Delhi District Court
State vs . Satish Kumar on 28 March, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Satish Kumar
FIR No. 381/99
P.S. : Mehrauli
U/S 323/509/325 IPC
THE JUDGMENT
1. DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE : 09.08.2002
2. SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE : 69/2
3. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 01.06.1999
4. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :Sh. Budh Singh
5. NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS : Satish Kumar @ Titoo
s/o Late Sh. Gyani Ram
R/o Vill. Maidan Garhi,
Parjapati Mohalla, New
Delhi.
6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF :U/S 509/323/325 IPC
7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli
2
8. DATE OF RESERVE OF JUDGMENT : 19.01.2012
9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Accused is convicted
for offence under
Section 323 IPC and
Section 509 IPC.
10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 28.03.2012.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION OF CASE:
1. The case of the prosecution is that the on 01.06.1999 at about 06.30 p.m. inside the gali Maidan Garhi Chowk, the accused intending to insult the modesty of Asha uttered objectionable words heard by her, and caused simple injury to Ishwar Chand, Kanta Devi, Rajwati and caused grievous injury to complainant Budh Singh by pelting stones upon them. The FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant against the accused Satish Kumar and investigation was carried out.
2. Charge sheet under Section 509/323/325 IPC was filed in the court, accused was supplied the documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C and vide order dated 29.01.2009 charge for offence under Section 509/323/325 IPC St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 3 was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses and the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 20.05.2011.
4. PW1 Const. Anil Kumar deposed that on 01.06.1999 he was posted as Constable in P.S. Mehrauli and on that day he was on emergency duty along with HC Jai Singh and on receipt of call they had gone to AIIMS, where injured could not be traced and thereafter they returned to Police Post IGNOU, Maidan Garhi. The complainant came there and his statement was reduced in writing. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR at police station. He went to police station, got registered the present case FIR, reached to the spot of occurrence along with copy of FIR and rukka as per instructions of IO and handed over the same to IO. Statement of PWs were recorded. His statement was also recorded. Interrogation were made in respect of fight, however, nothing could be ascertained. On next day accused Satish was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/B and PW1/A respectively. He St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 4 correctly identified the accused in the court. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he has no knowledge that cross case FIR no. 380/99 was got registered by accused Satish Kumar regarding the same occurrence. He admitted as correct that accused persons were arrested in his presence in the said case.
5. PW2 SI Shiv Shankar deposed that on the day of incident he received a rukka through Const. Anil Kumar sent by HC Jai Singh. He further deposed that on the basis of rukka he registered the present FIR. He produced the original copy of FIR in the court which has been exhibited as PW2/A and his endorsement on rukka is Ex. PW2/B. No crossexamination was conducted by accused as he was a formal witness.
6. PW3 Asha deposed that on 3051999 she was returning from the house of her maternal aunt Smt. Rajwati. She was called by her uncle Satish and while she was inside his house, he closed the door of room and asked for love from her to which she replied she is like a daughter for him. However, he stated that there is no Chacha Bhatiji relation in love and he misbehaved with her and touched her body and further criminally intimidated her and further St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 5 threatened her that in case she discloses this incident to anyone he will get her kidnapped. Meanwhile, she was called by her mother and accused allowed her to go. She disclosed the incident to her mother and after two days on return of her father, nears and dears were called and accused also attended the said meeting and caused injuries to her father, mother, maternal aunt Smt. Rajwati and her husband Budh Singh. Her maternal uncle Budh Singh received fractured on his hand and her Bua got head injury as the accused hit them by the stone. Her father also got head injury. Her mother also got injury on head. They were treated in SJ hospital for their injury. He correctly identified the accused in the court. In her crossexamination she admitted as correct that that proceeding u/s 107/151 Cr.PC were initiated between the parties . She does not not know as to whether any compromise was arrived between the parties in that case. She also stated that she has no knowledge as to whether her parents are accused in case FIR no:380/99. She denied the suggestion that on 31599 accused Satish has seen her with a stranger boy to which he objected or she is deposing falsely against accused on that account. She further denied the suggestion that due to her false implication the fight took place between her parents, maternal uncle and accused. She denied the suggestion that due to family disputes and enmity, accused has been falsely implicated.
St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 6
7. PW4 Ms. Kanta deposed that about 1011 year ago, it was month of baisakhi at about 4.00 p.m. her daughter Asha was returning from her buaji's house to her house at Maidan Garhi. The accused Satish had his house on the way and she was called inside the house and accused threatened her daughter. The clothes of her daughter were removed by the accused and she naturally raised alarm from her house and accused forcibly put her daughter inside the house. Her daughter came to house after some time and narrated the whole story that her salwar was removed by the accused Satish. She correctly identified the accused in the court. She informed Bua and Foofa and it was decided to call elders of the accused. After two days, her husband came, then she started weeping and raising alarm to what happened with her daughter. The accused Satish forcibly entered into her house at about 6.30 PM and hit them with stone, she sustained injuries on her head whereas her Nandeo Budh Singh received injuries on his hand. Her husband Ishwar also received injuries on his head. They were shifted to medical hospital by police vehicle. She received stitches on her head and her Nandeo Budh Singh was plastered on his hand and subsequently was operated for the injuries. Her husband also received stitches. She does not remember as to whether police had recorded their statements or not. Police had not taken any suitable action against the accused. In her crossexamination she admitted as correct St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 7 that she is making statement in the court for the first time. She admitted as correct that proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.PC were initiated. She does not know as to whether the said matter was compromised or not. She does not know as to whether she was tried in a cross case pertaining to present incident. She does not know as to whether her husband also made statements for compromising present case in the said case filed by accused herein against her and her husband. She denied the suggestion that on assurance by her and her husband to withdraw the present case, Satish had withdrawn the said case. She does not know as to whether the present case was later no settled for the reason that Budh Singh and Lajwati left for heaven. She denied the suggestion that she has committed any fraud upon Satish by not compromising the present case despite giving assurances for withdrawal of cross case of accused Satish. Satish had no relation with her daughter except Chacha Bhatiji. She denied the suggestion that accused Satish had seen her daughter with another boy doing some indecent act and in order to save herself from all around criticism in this regard, she had falsely implicated accused Satish in collusion with her daughter. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely or that present case has been initiated in order to shield them from the cross case initiated by the accused against them.
St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 8
8. PW5 Ishwar Chand deposed that on 01.06.99 on returned to his house after performing his duty at about 6.307.00 PM. his wife Kanta informed him that accused Satish has misbehaved with their daughter two days ago after calling her in his house. His wife was raising alarm in this regard by saying that they treat the children of accused Satish and ors, in a decent manner and as to why they are treating their children in such a manner. His Jija Budh Singh suggested to call elders. Meanwhile, Satish entered their house and started beating them with stone and danda. He and his wife had received head injuries. His sister Raj Wati also received head injuries. His Jija Budh Singh received injuries on his hand. They informed the police at no. 100 and they were taken into the hospital AIIMS and they were treated for the injuries. Budh Singh's hand was operated and plastered and there was fracture injury. The case was registered on the statements of his Jija. He was interrogated by the police and his statements was reduced in writing by the IO. He correctly identified the accused in the court. In his crossexamination, he deposed that Satish is his cousin brother/ mama's son. He admitted as correct that proceedings u/s 107/151 CrPC were initiated. He denied the suggestion that the said matter was compromised. He voluntarily added that the Ld. Magistrate was of the view that matter can not be prolonged any further. He admitted as correct that there was a cross case was registered St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 9 prior to the present case FIR No. 380/99 at PS Mehrauli where in he, his wife, Budh Singh and Raj wati were accused. He denied the suggestion that Budh Singh and Rajwati were intending to compromise the present case also. He denied the suggestion that on his assurance, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for compromise. He admitted as correct that cross case FIR no. 380/99 was compromised, however, the fact was that the accused Satish realize that said case was false and he was willing to withdraw the said case. He cannot say as to whether the present case has not been compromised for the reason of death of Rajwati and Budh Singh. He denied the suggestion that he has made the statements in this court that he will withdraw the present case. He denied the suggestion that he has committed any fraud upon Satish by not comprising the present case despite giving assurances and withdrawal of cross case by accused Satish. He denied the suggestion that accused Satish had witnessed some indecent act with some boy and in order to save herself from all around criticism in this regard, she had falsely implicated accused Satish in collusion with him. He denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely or that present case has been initiated in order to shield them from the cross case initiated by the accused against them.
St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 10
9. PW4 (must be read as PW6) ASI Jai Singh deposed that on 01.06.09 he was posted at PS Mehrauli as a HC. On that day on emergency duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. at about 6:00 p.m. he received a call regarding a quarrel. He alongwith Ct. Anil reached Maidan Gadi, Budh Singh House. Nobody met him there. He came to know that all of them have gone to AIIMS. They went to AIIMS. He met with Dr. and collected 4 MLC's of Ishwar, Kanta, Rajwati and Budh Singh. In the AIIMS also nobody met him there. He came back along with Ct. Anil at Chawki of IGNOU. Meanwhile, the complainant Budh Singh came and he recorded the statement same is Ex. PW4/A. He made his endorsement Ex. PW4/B which bears his signatures at point A. He handed over the rukka to Ct. Anil for registration of the case. After registration of the case he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to me. Copy of FIR is already Ex. PW2/A. He inspected the site and prepared site plan which is Ex. PW4/C at the instance of the complainant which bears his signatures at point A. The statement of all the witnesses was recorded by him. He searched the accused as he was not at his resident. On 02.06.09 he arrested the accused. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo which is Ex. PW1/A which bears his signatures at point A. Later on he was released on police bail. Zamanat nama is Ex. PW4/D which bears his signatures at point A. On 03.11.09 he collected the result of MLC's. After St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 11 completion of the investigation challan was filed. In his cross examination he admitted as correct that complainant Budh Singh was in Delhi Police. He denied the suggestion that accused is falsely implicated in the present case under the influence of complainant Budh Singh. He denied the suggestion that he has recorded the statements of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC at PS. He does not know if the settlement between the parties for the offence u/s 107/150 Cr.PC was happened and same was amicably settled. He admitted as correct that case FIR no. 380/99 was also registered against the complainant and the witnesses of the present case and the same was compounded vide order dated 02.09.07. He is not aware that the present case was also referred to Lok Adalat along with case FIR no. 380/99 because at that time he was not well. He admitted as correct that despite notice he failed to appear before Lok Adalat on 02.09.2007 because he was admitted in hospital. He admitted as correct FIR no. 380/99 Budh Singh his wife, Ishwar Chand and Kanta all were accused. He denied the suggestion that merely to please the colleague Budh Singh he had registered the present case. He denied the suggestion that that he has conducted distorted investigation.
10. PW6 (must be read as PW7) Record Clerk, AIIMS hospital has duly proved St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 12 the MLCs of Ishwar Chand, Kanta, Rajwati and Budh Singh as Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/D. He also proved the xray of Budh Singh as Ex. PW6/E.
11.The statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the allegations leveled against him and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that he had informed Budh Singh that he had seen his daughter Asha with some unknown boy. He got agitated. He was in police and he called all the family members. Those family members started quarreling with him and also injured him. He has also registered a case against the Budh Singh, Rajo, Ishwar and Kanta Devi for the said incident. He compromised the said case in the Lok Adalat on their assurance but they refused to withdraw the present case. The accused has opted to lead DE and examined himself in his defence.
12.DW1 accused Satish deposed that he is the complainant in FIR no. 380/99, under Section 341,323,34 IPC titled as State Vs. Budh Singh etc. In the said case Budh Singh, Rajwati, Ishwar Chand and Kanta Devi were accused, who are distance relative of his. The above said case had been decided by Sh. Praveen Singh, M.M., New Delhi (Lok Adalat) on 02.09.2007. He had put his St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 13 signatures at point A which is Ex. DW1/A. Statement of accused Ishwar Singh at point B and statement of accused Kanta at point C. The proceeding under Section 107/150 were also initiated against the parties. This was ended in amicable settlement between the parties by order dated 04.02.2000 decided by SEM, South District, which is Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2 respectively. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He had informed Budh Singh that he has been daughter of Ishwar Singh namely Asha with some unknown boy on which Budh Singh, Rajo, Ishwar Singh and Kanta Devi started beating him. His son was admitted in AIIMS as he was suffering from the disease Brain tumor. He had gone to donate blood to his son at AIIMS and thereafter returned back at his house in the evening. All the said persons beaten him due to which he sustained injuries on his head. Police was called and he was taken to AIIMS. He had also lodged the FIR against the said persons bearing registration no. 380/99. After two days his son got expired. In his crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that on 20.05.1999 when Asha was returning from her Aunt's house he called her and closed the doors of the house or that he asked her for live and stated that there was no chachabhatiji relation in love and misbehaved with her, touched her body and threatened her to kidnap her if she disclosed his act to anyone. He further denied the suggestion that after two days he caused injuries to her St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 14 father, mother, bua and fufa. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to save himself being an accused in the present case.
13.The Ld. APP has argued that prosecution has been fully succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, it is argued by counsel for accused that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and same stands substantiated by the fact that with regard to same incident the cross case FIR no. 380/99 was filed by the accused herein in which the complainant and PW4 & PW5 were the accused. The disputes were amicably settled on assurance of the complainant herein. The accused was misled into withdrawing FIR no. 380/99 in Lok Adalat. Therefore, it is argued by counsel for accused that accused is innocent and cannot be convicted on the basis of testimony of prosecution witnesses.
14. I have bestowed my careful consideration to rival submissions made and also perused the entire record carefully. The accused herein examined himself in his defence and placed on record the statement of accused and PW4 & PW5 made at Lok Adalat as DW1/A along with order passed by SEM in proceedings initiated u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. as DW1/1. The Ex. DW1/A only St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 15 reflects that an amicable settlement was reached between accused herein (complainant in FIR no. 380/99) and PW4 and PW5 (accused in FIR no. 380/99) only in respect of FIR no. 380/99. It is does not anywhere establish that the victim herein also agreed to compromise the present case with the accused persons. Notably, the prosecution witnesses deposed in the court in the year 2010 whereas FIR no. 380/99 was compromised in Lok Adalat in the year 2007 i.e. after three years of compromise in Lok Adalat. The prosecution witnesses PW4, Kanta and PW5, Ishwar categorically denied the suggestion that they have committed any fraud on accused by not compounding the present case despite giving assurance regarding withdrawal of present case at the time of withdrawal of cross case by the accused Satish. They also denied that they also agreed to compromise the present matter at the time of compromise of cross case in Lok Adalat. Even otherwise, the compounding is a voluntary process and cannot be foisted upon the parties. So the prosecution case cannot be thrown out of the window on the ground of compounding of the cross case between the parties with regard to the same incident. Regarding the evidence produced by the prosecution, PW3 Asha, PW4 Kanta Devi and PW5 Ishwar Chand fully supported the case of the prosecution in all material particulars. They have narrated the incident with consistency and coherence. The defence has St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 16 failed to dent their credibility during crossexamination. There is nothing on record to doubt veracity of evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether Section 509 IPC is established against the accused?
15.As regards 509, the provisions of S. 509 speaks of insult to the modesty of the women by various means including 'intruding upon the privacy of the women'. The offence alleged was under Section 509 of IPC which reads:
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
16.PW3 Asha clearly stated in her evidence that accused called her in his room and after closing the door asked her for love, to which she replied she is like a St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 17 daughter to him but he continued and said that there is no chachabhatiji relationship in love. She further stated that he misbehaved with her and touched her body. The accused in the present case is uncle of PW3 Asha. The sequence of events as reflected in the evidence of PW3 clearly reflect the intention of the accused to insult the modesty of her niece Asha and to intrude upon her privacy. Therefore the essential ingredients of Section 509 IPC are duly proved by prosection beyond reasonable doubt and accused is convicted for offence punishable u/s 509 IPC. Whether the offence u/s 323/325 IPC is made out against the accused? The term "hurt" is defined u/s 319 IPC, which read as under:
"Hurt - Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt".
Section 323 IPC penalizes "voluntarily causing hurt". The same is defined u/s 321 IPC, which reads as under:
"321 Voluntarily causing hurt - whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli 18 cause hurt".
Section 325 IPC penalizes "voluntarily causing grievous hurt", which reads as under:
"325 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - whoever except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine"
17.In the present case the record clerk from AIIMS hospital proved the MLCs of Ishwar Chand, Kanta Devi, Rajwati and Budh Singh as Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/D. However the nature of injuries are not proved by prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has only proved that the accused voluntarily caused "hurt" to Ishwar Chand, Kanta Devi, Rajwati and Budh Singh. Therefore the accused is convicted for offence punishable only u/s 323 IPC.
Announced in the open court on this th day of 28 March 2012 (PRIYA MAHENDRA) Metropolitan Magistrate:
Mahila Court South Delhi, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi.
St. Vs. Satish Kumar FIR no. 381/99, P.S. Mehrauli