Delhi District Court
State vs . Dinesh Kumar Chaddha on 6 May, 2014
FIR No. 969/07 P. S. Lajpat Nagar
State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Chaddha
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA:
M.M. (MAHILA COURT) SED, SAKET NEW DELHI
State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Chaddha
FIR NO. : 969/07
P.S. : Lajpat Nagar
U.S. : 509/507 IPC
JUDGMENT
a. Date of its institution : 01.05.2008
b. Name of the complainant : Dr. Jyoti Kiran Kohli W/o Sh.
Shyam Sunder Kohli, R/o E110,
IInd Floor, Lajpat NagarI, New
Delhi.
c. Date of commission of
offence : 10.11.2007
d. Name of the accused : Dinesh Kumar Chadda S/o Sh.
D.D. Chadda R/o H.No. 276, Main
Bazar, Phatat cross, Ajmeri Gate,
New Delhi.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 507/509 IPC
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Case reserved for orders : 06.05.2014
h. Final order : Acquitted
i Date of such order : 06.05.2014
Page No. 1 of 7
FIR No. 969/07 P. S. Lajpat Nagar
State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Chaddha
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. By way of this judgment I will dispose of the present State case filed against accused Dinesh Kumar Chadda bearing FIR No. 969/07 u/s 507/509 IPC PS Lajpat Nagar.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 10.11.2007 from 4.15 pm to 5.45 pm at H.No. E110, IInd Floor Lajpat NagarI New Delhi accused used abusive words against complainant with intent to insult her modesty and also criminally intimidated her by calling her on her mobile.
3. In support of their case prosecution has examined six witnesses. EVIDENCE ON RECORD
4. PW1 is Dr. Jyoti Kiran Kohli, the complainant herself. She deposed that on 10.11.2007 she was coming with her husband in a car from Chandni Chowk and at that time she received a call on her mobile no. 9811278989 from mobile no. 9868455155. She received the calls continuously from 4.15 to 5.45 pm. On the phone, the accused kept threatening her and her husband and also used abusive language against her. She also gave phone to her husband to listen. Thereafter she started disconnecting the calls and lodged police Page No. 2 of 7 FIR No. 969/07 P. S. Lajpat Nagar State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Chaddha complaint. In her crossexamination, she admitted that wife of accused is her real sisterinlaw and accused is her close relative. She further submitted that she had communication with the accused during first three years of her marriage and thereafter she is not in talking terms with him. She admitted that there is dispute in the family regarding the Mandir which is in possession of her motherin law. She admitted to have strained relationship with her inlaws including the accused. She admitted the property disputes with her inlaws repeatedly.
5. PW6 is husband of complainant. He deposed that on 10.11.2007 while he was coming back from Chandni Chowk in the car, calls were made on his wife's mobile repeatedly. Caller was accusing his wife in filthy language and then he heard the phone. Further, he used abusive words against him also. He threatened PW6 that he will kill all his family. Rest of the witnesses are police witnesses who have proved investigation of this case.
6. In support of its case, defence has also produced motherinlaw of complainant before the court as DW1. She deposed that on Page No. 3 of 7 FIR No. 969/07 P. S. Lajpat Nagar State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Chaddha 05.11.2007 i.e. 5 days before the present complaint was made by complainant, a quarrel took place between her and her sons including husband of complainant.
7. It is argued by defence counsel that a quarrel between the family members took place on 05.11.2007 which is admitted by both the parties on record. The present complaint was filed on 10.11.2007 hence there is motive to file the present case. It is further submitted that complainant gave a complaint in writing to the police regarding the incident. But since no case was made out on the basis of said complaint, hence another statement of complainant was recorded by IO and thereafter FIR was lodged. Both the complaints are silent what were the exact insulting words which were used. Even the testimony of complainant is silent on the same. It is only PW6 husband of complainant who has deposed about the words used against him but it is an improvement.
8. Heard both the sides and gone through the record. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
9. I have gone through the complaint dated 10.11.2007 Ex.PW5/A Page No. 4 of 7 FIR No. 969/07 P. S. Lajpat Nagar State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Chaddha and Ex.PW3/DX. In the said complaint there is no allegation of using insulting words to insult the modesty of the complainant. There is general allegation of using of obscene and malicious language. On 21.11.2007 i.e. after 11 days of the incident, statement of complainant was recorded again. The said statement was an improvement only in the sence that now it is specifically mentioned in her statement that 'Ashlil' words were used. But in both complaints, it is not mentioned what were the indecent words which were used or what was the threatening given to the complainant or her husband.
10. Again in the testimony of the complainant recorded in the court it is not mentioned by complainant what were the indecent words which were used by the accused. She only mentioned that obscene language was used and they were threatened. Hence neither in the first complaint, nor in the second statement to police, nor in deposition before the court, the complainant could depose what were the indecent language which was used to insult her modesty. Hence it is a bare general allegation and no offence u/s 509 IPC is made out against the accused and accused is acquitted of this offence. Page No. 5 of 7 FIR No. 969/07 P. S. Lajpat Nagar State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Chaddha
11. As far as offence u/s 507 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the charge that has been framed against the accused is that he had threatened the complainant, but again it is not deposed by complainant before the court what were the threatening words that were used. Even both the complaints are silent on this aspect.
12. Though it is correct that PW6, husband of complainant had deposed that he was threatened that his family will be killed. But it was not stated by the complainant that there was any such threatening nor is it mentioned in the 161 CrPC statement of PW6 that there was any such threatening. The FIR was lodged in the year 2007 and it was in the year 2013 that PW6 stated for the first time that there was threatening that his whole family will be killed. After six years, it can only be called an improvement. Further the charge u/s 507 IPC had been framed against the accused as he threated the complainant but complainant did not state what were the threatening words. There is only general statement that there was threatening. Moreover, there is prior enmity between the parties which is also admitted on record.
Page No. 6 of 7 FIR No. 969/07 P. S. Lajpat Nagar State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Chaddha
13. Hence, prosecution is failed to prove the offence u/s 506 IPC also beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is hereby acquitted of this offence also.
14. File be consigned to RecordRoom.
Announced and dictated in (Twinkle Wadhwa) the open Court on 06.05.2014 MM/Mahila Court/SED/Saket New Delhi.
Page No. 7 of 7