Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Akram & Ors. on 6 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Ms. T. PRIYADARSHINI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR CASE/ 2033201/2016
STATE Vs. MOHD. AKRAM & ORS.
State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors.
FIR No. 108/2013
Police Station : Neb Sarai
Under Sections : 323/341/506/509/34 IPC
Date of institution : 17.08.2023
Date of reserving : 06.03.2023
Date of pronouncement : 06.03.2023
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 2033201/2016
b) Date of commission of : 29.03.2013 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Ms. Ruby
d) Name, parentage and : (i) Mohd. Akram, S/o Sh. Achchan address of the accused Ali,
(ii) Mohd. Achchan Ali, S/o Sh.
Arshad Ali,
(iii) Shameena, W/o Sh. Mohd.
Achchan Ali, All R/o H.No. 2290/13, Block-L 1st State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 1 of 22 Sangam Vihar, Delhi.
(iv) Moenuddin, S/o Sh. Mohd.
Islam, R/o H.No. 2296/13, Block L-
1st Sangam Vihar, Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : 323/341/506/509/34 IPC f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Accused Akram convicted for the offences u/s 323 IPC and 341/34 IPC. Accused Shamima, Achchan Ali and Moinuddin convicted for the offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC. Accused persons acquitted of the offences u/s 509/506/34 IPC. h) Date of final order : 06.03.2023 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Succinctly stated, the instant case was registered on the complaint/statement of complainant namely Ms. Ruby, who was residing in Gali no. 9, Sangam Vihar, near Asthal temple, New Delhi. She deposed that on 29.03.2013, at about 09:00 AM, when she was sitting in her shop at above mentioned address, one boy namely Akram, who was seated on his motorcycle in front of her said shop, replied in absurd language when she asked him to move ahead from her shop.
State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 2 of 22Subsequently, she called her father there, against whom also accused Akram used abusive language and who was punched by that boy. Thereafter, when the father of the complainant raised hue and cry to get some help, the accused again hit him by throwing stones. In the meanwhile, the father of the complainant called two police officials there, who pacified the matter. After sometime, family members of the accused again reached there and started abusing her and called her "randi". Later on, when the father of the complainant was returning to his house, the accused along with his family member again started beating him. In the meantime, the relatives of the accused persons who were more in numbers went to the house of complainant where they assaulted complainant's mother, father and her sister and tried to pull them out of their house. Thereafter, the medical examination of the parents of the complainant was got conducted.
2. Consequently, the FIR was registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").
CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 13.04.2015, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC and 509/341/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Vide order dated 22.03.2019, in compliance to the provisions of State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 3 of 22 Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "the Code"), the accused persons were called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of i) The present FIR, ii) DD No. 11A dated 29.03.2013 and
iii) MLC No. 359699 dated 29.03.2013 vide Ex A1 to A3.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
5. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses i.e. PW1 Ms. Ruby (the complainant), PW2 Sh. Sitaram (father of the complainant), PW3 Smt. Savitri (mother of the complainant), PW4 Rakesh Kumar, PW5 Sh. Imran Ali, PW6 Sh. Randhir Kumar Jha, PW7 Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, PW8 Ct Krishan, PW9 Retd. SI Lalaram and PW10 Inspector Vivek Malik [the investigating officer (IO)].
6. PW1 Ms. Ruby, the complainant in present case, deposed that on 29.03.2013, at about 09:00 AM, she was sitting in her shop situated at Sangam Vihar. At that time, she saw a person was talking on his mobile phone, seated on his motorcycle in front of her shop, when she asked him to move ahead of the shop, he used absurd language against her. Thereafter, when complainant called her father, the accused misbehaved with him also and beaten him. Consequently, the father of the complainant called at 100 number. To escape from police, the accused tried to ran away from the spot but the father of the complainant snatched the key of his motorcycle. Thereafter, the accused continued the hustle to take away his key. The matter was pacified by two police officials, who then left the spot. After sometime, when complainant was at her house, accused along with 20-25 people, reached there and in the State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 4 of 22 process of trying to pull complainant and her family members out of their house, they tore the clothes of complainant's sister and also threatened her of dire consequences, if she complaint against them. Then, they went to PS Neb Sarai to file their complaint. The parents of the complainant were got medically examined. The complainant correctly identified all accused persons. The witness was duly cross- examined.
7. PW2 Sh. Sita Ram, the father of the complainant and injured, having shop at his residence situated at Sangam Vihar. As per his deposition, on 29.03.2019 at about 09:15 AM, when he was inside his house and his daughter was sitting in the shop adjoining to the house, one boy namely Akram stopped his motorcycle in front of the said shop. It is stated that he started uttering filthy language to somebody on his mobile phone, objecting to such behaviour, PW1/the complainant told him to move from there. Not liking the way he was told, consequently he misbehaved with her. Out of fear, she ran away inside the house to ask for help and described the incident to her father. To confront the accused, PW2 came outside the house and asked him as to why he was misbehaving with PW1. On hearing this, the accused got annoyed, started misbehaving and manhandling PW2 and punched on his ear and nose, resulting into injuries to the PW2. Thereafter, PW1 called at 100 number and PCR van reached there. In the meanwhile, the accused ran away from the spot however, the key of the motorcycle was taken out by PW2, which he later handed over to PCR officials. Thereafter, he went to the house of neighbours, to accompany him to PS as directed by PCR officials, and when he returned, he witnessed that the accused came with State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 5 of 22 30-35 persons consisting of women and children also. His wife was beaten up by Shameena, who further dragged her by pulling hair out of the house and he along with both of his daughters was also beaten up by the mob. Thereafter, somebody called at PCR no. 100. After reaching at the spot, police officials sent them for their medical examination. His statement was recorded by police officials. The witness correctly identified accused persons in court. The witness was duly cross- examined.
8. PW3 Smt. Savitri, the mother of the complainant/injured, deposed that on 29.03.2013, in morning hours, she went to dispensary. When she returned, she witnessed crowd gathered there in front of her house where accused Akram along with other persons was misbehaving with her daughter. After sometime, when she came out of her house, accused Akram along with his father, mother, sister and other relatives started beating her. The mother of accused Akram caught hold of her hair, dragged her and beaten her resulting into injuries on her neck, head and his face was also bleeding. Some persons from vicinity intervened and saved her from accused persons. Thereafter, she went to hospital for medical treatment. She correctly identified all accused persons in court. The witness was duly cross-examined.
9. PW4 Rakesh Kumar, residing at Gali No. 9 of Sangam Vihar, deposed that in morning hours of 29.03.2013, he was present at his house. After hearing some noises, he came out of his house and saw the accused persons along with public persons gathered there but he did not witness the incident. PW4 denied the suggestion that father of the State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 6 of 22 complainant slapped the accused and took away the keys of motorcycle of accused as he was talking on mobile phone in abusive language. He also denied the fact that the quarrel took place because father of the complainant took away the keys of the motorcycle however, he accepted that the quarrel was pacified by the public persons. Thereafter, police officials inquired him and recorded his statement. He correctly identified all accused persons in court. The witness was duly cross-examined.
10. PW5 Sh. Imran Ali, who was residing at Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, deposed that on 29.03.2013, at about 09:00 AM, when he was going towards his shop situated in Gali no. 29, Budh Bazaar, he saw that accused Akram was talking on his mobile phone and a girl was abusing him. Thereafter, a person came out from that house, snatched the key of motorcycle of accused Akram and slapped him. Seeing all this happening, crowd and parents of accused Akram gathered there. Thereafter, accused persons taken back the keys of the motorcycle. He also deposed that the quarrel took place during the key snatching process. Police officials recorded his statement during investigation. He correctly identified the accused persons.
11. PW6 Sh. Randhir Kumar Jha, while returning to his house in Gali No. 9, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, witnessed crowd was gathered there. By reaching there, he saw that accused Akram along with co-accused of Gali no.9 was quarreling with PW2. Thereafter, accused Akram lifted a stone and pelted it to PW2. To resolve the matter, he made call at PCR no. 100, who then reached there in 15-20 minutes and pacified the matter. Police officials then asked both the parties to reach PS and give State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 7 of 22 their complaint to SI Vivek Malik. When PW6 along with PW2 and his family members was moving towards PS, all accused persons again reached there and gave beatings to the mother and the sister of complainant, by pulling hair of the mother and also gave fists and blows and abused them in filthy language. To resolve the dispute, his friend Rajesh Chaudhary, Sanjeet Kant Jha and advocate Arvind Kumar Chaudhary reached at the spot after receiving calls for help. Sh. Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, then made call at 100 number, thereafter, they all left for PS where his statement was recorded. The witness correctly identified accused persons. He was duly cross examined.
12. PW7 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jha, deposed on 29.03.2013 at about 9- 9:15 AM, he was at his house i.e. Block L-1 st, Sangam Vihar, Gali no.10. At that time, PW2 reached there and told him that Akram alongwith other persons misbehaved with him and his family. After passing of 2-3 minutes, when PW7 was near shop of PW2, he witnessed that accused Akram lifted a stone to throw at PW2. The matter was later on pacified by him and police officials also reached there, then he left for his house. After about 30 minutes, on hearing quarrel noises, he again went to the said shop where 25-30 persons including all accused persons were beating PW2 and his family members. Thereafter, he called the neighbours who pacified the situation. The witness took PW2 and his family members to hospital for their medical examination, also called media persons at the spot and finally he took them to the office of NDTV at Noida, UP. Police officials recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified the accused persons. He was duly cross examined.
State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 8 of 2213. PW8 Ct Krishan, who was posted at PS Neb Sarai, deposed on 29.03.2013, IO SI Vivek Malik, on receipt of DD no. 11A, went to place of incident i.e. Gali no.8, Sangam Vihar, where they met the complainant, who handed over her written complaint to the IO. IO endorsed the same and after registration of FIR, he went to the house of accused Akram, thereafter interrogated him, arrested him, conducted his personal search, prepared site plan and searched for other accused persons but to no avail. Accused Akram was released on bail. Thereafter, again, on 30.03.2013, remaining three accused persons reached to PS whom IO interrogated, arrested, conducted personal search and then released them on bail. The witness correctly identified all accused persons. He was duly cross examined.
14. PW9 Retd. SI Lalaram, deposed that he after receiving investigation of present case, on 01.05.2013, recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. Thereafter, he prepared charge-sheet and filed it in the court. The initial investigation of this case was conducted by the previous IO.
15. PW10 Inspector Vivek Malik, the IO (Investigating Officer) of present case, deposed that on 29.03.2013, he was on day emergency duty with duty hours from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. Thereafter, he deposed on the same lines as PW8 as they went together to the place of incident. Additionally, he deposed that public persons were gathered at the place of incident and he contacted an anonymous PCR caller who disclosed regarding the said quarrel but he was not joined as a witness. The complainant narrated the whole incident and the parents of the State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 9 of 22 complainant got injured in the said scuffle. The PCR officials then shifted them to hospital. In the meanwhile, IO received DD number but he did not recollect the said number, regarding the MLC of injured persons. The witness then along with Ct. Krishan went to AIIMS Trauma Centre where both the injured were admitted, he collected their MLCs and inquired them. After endorsement, he prepared the rukka, handed over the same to DO for registration of FIR, thereafter, he collected rukka and copy of FIR. IO and Ct Krishan again went to Gali no.13, Sangam Vihar, where PW2 met them. The witness joined PW2 as witness after he got discharged from hospital. IO arrested accused Akram upon identification of PW2, however, his disclosure statement was not recorded. IO did not prepare the site plan of the place of occurrence and place of arrest of accused. He recorded statements of both the injured and Ct. Krishan u/s 161 CrPC. The injured persons disclosed the name of co-accused persons, who were then called at PS and arrested them. Thereafter, the case was assigned to SI Lala Ram for further investigation. He correctly identified the accused persons in the court. The witness was duly cross-examined.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
16. In the statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code, the accused persons, denied the entire evidence against them. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They also stated that they did not cause any hurt to the family of the complainant. There were arguments on both sides and this case is false. Accused persons leaded evidence in their defence.
State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 10 of 22DEFENCE EVIDENCE
17. DW1 Sh. Vikas Singh, resident of Gali no. 10/4, L-1st, Sangam Vihar, deposed that on 29.03.2013, after hearing some quarreling noises, he came out and witnessed one shopkeeper was quarreling with Mohd. Akram. Mohd. Akram was asking to get his keys back, when he did not get the same, the witness went to the house of accused Akram, called his parents. The father of Mohd. Akram then, requested the shopkeeper to return the keys but of no avail. The lock of the motorcycle was opened somehow and took that motorcycle to their home. As it was a holiday, he went to play cricket, when he returned, in the evening, he got to know that police had taken Mohd. Akram to PS. Thereafter, he along with father of Mohd. Akram and other persons went to PS and after 1-1:30 hours, police officials released accused Mohd. Akram. Accused Mohd. Akram disclosed him that he was answering a call by stopping his motorcycle in front of abovestated shop, he was asked to leave that place but when he raised his voice the quarrel started from both the sides. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
18. On 13.04.2015, charge has been framed against the accused persons under Sections 323/341/509/506 read with 34 IPC and specifically, accused Mohd. Akram has also been charged under Section 323 IPC. Before appreciating the evidence, it is prudent to discuss the law relating to Section 34 of IPC.
State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 11 of 2219. The meaning and scope of Section 34 of IPC has been discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs. King Emperor [AIR 1924 CAL 257]. The Apex Court has held that Section 34 deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by several persons. If all are done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself; for that act. "That act" includes the whole action covered by the criminal act. Criminal act means that unity of criminal behavior which results in something for which an individual would be responsible, if it were all done by himself alone.
20. The essence of liability under Section 34, is conscious meeting of minds of persons participating in criminal action to bring about a particular result. As held in the case of Sudip Kumar Sen vs. State of West Bengal [(2016) 3 SCC 26] question as to whether there was any common intention or not depends upon inference to be drawn from proved facts and circumstances of each case. Totality of circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at conclusion whether accused had a common intention to commit offence with which they could be convicted.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Chauhan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2000) 4 SCC 110] has held that the essence of Section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. Such consensus can be developed at the spot and thereby intended by all of them. There are three essential ingredients of Section 34 of IPC State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 12 of 22 namely:
a) Criminal act must be done by several persons (i.e. at least 2 persons);
b) Criminal act must be done in furtherance of common intention; and
c) Participation of all persons in furthering the common intention.
22. Further, it is settled proposition of law that in order to invoke principle of joint liability in commission of criminal act as laid down in Section 34, prosecution should show that criminal act in question was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of common intention of all. Common intention may be through a pre-arranged plan, or it may be generated just prior to the incident. Common intention denotes action in concert, and a prior meeting of minds. The acts may be different, and may vary in their character, but they are all actuated by the same common intention. Question as to whether there is any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances of each case. Totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether accused persons had the common intention to commit the offence. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virender vs. State of Haryana [(2020) 2 SCC 700]. It is pertinent to note that participation in the commission of offence is a necessary element or condition precedent under Section 34. In offences involving physical offence, actual physical presence of the accused, apart from participation, is required. In other cases involving non-physical violence such as cases of misappropriation, cheating etc., physical condition could State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 13 of 22 not be a condition precedent to come to a finding of a joint liability.
Re: Sections 323 and 341 IPC
23. The issue to be determined is whether the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, on 29.03.2013 wrongfully restrained the complainant, her father and her mother and gave them beatings thereby committing an offence punishable under Sections 323/341/34 of IPC?
24. The fact that the parents of the complainant incurred injuries on the date of the incident is not contested by the accused persons as MLC no.359699 dated 29.03.2013 and MLC no.359700 dated 29.03.2013 have been admitted by the accused persons u/s 294 of the Code. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that on the date of incident i.e. 29.03.2013, the victim Savitri i.e. mother of complainant and victim Sitaram i.e. father of the complainant had sustained injuries which were simple in nature. Their admission in the hospital has been verified by PW7, Rajesh Kumar Choudhary, who has deposed that he took the victims to the hospital. Similarly, the IO PW10 has also deposed that he met the victims in AIIMS Trauma Centre and they had deposed about the incident in similar lines as the complainant.
25. Therefore, the next issue to be determined is whether Accused Akram is culpable for voluntarily causing hurt to the victims? The complainant in her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) has deposed that the accused Akram punched the victim Sitaram and even picked up a rock to hit him.
State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 14 of 22It is also mentioned in the complaint that after the intervention of the police, the accused Akram and his family members abused the victims and gave beatings to her father (victim Sitaram). Subsequently, the relatives of accused Akram assaulted the complainant, her mother, father, brother and sister after pulling them out of their residence. PW1 i.e. the complainant as well as PW2 i.e. father of the complainant have deposed in their examination in chief that the mother of the complainant was taken out from her residence by the mob and beaten. Specific allegations have been leveled against accused Shamima by PW2, Sitaram, as well as PW3 Savitri, that the accused Shamima dragged PW3 from the house by pulling her hair and beat her. PW2 in her deposition has also specifically stated that accused Akram, accused Acchan Ali, accused Shamima and some other relatives beat her. PW6 Randhir Kumar Jha has also specifically deposed that the accused Akram and the co-accused persons beat the wife of the complainant and her other daughter Pooja by pulling their hair and also giving them fist blows. Even PW7, Rajesh Kumar Choudhary has also deposed that accused persons beat the victims.
26. It is crystal clear from the depositions of the prosecution witnesses that there was an altercation between the accused persons and the complainant and her family. It also appears that as alleged by the Ld. Counsel for accused, the complainant's father had taken the key of the motorcycle belonging to the accused which caused escalation of the altercation into violence. However, the factum of voluntary cause of hurt by the accused persons is clear from the record. The depositions of impartial public witnesses such as PW7 and PW6 cannot be overlooked. The accused persons have not been able to elicit anything material from State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 15 of 22 the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Neither have they lead any cogent defence of alibi which could render the prosecution version implausible.
27. In their defence, accused persons have examined Sh. Vikas Singh as DW-1 who has deposed that accused Akram's motorcycle keys were taken by the father of the complainant and accused Akram was repeatedly asking for the said keys. He has also deposed that when the keys were not returned, he went to Akram's house to call his parents and thereafter, they were able to open the lock of the motorcycle without the keys. He has deposed that thereafter, he went to play cricket and when he returned in the evening, he got to know that the police had taken Akram to the police station. He has also deposed that accused Akram told him that when he stopped his bike in front of the shop, the shopkeeper told him to leave and on that issue, accused Akram raised his voice and they got into a quarrel. On perusal of his testimony, there is one glaring issue. As it is admitted that DW1 called parents of the accused Akram with respect to the keys of the motorcycle, he was present at the time of the alleged incident. He ought to have given some clarification with respect to the injuries sustained by the complainant's mother and father. However, he has not deposed in that regard at all. This casts aspersions on his deposition and it seems he is an interested witness.
28. There are certain loopholes in the investigation but in my considered view, the inconsistencies do not go to the root of the matter. The IO has admitted that he has not made the site plan. PW4 i.e. Rakesh State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 16 of 22 Kumar has turned hostile as in his examination in chief, he deposed that the incident did not take place in his presence. Further PW5 namely Imran also did not depose w.r.t. the alleged incident of beating by the accused persons of the complainant and her family. It is surprising that the prosecution did not cross examine PW5 as he has not deposed in conformity with the version of the prosecution. There are some minor contradictions as well with respect to the person who actually made the PCR call, the number of persons present in the mob etc. In her examination in chief, PW1 has deposed that her father had made the PCR call. However, PW2 i.e. father of the complainant, in his examination in chief stated that the complainant had made the PCR call. Subsequently, PW6 Randhir Kumar Jha deposed that he made the call at 100 number. Therefore the versions of the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent. But these minor contradictions do not render the case of the prosecution baseless especially in light of the depositions of the independent eye witnesses and the medical record.
29. From the above discussion, it is established beyond doubt that the accused persons had assaulted the victims i.e. PW2 and PW3 in furtherance of common intention with each other. Hence, they all would be vicariously liable for the acts of others even if no specific allegation qua accused Moinuddin and Acchan Ali has been made. Perusal of testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7 would clearly suggest that the accused persons had assaulted them with fists and blows and the victim PW3 was dragged by her hair. Since, they all were acting in furtherance of common intention, it would be actually be immaterial as to which person had actually gave the blow. If hurt as defined under State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 17 of 22 Section 319 and wrongful restraint as defined under Section 339 was caused by act of any one of the accused persons, all of them would be held liable for the same as if they themselves had caused the hurt.
30. Perusal of the above mentioned testimonies would clearly suggest that the accused persons had indeed assaulted PW2 and PW3 due to which the victims sustained injuries. The said assault was made in furtherance of common intention shared by the accused persons. It is not required for the prosecution to establish the role of each and every accused in the said assault. It is sufficient that accused persons had assaulted the victims and they had sustained injuries. As already discussed, the testimony of DW1 does not inspire the confidence of this court and therefore, could not be relied upon. Therefore, in view of above discussions and findings, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offence of having voluntarily causing hurt and wrongfully restraining the victims. Hence, accused Akram is convicted for the offences u/s 323 IPC and 341/34 IPC and accused Shamima, Achchan Ali and Moinuddin are convicted for the offences u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
Re: Sections 506 and 509 IPC
31. Section 506 of IPC provides the punishment for criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 of IPC and said section is reproduced below:
"Criminal intimidation - Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 18 of 22 to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."
32. Section 509 of IPC is reproduced below:
"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, of 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."
33. The allegation, as per the charge framed on 13.04.2015, is that the accused persons in furtherance of common intention called the complainant as "randee". However, no such averment is present in the complaint which is Ex. PW1/A. Even in her examination in chief she has not made any such averment. She has only stated usage of "rough and absurd language". In her examination in chief she has averred that the accused persons tore her sister's clothes and warned them of dire consequences if they made a complaint against them. PW2, Sitaram, has also not made any specific allegations with respect threats given by the accused persons. He has averred in his examination in chief that the accused Akram uttered filthy abuses to the complainant when she asked him to move the bike but he has not mentioned whether such abuses were intended to insult her modesty. Similarly, PW3 has not made any specific allegations which could establish the offences under Section 506 and 509 of IPC. The star witness of the prosecution, PW6, has deposed that accused Akram along with accused persons abused the complainant's sister using filthy language but he did not deposed that her State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 19 of 22 clothes were torn. Therefore, there are various apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the versions of the prosecution witnesses.
34. On reading of Section 509, it is apparent that in order to bring an act committed by a person within the purview of Section 509, the act must have been committed with the intention to insult the modesty of any woman or to intrude upon the privacy of such woman. Thus, intention is the basic ingredient of the offence under Section 509 IPC.
35. It is most pertinent to note that the act of insult alleged against the accused persons itself is unclear. Whilst complainant states that her sister's clothes were torn, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated said fact. Similarly, the witnesses have deposed that the accused Akram hurled abuses at the complainant but the exact nature of these abuses is unclear. It mostly appears that there is an altercation between the parties where there was a verbal spat that was involved. The main question that needs to be answered is whether the accused hurled abuses at her with an intent to outrage her modesty. Mere utterance of abuses does not automatically amount to outrage of modesty. In Abhijeet J.K. vs. State of Kerala [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 703], the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that there is a distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of insulting the modesty of a woman. In order to attract Section 509, merely insulting a woman is not sufficient and insult to modesty of a woman is required to have been done.
36. Section 509 criminalizes a 'word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman' and in order to establish this offence it is State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 20 of 22 necessary to show that the modesty of a particular woman or a readily identifiable group of women has been insulted by a spoken word, gesture or physical act. In State of Punjab vs. Major Singh [AIR 1967 SC 63], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body. Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping, the woman possesses modesty. In Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill [AIR 1996 SC 309], it was held that if the word uttered or the gesture made could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman, then it can be found that it is an act of insult to the modesty of the woman. In Basheer vs. Kerala [2014 KHC 5026], it was held that there must be a definitive allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into the privacy of woman.
37. Similarly, there is no clarity in the prosecution case as to the nature of threats which were given by the accused persons to the complainant and her family members which is punishable under section 506 of IPC. None of the prosecution witnesses including the victims have stated anything about the criminal intimidation by the accused persons. In Vikram Johar vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Decision dated 26.04.2019 in Crl Appeal No. 759 of 2019 in SLP (Crl.) No. 4820/2017], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere allegations that accused had abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of Section
506.
38. The only allegation is that the accused Akram abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506, IPC the State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 21 of 22 prosecution must prove that the accused threatened some person; that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested; and that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat." A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.
39. Apart from the allegation of abusive / filthy language, there is nothing on record to indicate that the complainant's modesty was outraged or that threats were given to the complainant to do or omit to do something which could have established the guilt of the accused persons. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove that the essential ingredients of Section 509 and Section 506 have been satisfied. Accordingly, accused persons are acquitted of the offences alleged under Sections 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Dictated and announced in open Court on 06.03.2023.
(T. Priyadarshini) ACMM/South District/Saket New Delhi/06.03.2023 State vs. Mohd. Akram & Ors. FIR No. 108/2013 (PS Neb Sarai) Page 22 of 22