Delhi District Court
Fir No: 558/05 1 State vs . Sonu on 15 December, 2014
FIR No: 558/05 1 State vs. Sonu
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : ROHINI, DELHI.
FIR No. 558/05
PS - SP Badli
U/s. 354/325/452/506 IPC
ID No. 02404R0711212007
15.12.2014
STATE VS. SONU
Date of institution : 03.11.2007
Date of Commission of Offence : 01.8.05 to 02.8.05
Name of the Complainant : Phoolo
Name, parentage & Add. Of the : Sonu
accused S/o Sh. Mehru,
R/o H. No. 29, Shiv Puri Colony,
West Badli, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 323/341/354/34 IPC
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Date for reserve of Order : 15.12.2014
Date of announcing of order : 15.12.2014
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The present FIR was registered at PS SP Badli against accused namely Sonu for the offences U/s 354/325/452/506 IPC.
FIR No. 558/05 State vs. Sonu 1 of 8
FIR No: 558/05 2 State vs. Sonu
2. In brief, case of the complainant is that from 01.8.05 to 02.8.05 at the time unknown accused Sonu (Dewar of the complainant) entered the house of complainant with bad intentions and hitted on the breast of the complainant and also beaten her up and thereby he committed the offence U/s 354/452/325 IPC of entering into the house of the complainant with the preparation to cause hurt and with intention to outrage her modesty and caused grievous hurt also. It is further alleged by complainant that accused Sonu has extended threat to kill the complainant on the said date and thereby committed offence of criminal intimidation u/s 506 IPC also. Complainant informed the police and thereafter FIR was registered accused Sonu was arrested from his residence at the instance of the complainant.
3. Investigation commenced and concluded by filing the challan. Arguments on charge were heard and charge u/s 325/354/452/506 IPC was framed against the accused namely Sonu to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses.
PW1 is W/HC Darshana who took the victim Phoolo to BJRM hospital and got her medical examination done.
PW2 is Smt. Phoolo (complainant/victim) who deposed that on 02.8.05 at about 9:00a.m. her dewar Sonu came at her room FIR No. 558/05 State vs. Sonu 2 of 8 FIR No: 558/05 3 State vs. Sonu with some bad intention and put his hands on her breast and also beaten her up. Accused also torned her clothes which she was wearing at that time and he was having iron rod with him through which he gave blows on her both hands and threatened her. Thereafter complainant informed the police and accused fled away from the spot. She was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel wherein she admitted that one civil litigation is pending between her and her in laws regarding some property and she denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicated the accused Sonu in the present FIR in order to grab the properties of her in laws. She admitted that she is not having cordial relations with her dewar i.e. accused Sonu. She categorically deposed that two civil litigations are pending against her in laws regarding her house.
PW3 is HC Satyawan, DO who proved the registration of present FIR as Ex. PW3/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/B. PW4 is Ct. Ramesh who deposed that accused Sonu was casually search by IO and during the search a country made pistol was recovered from his left dub for which ASI Rajender Singh prepared another Tehrir which was again taken by him and a Fir got registered. He deposed that at about 7:30p.m. On the date of incident accused Sonu was arrested from his house vide Ex. PW2/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/C. During cross examination he deposed that he do not remember whether any statement except the complainant was recorded or not.
FIR No. 558/05 State vs. Sonu 3 of 8
FIR No: 558/05 4 State vs. Sonu
PW5 is Sh. Rama Shankar, record clerk, BJRM Hospital who deposed that MLC of the complainant was prepared by Doctor Alok and opinion as to nature of injury is grievous as given by Dr. B. K. Kanwar. Both the doctors have left the services and therefore PW5 identified the handwritings and signatures of aforesaid doctors on the MLC Ex. PW5/A. PW6 is SI Kuldeep Singh who deposed that investigation of the present case was marked to him in the year 2006 and he deposited the MLC of complainant Phoolo in the hospital and obtained the nature of injuries as grievous.
PW7 is retired SI Rajender Singh who recorded the statement of complainant Phoolo Ex. PW2/A and proved rukka as Ex. PW7/A, rough site plan as Ex. PW7/B. He deposed that complainant Phoolo told him about the residential address of accused Sonu and accused Sonu was arrested from his house. During cross examination he deposed that he had not obtained the signatures of Smt. Sandhya on the arrest memo and he had not obtained signature of mother of accused on any document. He also deposed that he had not called any person from the locality and complainant has never disclosed him about any civil litigation pending between complainant and accused.
PW8 is Dr. Shipra Rampal, Radiologist, BJRM Hospital who proved her report as Ex. PW8/A.
5. Statement of accused Sonu has been recorded U/s 313 FIR No. 558/05 State vs. Sonu 4 of 8 FIR No: 558/05 5 State vs. Sonu Cr.P.C., wherein he have denied all the allegations made against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present FIR as complainant wants to grab some property and want to sell the same and he chose not to lead defence evidence.
6. I have heard the final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused and perused the record carefully. I have gone through the charge sheet, documents on record and entire material relied upon by the prosecution.
7. So far as offence U/s 325 IPC is concerned it provides that:
Whoever, except in the case, provided for by section 325, 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.
So far as offence U/s 354 IPC is concerned it is necessary to go through the provision which stipulates as under:
"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished with imprisonment..."
So far as offence U/s 506 IPC is concerned it provided FIR No. 558/05 State vs. Sonu 5 of 8 FIR No: 558/05 6 State vs. Sonu punishment for offence of criminal intimidation, therefore it is necessary to go through the provision of section 503 IPC which contains the definition of criminal intimidation.
Section 503 IPC stipulates that:
"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 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."
8. So far as offence U/s 452 IPC is concerned it is necessary to go through the provision which stipulates as under:
"Whoever commits house trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine..
9. PW2 Smt. Phoolo (complainant / victim ) categorically deposed in her examination in chief that on 02.8.05 at about 9:00 a.m. Her FIR No. 558/05 State vs. Sonu 6 of 8 FIR No: 558/05 7 State vs. Sonu dewar Sonu who is accused in the present case entered her room with some bad intention and he put his hands on her breast and also beaten her. He torned her clothes which she was wearing at that time and he was also having iron rod with him with which he gave blows on her both hands and threatened her. Perusal of charge sheet reveals that complainant has nowhere mentioned in her statement recorded by the police as well as the complaint that accused Sonu torn off her clothes and no such clothes have been recovered or seized by the police during investigation. Complainant / victim Phoolo has also deposed that accused was having iron rod with him and by using the same accused inflicted injuries on both the hands of the complainant. This is a new fact introduced at the stage of examination in chief by the complainant as case of prosecution nowhere mentions about any iron rod which was used as weapon of offence as well as specifically about the blows given by the accused with any said iron rod on the hands of the complainant. Perusal of evidence reveals that no such iron rod has been recovered from the place of incident and complainant has nowhere mentioned about any such weapon being used by the accused at the time of incident . Complainant has not uttered even a single word about aforesaid iron rod either at the time of recording her statement by the police or in the complaint lodged by her with the police against the accused Sonu. Neither the said iron rod has been recovered from the spot nor it is the case of prosecution that accused ran away from the spot with said iron rod. In these circumstances testimony of PW2 cannot be relied upon as it suffers from material improvements and contradictions. Furthermore, admitted fact of pending litigations between the complainant and her in laws gives a benefit of doubt to the credit of the accused and possibility of FIR No. 558/05 State vs. Sonu 7 of 8 FIR No: 558/05 8 State vs. Sonu accused being falsely implicated in the present FIR due to property reasons cannot be ruled out. Moreso when the accused was arrested from his house at the instance of complainant and not from the spot and the complainant has categorically admitted during cross examination that she is not having cordial relations with the accused Sonu (Dewar of complainant) and there are civil disputes pending between them. Complainant herself has not supported the case of prosecution by making material improvements in her testimony before the court and by introducing new facts involving use of iron rod and her torn off clothes at the time of incident. There is no other independent eye witness to prove the case of prosecution and the sole eye witness has not supported the case of prosecution as her testimony suffers from material improvements as discussed above. In the fact and circumstances and appreciation of evidence guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubts and therefore benefit of doubt goes to the credit of accused and he stands acquitted for the offence U/s 354/325/452/506 IPC.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion accused namely Sonu stands acquitted U/s 325/354/452/506 IPC. However, his surety bonds shall remain extended till six months from today u/s. 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(SHILPI JAIN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 15.12.2014.
FIR No. 558/05 State vs. Sonu 8 of 8