Delhi District Court
State vs . Ranjit @ Ikka on 16 July, 2013
FIR No. 244/05 P. S. G.K. I
State Vs. Ranjit @ Ikka
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MONIKA SAROHA :
M.M.(SOUTH EAST DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI
State Vs. Ranjit @ Ikka
FIR NO. : 244/05
P.S. : G.K.I
U.S. : 354 IPC
JUDGMENT
a. Date of its institution : 23.10.2007
b. Name of the complainant : Ms. Chajran Tirki @
Reshamma W/o Sh. Sameer
Tirki R/o Vill. Saldega
Dipatoli, Kunjinagar,
Jharkhand.
c. Date of commission of
offence : 18.09.2005
d. Name of the accused : Ranjit Ikka S/o Anthony R/o
A110 Jamrud Pur, G.K.I
Village Nargara, PS Redehi
District Gumla Jharkhand.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 354 IPC
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Case reserved for orders : 06.07.2013
h. Final order : Convicted
i Date of such order : 16.07.2013
Page No. 1 of 9
FIR No. 244/05 P. S. G.K. I
State Vs. Ranjit @ Ikka
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The victim is a middle aged married woman residing in Delhi, away from his native place and the accused is a young man. Both the parties were strangers to each other on the day of incident.
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.09.2005 at 7.00 pm at A110, Jamrudpur, 4th Floor, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the spot) the accused used criminal force against the victim with intention to outrage her modesty.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court. Copies were supplied to the accused. Thereafter, Ld. Predecessor of this court had proceeded to frame charge for offence U/s 354 IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the offences and claimed trial. This charge was framed on 03.06.2008.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence.
The prosecution examined four witnesses. After conclusion of evidence, PE was closed. The gist of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is discussed in the paragraphs that follow:
EVIDENCE
4. PW1 ASI Mahender Singh is the Duty Officer. He deposed that on 19.09.2005 he was posted at PS G.K.I as Duty Officer between 5.00 pm to Page No. 2 of 9 FIR No. 244/05 P. S. G.K. I State Vs. Ranjit @ Ikka 9.00 am and on that day at about 12.10 midnight Ct. Bachu Singh gave him a rukka for registration of FIR sent by SI Darshan Singh on the basis of which he registered the present FIR. He exhibited the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/A. He further stated that he made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B and after registration of FIR he gave the copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Bachu Singh to hand over the same to SI Darshan Singh.
5. PW2 Ct. Bachu Singh was with the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 19.09.2005 he was posted at PS G.K.I as constable and on the intervening night of 1819.09.2005 IO received DD no. 40B and he along with the IO reached at Jamrud Pur where one Reshmani met them. He further deposed that IO recorded her statement and gave him rukka for registration of FIR. He got registered the FIR and came back at the spot after which IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and he was sent to AIIMS hospital to conduct his medical examination.
6. PW3 is is Ms. Chajran Tirki @ Reshamma, the complainant. She deposed that in the year 2005 she was residing on rent at Jamroodpur, Delhi at 4th floor with Iliyas Toppo and Ramesh Kumar. She further deposed that on 18.09.2005 at about 7.00 pm accused came there and on seeing her alone, he started talking with her in obscene language to which she objected but he held her hand, grabbed her and started kissing her on her cheeks and Page No. 3 of 9 FIR No. 244/05 P. S. G.K. I State Vs. Ranjit @ Ikka around neck forcefully on which she raised alarm. According to her, the incident was told to Iliyas Toppo and Ramesh Kumar after which Ramesh Kumar called at 100 number after which police came and recorded her statement, which she exhibited as Ex.PW3/A and that thereafter the accused was arrested.
7. PW4 SI Darshan Singh is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 18.09.2005 he was posted as SI at PS G.K. and on that day he received DD no. 40 B on which he along with Ct. Bacchu Singh reached at the spot where they met the complainant, accused and one person namely Ramesh and one Iliyas Toppo. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant on the basis of which he prepared rukka on the back of the complaint which bears his signatures at point B which same was handed over to Ct. Bachhu Singh for registration of FIR. According to him, in the meantime I prepared site plan which he exhibited as Ex.PW4/A and when Ct. Bacchu Singh returned back at spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka he arrested the accused vide memo which he exhibited as Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point B. He conducted the personal search of the accused vide memo which he exhibited as Ex.PW2/B bearing his signatures at point B. He also got Medical examination of accused conducted and a report of the same is on record. Thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet Page No. 4 of 9 FIR No. 244/05 P. S. G.K. I State Vs. Ranjit @ Ikka against the accused and same was filed in the court as per rules.
8. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE was closed. Statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded in which he admitted his presence at the spot on the day of the incident. He denied having kissed the complainant and said that he has been falsely implicated. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
9. Coming now to the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution for it is on the evidence of the prosecution and its strength that the fate of this case depends.
10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution was required to prove the following:
Firstly, that the accused used criminal force upon the victim. Secondly, that this force was used with the intention to outrage her modesty or in the alternative with knowledge that his act would result in outraging modesty of the victim.
It therefore needs to be ascertained if these two requirements have been fulfilled on the strength of the evidence adduced.
11. Now the victim appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 18.09.2005, the accused saw her alone in her room and talked with her in obscene language. Further she goes on to depose that thereafter he held her Page No. 5 of 9 FIR No. 244/05 P. S. G.K. I State Vs. Ranjit @ Ikka hand, grabbed her and started kissing her on her cheeks and neck forcefully.
12. Despite being cross examined she remained firm regarding the sequence of events. Her statement is corroborated by her earlier statement to the police i.e Ex PW3/A where also she has deposed on similar lines. The act of holding the hand of a lady, grabbing her forcefully, kissing her is certainly an act to which no noble intention can be attributed. The only intention behind such an act could be to out rage the modesty of the woman. The accused has admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. (in the presence of his counsel) that he was indeed talking with the victim on that day and his only defence is that one brother of the victim did not like that he was talking to the victim and therefore he made this false complaint to the police. The victim has correctly identified the accused. Therefore, her testimony is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Further, corroboration can be drawn from the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C of the accused.
13. During the arguments, Ld. Defence counsel has raised two arguments in defence. First contention is that the person examined in the witness box as PW3 is not the victim upon whose complaint, the present FIR was registered. According to him as before the court, witness has deposed her name as Chajran Tirki whereas the complainant was lodged by one Reshma, therefore the prosecution could not secure the presence of the victim before the court Page No. 6 of 9 FIR No. 244/05 P. S. G.K. I State Vs. Ranjit @ Ikka and some false witness has deposed as victim.
14. There is no merits in this argument. The victim was examined in the presence of IO, whose statement was separately recorded on that day and who has identified the victim in court that day vide his separate statement. Further the witness has appeared in the witness box and has deposed that indeed the accused committed the offence against her only. Further, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has admitted that he was talking with the person who deposed before the court and that Ramesh was the brother of the victim. Thus, the identification of the victim is established beyond reasonable doubts. No objection was raised regarding identity of the accused u/s 313 CrPC.
15. The other defence raised by Ld. Defence counsel is that the victim is not consistent in her testimony and she has made various improvements in her statement before the court as compared to her complaint as Ex PW3/A. There is no merit in this argument also. Ex PW3/A is materially the same as the version of the complainant before court. On both the places, she has deposed that the accused came to her, was talking to her in an obscene language and touched her body in an inappropriate manner.
16. It is correct that before the police she has only stated that the accused did "chhedchhad" with her and did "sarir ke sath chhechhad" whereas before the Page No. 7 of 9 FIR No. 244/05 P. S. G.K. I State Vs. Ranjit @ Ikka court, she has elaborated the exact acts of the accused. This detailed description before the court cannot be called as an improvement. It has to be considered that earlier she had given her complaint to a male police official soon after the incident when she must have been in a state of shock, sorrow and dismay. She was certainly uncomfortable in narrating the exact physical act of the accused before male police officials therefore, it was natural for her to instead use a generalized word like "sharir ke saath chhedchhad". On the other hand when she was deposing before the court, she was narrating the incident to a lady officer and a female stenographer years after the incident had already taken place. Although intimidating in its own way the atmosphere in the court particularly the presence of female staff and female presiding officer instills a sense of confidence in them and encourages them to speak more openly about the offence committed against them.
17. Thus, mere detailed explanation in such circumstances would not qualify as an improvement, therefore, there is no merit in this arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel.
FINAL ORDER
18. Thus, in view of the discussion above, considering the coherent testimony of the victim wherein all the necessary ingredients for offence u/s 354 IPC have been met this court is satisfied that the prosecution has Page No. 8 of 9 FIR No. 244/05 P. S. G.K. I State Vs. Ranjit @ Ikka proved that the accused used criminal force upon the victim with intention to outrage her modesty hence he is convicted.
19. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Announced and dictated in (MONIKA SAROHA)
the open Court on 16.07.2013 MM/Mahila Court/SED/Saket
New Delhi.
Page No. 9 of 9