wrong to suggest that she had concocted a false story inclusion with the police. It was wrong to suggest that no incident dated 0506 May 2011 ever took place. It was wrong to suggest that she was deposing falsely.
PW2 Shivani Sachdeva (daughter of the complainant) deposed that she was residing at the rented premises alongwith her mother for last more than 4 years. She was Graduate in Arts. On 06.05.2011, she was coming from her office when she reached near Shiv Chowk, it was about 8.158.20 pm. She saw accused Chander and Jyoti were following her. They were having cell phones in their hands. When she first saw them, she ignored them but when she again notice that they were continuously following her. Then, she called her mother and said that Jyoti and Chander were following her and were saying "chhodenge nahi". In the meantime they started following her in higher speed. That, as soon as she reached the corner of her gali, at the same time Promila Rani came abusing her and caught hold her hair FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 10 of 23 and started dragging her. In the way Rukmini joined said person. She started crying but they did not leave her and started hitting her by fists and legs. People gathered at the spot. Accused Chander hit his legs in her stomach and also hit his hands on her breast, torn her clothes. Rukmini gave her slaps and Jyoti caught hold her neck and gave beatings on her shoulders. Further they all said that they would not spare her "aaj tujhe nahi chhodenge". Accused Chander had torn her kurta. She anyhow managed to cover her breast. In the meantime accused Rukmini caught hold of her both hands and accused Chander, Jyoti and Promila then again started beating her. She was crying. She screamed for help. The accused persons threatened the public persons who were gathered at the spot that "agar koi aage aya to uske liye accha nahi hoga". She requested Rukmini to leave her but she was laughing at her. Maya came holding one cellphone in her hands and slapped her and she started saying "bol abhi makan khali kar rahen hai" so that the same would be recorded in her phone. Accused Chander was saying "tu Email karti hai computer pe baith kar, aaj tujhe chhodunga nahi". Her mother came at spot and requested the accused persons with folded hands to leave her but the accused persons Chander, Jyoti, Promila and Rukmini started beating her also. Chander torn the kurta of her mother. Her mother fell down on ground due to beating of accused persons. Accused Promila took out note pad and pen, accused Chander took out recorder. They were asked to sit in the house of Rukmini and they were asked to say that "abhi likh ke main abhi makan khali kar rahi hun". Her mother was having a cell phone in her hand. When she tried to make a call for help, accused Chander took it and thew it on FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 11 of 23 ground. The phone got damaged. The accused persons were saying that they would not leave them inside their house. Accused Promila asked Chander to make search for a brick but accused Chander could not find. In the meantime someone cried from the outside that police had arrived. Therefore, all the said accused persons ran away from the spot. Police persons took them inside her rented accommodation and waited for the local police. SI Manish Kumar arrived at the spot very late and other police also came late. PW2 and her mother were taken to Trauma Centre. In the Trauma Centre doctor informed them that they have to be kept under observation for 810 hours, and were having severe pain and they were apprehensive that the accused persons might throw their luggage from the premises. Therefore they left the hospital and came to their house and they took pain killer as a medicine. At about 2.002.15 am, in the same night Chander came along with 24 boys at our door and started abusing them. Her mother gave a call at 100 number. They all escaped. All the facts of the case have been stated by her.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused person, PW2 deposed that she did not give a call to the police when she saw the accused persons following her. She did not remember how many cases they have filed against the accused persons. She did not know if her mother has filed any other case against any other party in Saket court. It was correct that she had filed a cheating case against a travel agent and the same was pending in Saket Court. The said case was pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate. She did not remember the date of filing the case against the Travel Agent.
FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 12 of 23 They had Emailed the entire version to Sh. B.K. Gupta, CP. It was incorrect that Sh. B.K. Gupta, CP was known to her mother. Her statement u/s 161 CrPC was not recorded in this case. She did not give any statement to the police. Police did not record her statement. It was correct that she did not give a call at 100 number. It was correct that she did not get herself medically examined on the date of incident or on 6 th May or on any other date. It was correct that her mother was the tenant of the accused and it was also correct that as per the Court order they were directed to vacate the premises on 01.09.2014. They had deposited the rent in the Court. It was wrong to suggest that no such incident had taken place. After the day of incident, however she did not remember the exact day, police officials had inquired from her and recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC at her residence. On the day of incidence, she did not visit the PS after the incident, however, police officials came at her residence. They took them to Trauma Center on that day. As the doctor told them that it would take 810 hours in observation, so they came back to their residence as accused persons had threatened her to vacate her rented house and to throw her house hold articles from her residence. She did not remember if her mother had obtained stay from the present court that she could not be dispossessed without due process of law. She did not remember as to after how many days, her statement was taken by IO. She did not know as to the time when her statement was recorded by IO. Thereafter, the statement of the witness recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW2/X1 was shown to the witness. After seeing the same, witness stated that it was incomplete statement recorded by police officials, however, the same was recorded by FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 13 of 23 IO. Thereafter, the witness upon being asked stated whether any eviction suit /civil case was filed by accused Promila against her mother and she admitted it to be correct. She did not remember if her mother had paid the rent directly to the accused Promila or in the court. Her mother had not done the law. It was wrong to suggest that she had made statement to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present matter. It was wrong to suggest that no incident as stated had ever occurred. It was wrong to suggest that she had improved her statement to falsely implicate the accused than the statement she gave to the IO. It was wrong to suggest that the present case was filed by her mother to grab the property of the accused persons. It was wrong to suggest that she was deposing falsely.
PW3 SI Nawab Khan (IO) deposed that on 13.05.2011, he was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar as a S.I. On that day complainant along with her daughter came to PS and gave her statement Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, on the basis of which, he prepared Rukka and handed over to D.O. for registration of FIR. Computerize copy of FIR was Mark F1. During investigation, he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant as Ex.PW3/A. He made search of the named persons but there were not traceable. The complainant was tenant in the property. He had obtained the order of NBWs from the Court and further proceeding was conducted. Thereafter in the meantime, he went on leave and the investigation was handed over to SI Randhir for the imminent necessary action. Thereafter, again the present investigation was handed over to him for necessary FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 14 of 23 investigation and completion of the investigation the present challan was prepared and file before the concerned Court.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused person, PW3 deposed that he was not a Division office of the area where incident took place. This case was handed over to him as he was on emergency duty on the day when complaint was filed. He was posted at PS from 2005 to 20012. The complainant used to lodge a complainant daily in the Police Station. The complainant was a tenant of accused Promila. No clothes were handed over to him by the complainant. Further it had not come in his knowledge during the investigation where the complaint was paying rent to the landlord or not. He did not know if she had vacated the premises after the court orders or not. The complainant did not produce any MLCs. No public witness was examined as none come forwarded to make statement. He had not verified on his own from the public if any incident had happened as being alleged by the complaint or not. He did not know if both the parties used to come at the Police Station because of cross complaint. He did not know whether the Police on the basis of complainant called accused Promila and her family at the PS including her deceased son Lalit. He did not know if the son of accused Promila died due to said injury caused by the Police. It was wrong to suggest that after that incident they were scared. It was wrong to suggest that on the behest of Senior officer he had prepared the false case at the instance of complainant. It was wrong to suggest that in fact the police was helping the complainant to grab the property of the accused. It was wrong to suggest that FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 15 of 23 he had not properly investigated the case. At this stage, proceeding of examination in chief and crossexamination of witness conducted on 15.09.2014 was adopted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons. It was correct that he recorded the statement of complainant under section 161 Cr.P.C. correctly and had not changed the same. The case was not with him for investigation on 05/06.05.2011 so he did not know if victims had gone to hospital for medical examination or not. It was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely.
PW4 SI Randhir Kumar deposed that on 24.05.2011 he was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar. On that day, accused Promila, W/o Manohar Lal was arrested at PS Ambedkar Nagar vide memo Ex.PW4/A, in the presence of Lady Ct. Nisha Rani. After her medical examination, she was produced before the court. Witness correctly identified the accused Promila in the court.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW4 deposed that he had not received any DD entry in this case for investigation on 05/06.05.2011. He had not prepared any application for medical examination of complainant as he was not the IO of the case at that time.
PW5 Lady Ct. Nisha Rani deposed that on 24.05.2011, she was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar. On that day, accused Pramila, W/o Manohar Lal was arrested at PS Ambedkar Nagar vide memo Ex.PW4/A, in FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 16 of 23 her presence. After her medical examination, she was produced before the court. Witness correctly identified the accused Pramila in court.
Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to the witness.
PW6 SI Baldev Raj (Duty Officer) deposed that on 13.05.2011, he registered the FIR Ex.PW6/A on rukka Ex.PW4/B. During crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW6 deposed that he used to record daily diary entry in police station while he was working as duty officer. He did not know whether the DD entry regarding the present and concerned case on 06.05.2011 was recorded or not as he was not working as a duty officer on that day. It was wrong to suggest that at the instance of IO, he had recorded the present ante dated FIR.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused persons was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused persons. Accused persons 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.
FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 17 of 23
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 and her daughter have clearly deposed the manner in which the accused persons misbehaved with them and therefore all the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences charged.
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 wanted to illegally occupy the property of the accused persons and the present case has been filed only with the intention for not paying the rent due upon her. It is also argued that in the present matter the complainant has herself admitted that the incident took place on the road and in the presence of several public persons however, none of the public persons have been examined by the prosecution. It is further argued that the date of incident mentioned by the complainant is also unclear as in the complaint she has stated that the incident had taken place on 06.05.2011 but during the cross examination the witness stated that the incident took place on 05.05.2011 and 06.05.2011. Further despite the fact that the complainant and her daughter were allegedly severely beaten by fists and blow continuously by all the accused persons, the medical examination of the complainant and her daughter was not got conducted on the date of incident or subsequently and the same has been admitted by the complainant that she alongwith her daughter left AIIMS Trauma Center without getting their medical examination being conducted since they were asked to wait. It has also been argued that neither the complainant nor her daughter deemed FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 18 of 23 appropriate to visit the police station on 06.05.2011 when the police officials reached on the making of 100 number call and did not give their written complaint to the police. It has also been argued that the alleged torn clothes of the daughter of the complainant had not been seized by the investigating officer on the day of incident or subsequently thereafter. It is further argued that since the medical examination of the complainant and her daughter were never conducted the nature of injury if any is not proved by the prosecution. It has also been argued that there is vast improvement in the testimony of complainant as complainant to her complaint and in the testimony of PW2 as compared to her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC which was Ex.PW2/X1. It has also been argued that the veracity of the complainant is doubtful as there is substantial improvement in her statement and the same is not corroborated by any cogent evidence and therefore all the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
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 six witnesses and PW1 being the complainant and PW2 being the daughter of the complainant are the victim in the present matter. Remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal in nature. PW1 is the complainant and the victim in the present matter. PW2 is the daughter of the complainant FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 19 of 23 and the eye witnesses who was present at the time of incident. In the present matter, accused persons have been charged for the offence u/s 323/506/354/34 IPC. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 323/506/354/34 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that the accused persons had on the date of incident had misbehaved with the complainant and her daughter in the manner which resulted to insult the modest of the complainant and her daughter and the same was committed with an intention to outrage her modesty and threatened her. Further, all the accused persons committed the aforesaid act in furtherance of their common intention and caused injury to the complainant.
10. While testifying as PW1, complainant was not able to even mentioned the date of incident and stated that the same occurred on 05.05.2011 and 06.05.2011 that is when in her complaint Ex.PW1/A, she had stated that the incident had occurred on 06.05.2011. Further, the statement of the complainant was not recorded on the date of incident and the same was recorded on 13.05.2011 and the delay of seven days has not been explained by 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 06.05.2011, 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 before the Court. If we FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 20 of 23 carefully peruse the record and confine ourself to the incident dated 06.05.2011, the allegations of the complainant are not substantiated by her in her testimony recorded before the court. PW2 being the daughter of the complainant has also not corroborated the factum of the accused being misbehaving or assaulting the complainant when she reached the spot to rescue her, by tearing of her clothes, that is when the same finds mentioned in her statement recorded before the Court and the same is confrontation with her statement Ex.PW2/X1. Further, there is no corroboration in the testimony of both the witnesses and do not inspire confidence. Further, the testimony of PW2 lacks credence since being the daughter of the complainant is an interested witness. If we further perused the testimony of the witness, it is admitted by the complainant that she had raised alarm when the incident occurred on the road but none of the public persons came to help her and she did not know the name of the any of the public persons who gathered on the spot where the alleged incident occurred. 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.
12. The improvement in the version of PW1 and PW2 is crucial as Ex.
PW1/A is a hand written complaint admittedly prepared by her after seven days of the incident that is on 13.05.2011 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 after having time to think regarding FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 21 of 23 the same and thus without being under any influence or immediate trauma. The very fact that the complainant did not mention that from the alleged place of incident, she alongwith her daughter were taken by the accused persons to the house of accused Rukmani and then beaten and threatened to write on the piece of paper to vacate the premises of the accused persons and also did not mentioned regarding the same to the police who took her to AIIMS Trauma Center for medical examination and also the fact that on the same night accused Chander alongwith 34 persons again reached her house and allegedly threatened her. Further, the fact that the complainant and her daughter did not get their medical examination conducted on the date of incident or subsequently itself shows that the complainant had not suffered any injury upon the alleged beatings given to her or her daughter by the accused persons. 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 they are not supported by any medical or documentary evidence. 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. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the guilt of the accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 22 of 23
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, all three accused persons namely Jyoti, Rukmani and Chander are acquitted for the offences U/s 323/354/506/34 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 25.09.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate02
(Mahila Court)/SED/Saket
Digitally New Delhi.
signed by
SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2018.09.26
13:37:21
+0530
FIR No. 129/2011 State Vs. Rukmani & Ors. PS Ambedkar Nagar 23 of 23