Delhi District Court
The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That On ... vs Raju Kumar Shah Page No. 1 Of 5 on 19 January, 2017
In The Court of Ms. Shefali Barnala Tandon, MM, Mahila Court, NW,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State v. Raju Kumar Shah
FIR No. 57/2013
U/s : 354/509 IPC
PS : Subhash Place
JUDGMENT
S.No. of the Case : 56/2 - 25/2/13
Registration number : 529090/2016
Date of Commission of offence : 30.01.2013
Name of the Complainant : Ms. D (name withheld, to conceal
identity)
Name of the accused : Raju Kumar Shah S/o Shri Ram Bihari
R/o V.P.O. Parsa, Distt. Madhubani,
PS Ghoga Dhida, Bihar
Offence Complained of : u/s 354/509 IPC.
Plea of accused : Plead not guilty.
Date of reserving the order : 17.01.2017
Date of order : 19.01.2017
Final order : Conviction
Brief Reasons For Such Decision:
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.01.2013 at about 03.30 pm at House No. G-532, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Subhash Place, the accused uttered obscene words and used filthy language within the hearing of complainant Ms. D (name withheld) with intention to insult her modesty and also used criminal force against her by holding her hand and thereby pushing her with intention to outrage her modesty and committed offence punishable U/s 354/509 IPC.
2. After supplying documents to the accused and hearing arguments on point of charge, charge for the commission of offence punishable U/s 354/509 IPC was framed against accused Raju Kumar Shah on 08.04.2013, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 05 witnesses namely (1) Victim/complainant Ms. D, (2) Gaurav, (3) HC Ranveer Singh, (4) Ct. Pradeep and (5) IO/SI Baljeet Singh.
FIR No. 57/2013 State V. Raju Kumar Shah Page No. 1 of 5 Thereafter PE was closed.
4. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence on record along with documents was put to him to which his stand was of general denial and also stated that no such incident ever happened, rather he was manhandled by the complainant and her son. The girl who was working in their house was also slapped by her son Gaurav. Accused further deposed that it is a false case and he has been falsely implicated. He further deposed that he was the one who called at number 100 after complainant and her son manhandled, abused and threatened him. He opted to lead evidence in his defence.
Accused examined himself as DW-1 and ASI Kartar Singh as DW-2 in his defence and thereafter, DE was closed.
5. Final arguments heard on behalf of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused.
During course of arguments Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that accused is a handicap from one leg so he cannot commit the offence as alleged. He has further argued that accused was the one who called at number 100 and further there was a settlement between the parties but still the complainant pursued the present matter. In rebuttal, Ld. APP argued that all the settlement deeds are denied by the complainant being forged and only by calling at number 100 it cannot be held that accused was victim himself. Further, no medical examination of the accused has been conducted though he alleged that he was manhandled by the complainant and her son. Furthermore, no proper suggestion as to settlement or manhandling the accused has been put in cross-examination to PW-1 and PW-2, hence it is only a sham defence which has been taken by accused.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the testimony of the witnesses and perused the entire material on record carefully.
In the present matter, PW-1/complainant has deposed that a girl FIR No. 57/2013 State V. Raju Kumar Shah Page No. 2 of 5 Nirmala was working in her house as a maid from 27.12.2012 till 30.01.2013 and she was employed through placement agency namely Archana Placement at Shakurpur, Delhi. Further, the said maid left her house and when she talk to the owner of placement agency i.e. accused in the present matter, he told her that Nirmala had returned to the placement agency. Thereafter on the same day i.e. on 30.01.2013 she went to the office of placement agency alongwith her son Gaurav where they met accused. On her request to the accused to either send the said girl to her house or to arrange some other in her place, the accused started abusing her and used vulgar language. He also misbehaved with her, pushed her and caught hold of her hand. Accused also called some goons to harm them. Thereafter call was made to police and incident was told to the police officials but they did not take any action at that time. Thereafter they returned home. Her husband was out of station for two days and after his return she alongwith him went to the concerned police station and lodged the complaint against the accused which is Ex.PW-1/A. Accused was correctly identified by the witness.
PW-2/Gaurav deposed exactly on the same lines and stated the incident as deposed by PW-1. Accused was correctly identified by the witness.
The official witnesses i.e. PW-3 proved endorsement on rukka being Duty Officer, PW-4/Ct. Pradeep testified to have got registered the FIR on instructions of IO and also proved the Arrest Memo of accused Ex.PW-1/B and joined further investigation. PW-5/IO SI Baljeet Singh deposed that on 02.02.2013 a complaint was handed over to him by the complainant on basis of which he prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. He went to the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW-5/B. He interrogated the accused and arrested him vide Memo Ex.PW-1/B. Thereafter he recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the Chargesheet and filed it in the Court.
In his Defence accused deposed as DW-1 that he provided a maid servant to the complainant but complainant used to beat her and did not provide proper food to her at right time, hence the maid came to the house of accused. Further on 30.01.2013, the complainant alongwith her son and some friends came at his house/spot of incident and abused him as well as the maid servant.
FIR No. 57/2013 State V. Raju Kumar Shah Page No. 3 of 5 The complainant and her son also gave beatings to him. Thereafter he made a call at number 100. PCR van reached and a settlement took place between him and the complainant with intervention of police. He gave Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as per the settlement in presence of police officials. The settlement is Ex.DW-1/1.
DW-2 deposed that as per record DD Entry 22 A dated 30.01.2013 was recorded on call of accused and same is Ex.DW-2/A. The defence of the accused is that complainant and her son came to his house/spot of incident where he is running his placement agency on 30.01.2013 and abused him as well as gave beatings to him. Thereafter a settlement was arrived between them and he paid Rs.20,000/- to the complainant but he has not examined any police official qua the settlement, though he has stated that settlement was arrived with intervention of police official. No MLC has been filed on record. Further in the cross-examination of complainant/PW-1 suggestion has been put to the witness that she never went to the office of placement agency on 30.01.2013, hence a self contradictory defence has been taken by the accused. Furthermore, no suggestion as to beatings given to the accused has been put to both the witnesses i.e PW-1 and PW-2 in their cross- examination. Surprisingly, the maid namely Nirmala has not been examined in defence by the accused though she is stated to be the material eye witness by the accused himself. Admittedly, accused has not given the alleged settlement deed Ex.DW-1/1 to the IO during investigation and also the said document does not bear the signatures of accused or complainant as deposed by accused himself. In his cross-examination as DW-1 accused has also admitted that partnership deed of his firm Ex.A4 does not bear his or his partners signatures. Further admittedly he was not medically on 30.01.2013 either by the police or on his own. With this background it is apparent that accused is creating a false defence which is self contradictory and has also placed on record incomplete documents, genuineness of which is in doubt on prima facie perusal. Further, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that accused is a handicap from one leg but it is not the case that he ran after the complainant or gave kick blows rather the case is that he hurled abuses to the complainant and also pushed her by his hand.
FIR No. 57/2013 State V. Raju Kumar Shah Page No. 4 of 5 It is well settled preposition of law the defence of the accused must be consistent through out the trial and in the present matter different version /defence has been taken by the accused which creates a serious doubt upon his testimony and he has not examined the other material eye witnesses, hence, the best evidence has been withheld by him only qua his defence. Therefore, an adverse presumption falls against him that there was no eye witness to the said incident as alleged by the accused, except PW-1 and PW-2. Further, there is no name of the police officials who went to the spot on receipt of DD Entry No.22-A dated 30.01.2013 on record.
7. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is consistent and inspire the confidence of this Court and leaves no iota of doubt towards the guilt of the accused. With this background, as the Prosecution has proved the case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, for the commission of offence punishable u/s 354/509 IPC, accused Raju Kumar Shah is hereby convicted for commission of offence u/s 354/509 IPC.
Let accused be heard on point of sentence.
Announced and dictated in the open Court today i.e. on 19th January, 2017 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM, Mahila Court, North West Rohini Courts, Delhi All pages are duly signed.
FIR No. 57/2013 State V. Raju Kumar Shah Page No. 5 of 5