Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit Verma & Ors on 10 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ( MAHILA COURT):
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
STATE Vs. AMIT VERMA & ORS FIR NO. : 223/14 U/s 341/354/509/506/34 IPC PS : JAITPUR A. ID No. of the Case : 02406R0116302014 B. Date of Institution : 03.05.2014 C. Date of Commission of Offence : 13.04.2014 D. Name of the complainant : Suman D/o Sh. Ram Dass Yadav E. Name of the Accused & his : (i) Amit Verma S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Parentage & Address R/o H. No. 382, Gali No. 12, BBlock Manbhari Kunj, Meethapur Extension, New Delhi.
(ii) Vikram S/o Sh. Gopal Singh R/o H. No. 2, Gali No. 1, Shivpuri Colony, Meethapur Extension, New Delhi.
(iii) Bunty S/o Sh. Sunny R/o H. No. 25, Gali No. 1012, BBlock, Manbhari Kunj, Meethapur Extension, New Delhi.
(iv) Ramesh @ Bhattu R/o village Hari Nagar, Rajpal ka Makan near Chopal, New Delhi.
FIR No. 223/14, PS Jaitpur State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 1 of 9 F. Offence complained of : U/s 341/354/506/509/34 IPC. G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty H. Order reserved on : 04.12.2015 I. Final order : Convicted J.Date of such order : 10.12.2015 Brief Statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. That on 13.04.2014 at about 02:30 PM at Agra Canal Road near Meethapur Chowk while complainant Suman was going from her rental accommodation to Safdarjang hospital and when she was passing from Gali no. 2, accused Amit while standing there started shouting on seeing her that " Dekho kya maal aa rha hai" and his two other friends whom she did not know at that time started misbehaving with her alongwith accused Amit and started pulling her dupatta which she was wearing and caught hold of her hand and wrongfully restrained her on which she ran and sat in a auto towards agra canal road and they also sat in auto and started misbehaving with her and when she objected, accused Amit gave her slap and thereby committed offence u/s 341/354/509/506/34 IPC.
2. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered u/s 341/354/509/34 IPC and investigation was carried out by the IO and upon completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 341/354/506/509/34 IPC was presented to the court against all accused persons for trial.
3. All accused persons were summoned and after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. FIR No. 223/14, PS Jaitpur State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 2 of 9 notice was framed u/s 341/354/354A/509/506/323/34 IPC against all accused persons on 28.05.2014.
4. Thereafter, matter was listed for PE. Prosecution cited six witnesses out of which five witnesses were examined. PW1 is Suman, complainant in present case, PW2 ASI Islamuddin, IO of the present case, PW3, SI Laxman Parsad, Duty Officer, PW4 Ct Rajiv Kumar & PW5 Ct Nishant, who accompanied IO during investigation. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
5. Statement of all accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately wherein they stated that allegations made by complainant are false and fabricated. Accused examined two defence witnesses namely HC Rajender Kumar & SI Harish Chander and thereafter defence evidence was closed.
6. Thereafter, final arguments heard on behalf of Ld APP for State as well as Ld counsel for accused.
7. I have perused the record carefully and have given thoughtful consideration to the case.
Appreciation of Evidence:
8. Complainant in her examination in chief has stated that on 13.04.2014, it was Sunday and she was going to Safdarjang Hospital and when she reached at Block A Gali No. 2, 34 boys were sitting. Accused Amit and Bhattu started saying that " Kya maal aa raha hai". She identified both the accused persons in the court. When she passed further, accused Amit said " Meri jaan aise nahi jane dunga" and he caught hold of her hand. Then accused Bhattu came and pulled her dupatta and she hurriedly rushed FIR No. 223/14, PS Jaitpur State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 3 of 9 towards the auto which was standing at a distance of 1015 steps away. She correctly identified auto driver present in the court. She told autowala to take her in the auto but he said they are his passengers but they were not his passengers, they were his friends. Then other three accused persons came near to auto and accused Amit said 'Vicky tu auto nahi chalayega tu mera dost hai". Accused Bunty pressed her breast and by that time she was already sitting in the auto. They all were standing and surrounded the auto. All accused persons started touching her at her various body parts. When she was shouting for help, they all gave beatings to her, they also abused her. One of the accused was putting his hand in her salwar and other was touching her cheek. One of the the accused caught hold of her hand. Accused Ramesh @ Bhattu had kissed her on her lips forcibly. Accused Amit had put his hand inside her salwar. In the meantime, one motorcycle wala came for help and asked what was happening with her from the accused persons but all accused persons threatened him that he will be killed and out of fear, he left the spot. When she told them that she will call police, then accused gave her his phone and said " le bahan ki lodi, kar le police ko phone". She somehow managed to escape and took another auto which was standing nearby and rushed towards her house. She narrated the incident to her mother. Her mother and father went to the house of accused Amit alongwith her but mother of accused started laughing and said that her son cannot do such things and further said that her son has gone for duty. She called at 100 number. Police came at the spot and obtained her statement and took her signatures on it. At around 12:30 in the night, accused Amit alongwith 45 more persons came but her mother did not open the door. On the next day in the night at about 01:30/02;00 AM, FIR No. 223/14, PS Jaitpur State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 4 of 9 accused Amit alongwith other accused persons came again outside her house and threatened that they will throw acid on her face.
Ld counsel for accused during the cross examination confronted the complainant with her statement given to police Ex. PW1/A as well as her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the complainant had not named accused Amit to have committed specific act of holding her hand and saying that " meri jaan aaj nahi jane duga". Ld counsel for accused had stated that complainant had not given consistent statement and she had repeatedly changed her statement and her statement is not reliable. Ld counsel for accused has further argued that either in Ex. PW1/A or in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., there is no averment of the complainant with regard to surrounding the complainant by all accused persons while standing outside the auto. He had further argued that there is no statement with regard to pulling her hand by one of the accused persons in her salwar and touching her cheek. He has further argued that it is also not stated by her in her statement given earlier that accused Ramesh had kissed her on her lips. It is also not stated that autowala had caught hold her hand forcibly. He had further argued that accused persons were threatened by the complainant to call police upon which accused Amit gave his phone to call police, this fact is also not mentioned in her statement Ex. PW1/A and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ld counsel for accused persons has stated that complainant is only public witness in the present case and her testimony is not sufficient to convict accused persons as she has made material improvements in her testimony during her evidence in order to falsely implicate the accused persons and, therefore, all accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
FIR No. 223/14, PS Jaitpur State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 5 of 9
9. Per contra, it is argued by Ld APP for State that statement of complainant and other witnesses are consistent and uniform and therefore accused persons be held guilty and punished as per law.
10. Heard. Record perused.
11. Before appreciating the evidence, it is pertinent to mention here that accused had admitted proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, Ld MM who recorded the proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has not been examined. Even otherwise, accused persons had confronted complainant in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C and had relied upon it and, therefore, the need to prove the same does not arise. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., complainant had given a version that on Sunday she was going to hospital and when she crossed the gali she found that 45 boys were standing there and on seeing her stated "
Kya maal jaa raha hai" and they started laughing and started talking among themselves in filthy language and out of them two boys got up and one of the boy caught hold her hand and pulled her towards him and another boy pulled her dupatta. She ran towards the road where auto rikshaws were standing, she sat in one of the auto and asked the auto driver to driver the same but accused persons told auto driver that he would not drive the auto till the time they ask him to drive. Even on her repeated request to drive auto auto driver did not start the auto and thereafter all of them sat in the auto and started misbehaving with her. One was touching her shoulder, another was touching her leg, someone was touching her chest, she cried on which she was beaten by them. She was not rescued by anyone. Her dupatta was pulled and was thrown on road. In the meantime one bike rider came and on threatening by accused, he also went away. One of the FIR No. 223/14, PS Jaitpur State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 6 of 9 accused among aforesaid accused persons namely Amit who had already misbehaved with her earlier asked the auto driver to take away the auto. She got down from the auto and run away from there by taking another auto and told incident to mother after coming back to the house. Police was informed. Police officials came in the night, accused persons came in the night and threatened them to pour acid on her face. When the police was called again, they asked her not to call at 100 number again. Police officials also denied to arrest the accused persons.
12. Perusal of statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C. shows that she has mantained her stand that while she was crossing the gali, 45 accused persons were sitting there and stated "kya maal aa rha hai", one of the accused caught hold of her hand and another one pulled her dupatta. Complainant while giving her statement to police and thereafter u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and even during her examination in chief has been consistent on her material stand i.e passing through the gali pulling her dupatta and taunting her by saying that "
kya maal aa raha hai" and accused persons misbehaving with her, running towards auto and taking auto and asking auto driver to drive, accused persons sitting in the auto, accused persons misbehaving with her in auto differently and giving beatings to her. The statement of complainant with regard to coming of one motorbike and going without rescuing her is also consistent and mentioned in the all three statements. Complainant has deposed like natural witness, a natural witness is not expected to give a parrot like statement where even the single word can it be added or deleted. In her statement, she had stated that accused persons had misbehaved with her, abused her, had beaten her. In the cross examination of the complainant, no suggestion has been given by defence FIR No. 223/14, PS Jaitpur State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 7 of 9 counsel for any of the accused persons giving any reason for false implication of the accused persons by complainant. It is not a case of previous enmity between the parties. It is not the case of family dispute between the parties. The testimony of the complainant with regard to act of the accused persons is consistent, reliable and turst worthy. The minor contradiction and minor discrepancy in the statement of witness do not affect the case of the prosecution and is not at all fatal to the prosecution. Even otherwise, the counsel for accused persons has argued that complainant had failed to give the name of the accused persons individually describing their individual acts in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and it is an after thought. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that alleged incident took place on 13.04.2014 and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15.04.2014 i.e. after two days of the incident. A person who had actually gone through such a horrible incident could be traumatised and cannot be expected to give a statement which is without any flaw. It is only one of the accused Amit whom she was knowing earlier and all others three were strangers to her. Ld counsel has failed to put forth any suggestion by which it can be said that it is a motivated case. As per testimony of complainant, accused were sitting together at the nukkad of the gali and they had misbehaved with complainant in furtherance of their common intention.
The section 34 IPC describes " When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".
I am of the considered view that omission of the complainant to describe individual role of the accused persons in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and now FIR No. 223/14, PS Jaitpur State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 8 of 9 describing them during examination in chief is not fatal to the prosecution case as she had not materially deviated from her case. Ld. Counsel for accused persons have nowhere given the suggestion that accused persons were not present at the spot. Accused persons had misbehaved with her with their common object to outrage the modesty of complainant. The auto driver had also joined the intention of the other accused persons from the time, complainant sat in the auto and accused persons also stating there and despite her repeated request, auto driver did not started the auto and allowed the accused persons to misbehave with complainant. In order to involve section 34 IPC, it is not necessary that some overt act has to be committed by all the accused persons. The common intention of the accused persons is clear from the testimony of the complainant as it can be gathered from the circumstances only. Therefore, I am of the considered view that all the accused persons are hereby held guilty for the commission of offence u/s 354/341/323/509/506/34 IPC.
14. Let they be heard on point of quantum of sentence on 15.12.2015.
Announced in the Open
Court on 10.12.2015 ( VANDANA JAIN )
Metropolitan Magistrate03 (MAHILA COURT)
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi 10.12.2015
FIR No. 223/14, PS Jaitpur State Vs Amit Verma Page No. 9 of 9