Delhi District Court
Cr CASES/94492/2016 on 16 April, 2018
In The Court Of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan
Magistrate02, (Mahila Court), South East, New Delhi
State v. Paramjeet Singh
FIR No: 338/2014
PS: Defence Colony
U/s: 354D/506/509/385 IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 27.03.2015.
CRC no. : 94492/2016
Name of the complainant : As per Chargesheet.
Name & address of the accused Paramjeet Singh,
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o Village Durgapur, Post
Garinegi, PS Kunda Chauraha,
District Kashipur, Uttarakhand
Offence Complained of : U/s 354D/506/509/385 IPC.
Offence Charged of : U/s 354D/506/509/385 IPC .
Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted.
Date of arguments : 13.04.2018.
Date of announcing of order : 16.04.2018
FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.1/22
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had stated in her complaint that she was a student of Dayal Singh College, Lodhi Road and at the time of incident was studying in B.A., Third Year. Around 1 ½ year prior to 14.12.2014, she came in contact with accused Paramjeet Singh. Her photographs were in the possession of the accused. Thereafter, she was engaged but accused started blackmailing her by demanding Rs.5 lakhs and if the complainant failed to fulfill his demands, he would break her marriage and would not let her get married. He further threatened the complainant that he would circulate her videos on internet. Accused would repeatedly give her calls and abuse her in filthy language and even threaten her that he would inform the same to her inlaws and had been harassing the complainant. Accused often used to give call to the family of the complainant and annoy them from his mobile No.9582851744 and 8958711860.
2. Pursuant to this complaint dated 14.12.2014 against accused, FIR was registered on 14.12.2014 and the matter was investigated. Chargesheet was filed on 27.03.2015. Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused. Vide order dated 27.02.2016 charge was framed against accused for the offence U/s 354D/506/509/385 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly matter was listed for prosecution evidence. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.2/223. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined nine witnesses during trial.
PW1 Complainant (as per chargesheet) deposed that in the year 2015, she was residing at H.No.305, Andrews Ganj, Indira Camp, New Delhi with her parents. At that time, she was studying in BA 3 rd year. At the time of studying in BA first year she had friendship with accused Paramjeet Singh. Her marriage engagement with her husband Gurbej Singh occurred on 23.11.2014, thereafter, accused went to the residence of her inlaws and shown them her personal photos and videos which were in his possessions in his mobile phone. Accused had threatened her demanding Rs.5Lacs and further threatened her that he will not allow or succeed her to marry with Gurbej Singh and if she got married with Gurbej, he will pour acid on her face. After solemnization of her marriage on 18.01.2015, accused reached at her matrimonial home situated at Meerut and damaged the car which was gifted by her parents to her. She further deposed that accused used to threaten her on her landline number 01126262947 and on the mobile phone of her father at 8800789594 from his mobile numbers 9582851744 and 08958711860. Accused started to threaten her from the said mobile phones after her engagement. She made a written complaint against accused on 14.12.2014 and had given her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. Accused used abusive language towards her and also threatened her on several occasions that he shall use her private pictures for wrong FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.3/22 purpose and put them on social networking sites. In fact, he also had misused her pictures. Even after her marriage, accused threatened her and also had once visited her matrimonial home and in a drunken condition came outside her house and used abusive language towards her inlaws and her husband and even entered into a scuffle with her husband and inlaws. The aforesaid incident occurred after filing of the present complaint. Accused harassed her even after she got married. Police had enquired from her and recorded her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
During crossexamination PW1 deposed that her complaint Ex.PW1/A has been written under her dictation and the same bears her signature. She had not mentioned the date of her engagement in her complaint and also in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. It was correct that in her statement Ex.PW1/A and her statement recorded vide Ex.PW1/B she had not mentioned that the accused used to threatened her by saying that he shall pour acid on her. It was correct that on 19.04.2012, she had eloped with the accused and her father had registered a DD entry in respect to the same. It was correct that thereafter she was brought back home by the police. She voluntarily stated that the aforesaid matter was resolved between them. It was correct that prior to the present complaint when she was having friendship with the accused, she used to roam around with him. It was correct that prior to the complaint, she used to talk with accused and his family from her mobile phone which was given to her by accused. She did FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.4/22 not remember the mobile number of the said phone. She was given the mobile phone by accused in the year 2012. It was wrong to suggest that she used to have the conversation with the family of the accused considering her marriage with the accused. It was wrong to suggest that on 10.11.2014, she had spoken to the accused and his family prior to her engagement on 23.11.2014. It was wrong to suggest that she used to talk to accused and his family some time prior to the present complaint. It was wrong to suggest that she used to talk to accused from her landline number also. She voluntarily stated that on her landline phone, they could only receive phone calls as there was no outgoing service and when accused gave a call on the landline number on her picking up the phone, he immediately used to start talking in abusive language. She had received threatening calls from the accused on her landline number and also on the mobile phone of her father. The accused started giving her threatening calls from 28.11.2014. She received threatening calls from the accused till 14.12.2014. Her parentsinlaw did not register any complaint against the accused upon his extending threats to them. She did not remember the exact date and time when the accused had demanded Rs.5Lacs. She further stated that accused had threatened her and demanded Rs.5Lacs from her on 28.11.2014. She did not file any complaint against the accused in Meerut. It was wrong to suggest that she was deposing falsely and improving her case to falsely implicate the accused due to the pressure of her parents. She had not given the print outs of the pictures/messages sent by FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.5/22 accused to her inlaws, husband and relatives. It was wrong to suggest that no such incident had happened.
PW2 Jai Singh (father of the complainant) deposed that on 23.11.2014, engagement of his daughter happened with Gurvej Singh. He came to know from parents of Gurvej Singh that accused Pramjeet Singh went to their residence and shown private photographs of her daughter to them on 28.11.2014. Thereafter, he told the accused after going to his place in the presence of his parents and confronted with him regarding his action. He also tried to make him understand that now his daughter had already engaged. However, despite the same, accused did not change his behaviour and started threatening his daughter. His daughter had met the accused while she was studying in college and became acquainted with the accused. He was told by the family of the boy whom his daughter was to get married that accused had in his possession some photographs and video of his daughter with him which he was misusing and was trying to influence them by not getting married to her daughter. His statement was recorded by the police. Accused threatened to his daughter that if she did not agree to marry with him then she would have to pay Rs.5 lacs otherwise he will throw acid on her. Accused used to threaten to his daughter through telephone on his landline number 26262947.
During crossexamination PW2 deposed that it was correct that his daughter was very well acquainted and friendly with the accused Paramjeet prior to 23 years of the incident. He was not aware if his daughter used to FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.6/22 talk to the accused. He was not having any knowledge regarding relation of his daughter with the accused. It was correct that he had made a complaint to PS Defence Colony regarding his daughter being missing. Thereafter, photocpy of document was shown to the witness, which was allegedly a settlement entered between the witness and the accused and his family before the PS Defence Colony in the aforesaid complaint. The same was mark X1 and the same was admitted to be correct by the witness. It was wrong to suggest that he was giving false statement before the court that he was not aware regarding affair of his daughter with the accused and the relations was to the extent that they both wanted to marry each other. He told the police in his statement under section 161 CrPC that he told the accused after going to his place in the presence of his parents confronted with him regarding his action. He also tried to make him understand that his daughter had already engaged. However, despite the same, the behaviour of the accused did not change and started threatening. He had seen the above said photographs in the mobile phone of parents of his son in law and he did not state this fact to the police. It was wrong to suggest that no such photographs exist hence no such photographs were given to the police during investigation. It was wrong to suggest that whatever he had stated in his examination in chief, was based upon the facts told to him by his daughter and he have no personal knowledge qua the same. It was wrong to suggest that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case only with the view to settle the score FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.7/22 with the accused. It was wrong to suggest that the accused and his daughter was having affair and were in regular communication via phone.
PW3 W/ASI Manju (Duty officer) deposed that on 14.12.2014, she was posted at PS Defence Colony as Duty Officer. Her duty hours were from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. At about 11.15 a.m. she received rukka from SI Pratibha Sharma. On the basis of said rukka, she registered the present FIR and she also made endorsement on the rukka. After registration of FIR, she handed over FIR and original rukka to SI Pratibha Sharma as further investigation of the present case was marked to her.
Opportunity to cross examine was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to the witness.
PW4 Surender Kumar (Nodal officer, Airtel) deposed that he was summoned witness and have brought CDR pertaining to mob. no. 8800789594 for period from 01.11.2014 to 31.12.2014 and customer application form (CAF) in the name of Jail Singh with his I D (Election Card) with regard to aforesaid mob. no. alongwith requisite certificate u/s.65 B of Indian Evidence Act. CDR was Ex PW4/A and the CAF with ID proof was EX. PW4/B (OSR) and the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act was Ex.PW4/C. FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.8/22 Opportunity to cross examine was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to the witness.
PW5 Saurabh Aggarwal (Nodal Officer, Vodafone) deposed that he was summoned witness and have brought CDR pertaining to mob. no. 9582851744 in the name of Kulwant Kaur for a period from 01.11.2014 to 31.12.2014 and customer application form (CAF) in the name of Kulwant Kaur with her ID (Election Card) with regard to aforesaid mob. no. along with requisite certificate u/s.65 B Evidence Act. CDR was Ex PW5/A and the CAF with ID proof was Ex.PW5/B (OSR) and the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act was Ex.PW5/C. Opportunity to cross examine was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to the witness.
PW6 Smt. Kulwant Kaur deposed that accused Paramjeet Singh was her cousin brother. He was running a mobile shop in Gaffar market and he was residing with his Bua namely Amardeep Kaur at J.J. Colony, Indralok. Accused had taken her identity card i.e. Election ID card for the purpose of obtaining one SIM as he had no identity proof for the aforesaid purpose. Accused had taken one Sim of Vodafone having No.9582851744 in her name and the aforesaid ID was used for obtaining the same. The said mobile number was not used by her and the same was used by accused Paramjeet Singh and only her ID was used for obtaining the said mobile number.
FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.9/22Thereafter, customer application form pertaining to the aforesaid mobile number and election ID card of witness, attached with the judicial file were shown to the witness to which she correctly identified it. The same was Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B. During crossexamination PW6 deposed that it was correct that it was in her knowledge that there was an affair between the complainant and accused Paramjeet Singh. It was also in her knowledge that the accused's family and complainant's family, both were aware about the relationship. It was correct that she and other family members also used to talk to the complainant from the same number. It was incorrect to suggest that the number has been used by her on number of days and she was deposing falsely.
PW7 Const. Dharamveer deposed that on 03.02.2015, he was posted as Constable in PS Defence Colony. On that day, he had joined the investigation of present case and he alongwith IO SI Pratibha went to Saket court around 1.30 PM and around 2.00 PM accused Paramjeet Singh had surrendered before the court and with the permission of the court, accused Paramjeet Singh was formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/A. Accused was interrogated by the IO and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW7/B and accused was sent to JC.
FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.10/22During crossexamination PW7 deposed that it had taken approximately 30 minutes while interrogating the accused and recording disclosure statement of the accused. He was not aware whether the IO was having knowledge regarding surrender of the accused on 03.02.2015. It was incorrect to suggest that the disclosure statement was prewritten by the IO and only the signatures of the accused were taken in the court.
PW8 Pawan Singh (Nodal officer, Idea) deposed that at present, he was working as Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Ltd. During the course of investigation, he had submitted the call details of mobile No.8958711860 for the period dated 01.12.2014 to 31.12.2014 to the police official. The certified copy of the same was Ex.PW8/A (running in to 08 pages, all bears his initials and seal of the company). He had also given the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to the police official in this regard, the copy of the same was Ex.Pw8/B, bears his initial and seal of the company. He also brought the certified copy of the CAF of mobile No.8958711860 of the subscriber Mahender Singh, the certified copy of the same was markA (running into three pages), all bears his signature and seal of the company at point A. Opportunity to cross examine was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to the witness.
PW9 Insp. Pratibha Sharma (IO) deposed that on 14.12.2014, she was posted as SI at PS Defence colony. On that day, complainant Ms. Pooja FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.11/22 Kaur came at the PS and informed her about the incident. She recorded her statement and verified the same which was Ex.PW1/A. She prepared the rukka and her endorsement on rukka was Ex.PW9/A. She handed over the rukka to the duty officer who registered the FIR on the basis of rukka. After the registration of FIR, duty officer handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to her as the investigation of the case was marked to her. During the course of investigation, she tried to search the accused. Also, a team was sent to the village of accused i.e. Village Durgapur, District Kashipur but they could not succeed to arrest him. She got recorded the statement of the complainant before the Ld. MM u/s 164 CrPC. In this regard, her application was Ex.PW9/B. She collected the CDR and CAF of the mobile No.8800789594 (which was used by the complainant and the subscriber of the same was her father namely Jai Singh), mobile No.9582851744 (which was used by the accused and the subscriber of the same was his cousin sister namely Kulwant Kaur), mobile No.8958711860 ( which was used by the accused and the subscriber of the same was his father namely Mahender Singh) from the company namely Airtel, Idea and Vodafone. Her letter in this regard were Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D. She had also obtained the certificate u/s 65B of IEA to the concerned nodal officer of the abovesaid companies in regard to the CDR. During the course of investigation on 03.02.2015, accused surrendered before the court and with the permission of the court, she formally arrested the accused and recorded his disclosure statement which are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B. She recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.12/22 161 CrPC. Thereafter, she prepared the chargesheet and submitted before the court.
During crossexamination PW9 deposed that As per complaint, complainant herself admitted that she was having affair with accused however, she did not have personal knowledge about the same. She did not make inquiry about the previous affair between complainant and accused, during the course of investigation. Thereafter, document already mark X was shown to the witness and witness was asked whether any inquiry was made by her pertaining to said document during investigation of the present case. Witness stated that she had not made any inquiry pertaining to the said document. She could not say whether the said document was received by her at the time of surrender cum bail application moved by the accused. It was wrong to suggest that she had deliberately not conducted the investigation fairly and put across true facts before the Hon'ble Court. It was correct that she cannot say specifically on which date a demand of Rs.5 lakh was made from the complainant. She did not know the dates on which the accused had extended abuses to the complainant as the same was during the span of one and half year. During the course of investigation, she did not give any notice to the complainant or her inlaws for production of alleged photographs of the complainant in possession of accused as there was apprehension of breaking of complainant's marriage and father of complainant requested her not to give any such type of notice to the complainant and her would be inlaws and due FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.13/22 to said reason, her inlaws were not inquired and made them as witness. It was wrong to suggest that the accused was having affair with the complainant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case only due to the pressure of her inlaws and parents. It was further wrong to suggest that the complainant willfully communicated with the accused and there was no occasion of threat or abusive language to the complainant by the accused. She did not have personal knowledge whether accused and complainant run away from their house for the purpose of solemnizing marriage prior to the incident.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
5. Accused examined two witnesses in his defence.
DW1 Paramjeet Singh (accused himself) deposed that he met the complainant in a marriage function in the year 2011. Thereafter, complainant shared her mobile number with him and they started talking to each other. Thereafter, for several years they remained into good relationship and friendship with each other. They often used to go together for watching movies and also visited shopping places. Thereafter, they both had decided to even get married to each other. On 24.04.2012, complainant had asked him to FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.14/22 visit her place since she wanted to get married with him and thereafter, he alongwith complainant left her home to get married to each other however, the family of the complainant came to know about it and they informed the police officials against him. Thereafter, police officials apprehended him and the matter was subsequently settled between them in the police station vide document mark X1. Even after the same, complainant continued to have contact with him and used to often give missed calls on his mobile number. She often used to give him a call to talk to him. At that time, he was residing with his bua at Wazirpur J.J. Colony near Inderlok metro station and complainant used to visit him at the aforesaid house atleast 23 times in a week. Thereafter, in the year 2014, the family of the complainant had got her engaged to someone else and even thereafter, complainant continued to talk to him by giving him calls. Later, he came to know that the matrimonial family of the complainant has come to know about his relationship with her and thereafter, they pressurise the family of the complainant to lodge a false case against him and if the same would not be filed, they would not marry the complainant. Thereafter, he came to know that a FIR has been registered against him by the complainant and thereafter, he surrendered before the court. The present case was a false case filed against him and he has not committed any offence.
During crossexamination DW1 deposed that he cannot tell the exact time when he had finally stop talking to the complainant however, it FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.15/22 was in the year 2014 or 2015 November. It was wrong to suggest that complainant had stopped talking to him after she got engaged. There was no any specific number from which she used to give him a call but the complainant used to give him a call from different number. Complainant used to give him a call from her mobile number i.e. 8860708056 and would call him on his mobile number 9582851794. It was wrong to suggest that complainant never called him from her mobile number and therefore, he was not able to tell the phone numbers from which he received a call from her. It was wrong to suggest that mobile number 8958711860 was the mobile number used by him during the year 2014 and the same was registered in his name. He voluntarily stated that the same was used by his family and parents and the same was with his family at his village. It was wrong to suggest that he used to give calls to the complainant from mobile No.8958711860. He did not know the person to whom the complainant got engaged. He had not brought any call records or documentary proof to show that the complainant was in willful relationship with him prior to and after her engagement. It was wrong to suggest that he had visited the matrimonial house of the complainant and shown her photo to her family of matrimonial home and even picked up a quarrel at her matrimonial home. It was wrong to suggest that he had threatened the complainant to expose her pictures with him on the internet and also demanded Rs.5 lakhs from her for not breaking her marriage. It was wrong to suggest that he used to follow and stalk the complainant even prior to her engagement despite her showing disinterest in FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.16/22 him and harassed her. It was wrong to suggest that he had not brought any call records or documentary proof to show that the complainant was in willful relationship with him prior to and after her engagement since he was deposing falsely with the intention to save himself.
DW2 Gurpreet Singh deposed that accused Paramjeet Singh is his cousin brother/bua's son. The complainant was in relationship with the accused from the year 2011 or 2012 till the year 2014. Complainant had even visited his house several times since at that time accused was residing at their house. He had also spoken to the complainant on several occasions and his entire family was aware about the relationship of the complainant with the accused. He had also seen the accused talking to the complainant on phone several times.
During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, DW2 deposed that accused resides with him till the year 2015 and stayed at his residence almost 45 years. He had not disclosed regarding the relationship of the complainant with the accused to the father of accused. He did not have any photograph to show that complainant visited his residence to meet the accused or attended any function of his family with the accused. It was wrong to suggest that he did not have any such document since the complainant never visited his residence to meet the accused. It was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely with the intention to save the accused as he is his cousin.
FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.17/226. Final arguments were advanced.
Court Observations:
7. 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:
The prosecution case finds its genesis in complaint dated 14.12.2014 Ex.PW1/A, wherein complainant has leveled allegations against the accused of having committed extortion by putting the complainant in fear of throwing acid on her if she failed to give Rs.5 lakhs to the accused and also threatened her by breaking her marriage by uploading her private pictures on the social websites in an indecent obscene language with the intention to outrage her modesty and also repeatedly tried to contact the complainant on several occasions, despite her clear indication of disinterest.
8. To the case of prosecution, accused has raised manifold defences. Firstly, that the complaint Ex.PW1/A is vague and bereft and that the FIR has been registered on the false allegations of the complainant. It is further argued that the chargesheet does not disclose the exact date, time or place of alleged incidents of following by the accused and the alleged incident of demand of Rs.5 lakhs by the accused from the complainant. Further the complainant did not depose on the lines of her complaint Ex.PW1/A, during her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC and her evidence recorded before the court.
FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.18/229. In the present matter, prosecution examined only two public witnesses and other witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal in nature. PW1 is the complainant and the victim in the present matter. PW2 is the father of the complainant. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/s 506/509/354D/385 IPC prosecution was required to prove that the accused had threatened the complainant with injury to her reputation or property with the intent to cause alarm to the victim or the complainant to perform any act which she was not legally bound to do. Further, to prove an offence u/s 385 IPC, it was required for the prosecution to prove that the accused had put or attempted to put the complainant in fear of injury and he did so to commit extortion and the same must be intentional. Further, for an offence u/s 509 IPC the accused should have uttered some words, sounds or gestures or exhibited any object or intruded upon the privacy of the complainant and such words, sound or gestures so made should have been made with an intention that it should be heard or seen by the women with the intention to insult her modesty. Also the prosecution was required to prove for an offence u/s 354D IPC that the accused had followed the complainant or contacted her with the intention to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite showing her disinterest.
10. In the present matter, the star witness was the complainant and therefore, it was required for her to corroborate her testimony with the complaint Ex.PW1/A. However, while testifying as PW1, complainant has improved her statement and had stated the words written in her statement FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.19/22 recorded u/s 164 CrPC which mentioned that "mai teri videos bana ke internet pe dalunga, meri photo mere inlaws ko dikhaiyega, agar use 5 lakh rupae nahi diye". However, the same does not find mention in her complaint Ex.PW1/A. Further, the factum of threatening the complainant by pouring acid on her does not find mention in her complaint Ex.PW1/A there was no reason for which the complainant could have not narrated the aforesaid words in her statement Ex.PW1/A i.e. her compliant. This improvement in the version of PW1 is crucial 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 particularly when the same had been recorded after a lapse of four days of the registration of the present FIR and the same was written after passage of reasonable time and thus without being under immediate shock. The very fact that the complainant did not mention about the aforesaid fact itself shows that the complainant had not suffered any immediate threat which made her believe that the accused was extorting money from her. Further, as regards the allegations of stalking, the same does not find mention in her complaint or in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC as she has vaguely stated that the accused had given a call to her on the mobile phone of her father after her engagement and had threatened to break her marriage. The complaint does not mention regarding the alleged abusive indecent language if any, used by the accused towards the complainant with the intention to insult her modesty are also not sustainable as the same are completely vague and do not inspire confidence. The complainant has FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.20/22 levelled general allegations against the accused persons and the same are devoid of merit as the complainant has not explained the same even during her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC. Further, the story of the complainant cannot be believed as she herself has admitted during her crossexamination that she was knowing the accused prior to the date of incident. Further, she had not handed over the alleged personal photographs or videos, which the accused had allegedly threatened her for uploading on the social website, to the IO during investigation and further it is nowhere stated by the complainant that the accused had actually uploaded any such photographs on any social media. Further, PW2 being the father of the complainant is only a hearsay witness and has nowhere stated that the alleged threats were extended in his presence to the complainant. Also, the alleged mobile phone from which the accused had shown the photographs and the videos of the complainant were never seized during investigation and therefore, it is doubtful if accused was ever in possession of private pictures of the complainant. The alleged threats were only made by phone calls, which are not corroborated on the dates alleged in the call detail records of the accused and the complainant placed on record. Also the complainant has not stated anywhere the exact date, time or place of any such demand of Rs.5 lakhs from her.
11. 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 and the documents relied upon by the prosecution, it can be FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.21/22 safely concluded that the guilt of the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12. In view of the above discussion and considering the material, available on record, the guilt of the accused Paramjeet Singh is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused Paramjeet Singh is acquitted for the offences U/s 354D/506/509/385 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 16.04.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate02
(Mahila Court)/SED/Saket
New Delhi.
FIR No.338/2014, PS Defence Colony State v. Paramjeet Singh Page No.22/22