Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/486/1999 on 4 March, 2015
In The Court of Ms. Shefali Barnala Tandon, MM, Mahila Court, NW,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State v. Daljeet Singh
FIR No.486/99
U/s : 354 /509 IPC
PS : Mangol Puri
JUDGMENT
S.No. of the Case : 02401R0117822000
Date of Commission of offence : 16.05.1999
Name of the Complainant : Name withheld
Name of the accused : Daljeet Singh @ Babaji
S/o Late Shri Mohinder Singh
R/o 10381, Bageechi Peer Ji,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
Offence Complained of : 354 /509 IPC.
Plea of accused : Plead not guilty.
Date of order : 04.03.2015
Final order : Convicted
Brief Reasons For Such Decision:
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.05.1999 at about 1:00 PM at C2/52, West Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mangol Puri accused used criminal force on the person of complainant name withheld with intention to outrage her modesty and with intention to insult the modesty of complainant uttered the words within her hearing and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 354/509 IPC and accordingly chargesheet was filed under Section 354 /509 IPC. FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 1/ 16
2. After supplying documents to the accused charge for the commission of offence punishable U/s 354/509 IPC was framed against the accused on 10.01.2002 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses namely PW1 name withheld, PW2 Ms.Amrit Kaur Chopra, PW 3 HC Ram Prasad , PW 4 ASI Govind Singh, PW 5 Narender Kaur and PW 6 Inspector Satish Bhardwaj.
Relevant portion of testimonies of PWs is reproduced as under
PW1 name withheld, complainant deposed that there were some problems in their house due to which there were some disturbances in their house. One Aunty suggested them that they should go to Babaji Daljeet Singh, who resided in Peer Ji ki bageechi and that he would solve their problems.
She further deposed that she alongwith her mother and father visited the house of accused. There was a seat 'gaddi' of Babaji and many people had come there. Babaji put his hand on the head of her mother and her mother felt giddiness. After that, they started visiting house of the accused. Accused advised them to sell their house and to purchase a house in West Enclave and they purchased a house in West Enclave accordingly. Accused told them that if they want to rescue themselves from evil spirits they should let their first floor for prayer and this way accused FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 2/ 16 started doing 'pooja' in first floor of their house. Accused started inviting other people to that place. Accused used to come there on Thursday and Sunday. She further deposed that once she visited accused at Peer ki bageechi where accused asked her whether she knows about intercourse. She replied that she don't and remained silent. Accused told him that he would explain it to her at a later stage.
She further deposed that once there was a pain in her tooth and accused moved his hand on her face and started obscene talks and he further told that in foreign countries sexual intercourse is a normal thing but in India it is not usual because the thoughts of people here are backward.
She further deposed that accused narrated in detail to her that when a man and a woman get married what they do. She told accused that she is of his daughter's age then why he is telling all that. Many times accused hugged her with malafide intention and two times he forced her for kiss. Whenever they visited the accused for prayers, then he used to place his hand on her legs and breast at times. Accused once told her that she is his wife and later on stated that he was cracking jokes. Accused further told her that he is king of evil spirits and he can make her sit naked in front of him. She further deposed that accused has threatened her that he can make her mother run naked in entire West Enclave on which she got frightened.
She further deposed that once when she visited accused , he asked her whether he can kiss her upon which she got tense. Whenever FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 3/ 16 accused used to visit her home, she used to offer water, tea and snacks etc. from her house and served him like a 'guru'.
She further deposed that accused told her that perhaps she has not watched blue films that is why his talks were not effecting her. Six years spent while visiting the accused. One Sunday, when all people left, accused called her for a glass of water. It was noon time. She went to accused to serve glass of water. At that time, accused caught her hand and tried to outrage her modesty on which she asked him to leave her otherwise she would raise an alarm and she raised alarm. Her mother and a friend of her mother reached there and rescued her from the accused during which her shirt also got torn. At that time, one Dr. Kamal Jit Banga and her husband also reached there and took away the accused in their car. The abovesaid incident happened on 16.05.1999. At that time, her father was not present at home hence they complained about the matter in the evening. The same is Ex.PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. Then police went to the house of accused to apprehend him but the accused has fled away by that time. She further deposed that they had shown the place of incident to police.
During her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel she failed to remember the date and month when accused asked her the meaning of intercourse. She further failed to remember the date and month when accused put his hand on her cheeks. She admitted that she had not mentioned in the police complaint that the accused tried to kiss her in the FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 4/ 16 year 1999.
She further deposed that she had gone with the torn shirt to the P.S and had shown to the police. The police did not take the same into possession. The police did not ask for production of shirt.
She admitted that she has not got mentioned in police statement that accused gave suggestion for sale of the house, of Shakti Vihar, on the ground that there were evil spirits. She admitted that she had not mentioned in her police statement that at the instance of accused, they purchased that house. She further admitted that she had not mentioned in her police complaint that accused had asked for first floor of the house to start 'paath pooja' there and it was given to the accused for 'paath pooja'. She further admitted that police complaint was written by her and it is in her hand.
PW 2 Ms. Amrit Kaur Chopra deposed that they had provided some space to Daljeet Singh who was having his spiritual seat at the aforesaid place and was under the name of DarbarAkeNoor. That they had provided the space to him on the account that there were tensions in their family and Babaji had told them that he has spiritual powers by which he can solve any kind of problem, including the tantrik power which can eradicate 'bhoot prait/evil spirits'.
She further deposed that Babaji used to visit their home on Sunday and used to do programme of 'paath' and 'pravachan'. Lungar was also organized there. She and her daughter namewithheld used to serve FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 5/ 16 Babaji.
She further deposed that on 16.05.1999 in the noon time, she and her friend Narendra Kaur went upstairs to second floor of the room. As soon as they came downstairs, she heard cries of her daughter name withheld. Both of them ran towards first floor in 'Darbar' and saw that Babaji was standing embracing her daughter ("babaji (name withheld) ko jhappi maarkar khare the"). They forcibly rescued (name withheld) from Babaji and sleeve of shirt of (name withheld) got torn. She was shocked that Babaji has cheated them as being a spiritual person, he has committed such a heinous act. Then they took (name withheld) to second floor. (name withheld) was weeping. She was in traumatic condition. They were not able to accept that a person on whom they have posed so much faith have cheated them. After that, Babaji fled away from the spot in car of Dr. Banga and Lady Dr. Banga. People from neighbourhood gathered there and they suggested her that she should register FIR with police. Accused was correctly identified by the witness.
During her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel she failed to know that the organization Darbareknoor is registered or not. She admitted that she is member of the said trust. She also admitted that her husband was cashier in the said trust. She failed to have knowledge whether the police has prepared any site plan or not.
PW 3 HC Ram Prasad deposed that on 16.05.1999 he was posted at PS Mangol Puri as Constable. On the written complaint of Kumari FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 6/ 16 (name withheld), he alongwith SI Satish reached at C2/52, West Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi where IO prepared a rukka and he took the same to PS and got the case registered and returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO.
On 20.05.1999 the accused (correctly identified) surrendered before the Court and pursuant to the order of Court the accused was interrogated and arrested vide Inspection Memo and Arrest Memo and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C respectively bearing his signatures at point A. During his crossexamination, he failed to remember that whether the photograph Ex.PW3/DX1 to Ex.PW3/DX6 were taken in his presence or not.
PW 4 ASI Govind Singh (wrongly mentioned as PW3 in judicial file) deposed that on 16.05.1999 he was posted as Duty Officer in PS Mangol Puri. On that day, he got registered the case FIR No.486/99 at 09:45 PM on the basis of rukka sent by SI Satish through Ct. Ram Prasad.
He brought original FIR bearing his signature at point A and proved carbon copy of the same as Ex.PW3/A. PW 5 Narender Kaur (wrongly mentioned as PW4 in judicial file) deposed that Amrit Kaur is her friend. She used to visit the house of Amrit Kaur as she was her friend. On 16.05.1999, it was noon time at about 01:30 PM, she was at the house of Amrit Kaur, when she was coming downstairs from the house of Amrit Kaur alongwith her, she heard the noise FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 7/ 16 of crying of a girl. On hearing this noise, they immediately climb the stairs.
When she reached, they saw daughter of Amrit Kaur i.e. (name withheld). Daljeet Singh (correctly identified) was holding the hand of (name withheld) (hath pakda tha). Daljeet Singh was holding the hand of (name withheld) in his cabin. On seeing this, she was shocked and she uttered "yeh kya ho raha hai". She pulled (name withheld) in order to save her from the clutches of Daljeet. On this, Daljeet got afraid and tried to run away and she shouted and the neighbours from the locality also gathered. Kawaljeet Banga and her husband Bhupinder Singh also came there and they starting making arguments with her. On this, Daljeet ran away from the spot. This incident took place at first floor C2/52, West Enclave. Police also made inquiry from her and recorded her statement.
She further deposed that Amrit Kaur used to invite Daljeet Singh for performing some puja kirtan etc. at her house occasionally, generally on weekends and for this purpose first floor was allocated.
Accused was correctly identified by the witness. During her crossexamination, she deposed that she never went to Darbar ek noor. She never went to the first floor of C2/52, West Enclave for listening to the pravachan of accused. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW4/D1 where it is so written from point A to A1). She failed to know that if she had spoken about the loose character of Babaji earlier (confronted with Ex.PW4/D portion B to B1 where it is so written).
FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 8/ 16
PW 6 Inspector Satish Bhardwaj (wrongly mentioned as PW5 in the judicial file) deposed that on 16.05.1999 he was posted at PS Mangol Puri as SI and he was incharge of Police Post DOST. On that day at about 09:10 PM - 09 :15 PM complainant (name withheld) came to PP DOST and handed over him a written complaint which is already Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he prepared rukka from point X to X1 which is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A and sent Ct. Ram Parsad for getting the case registered at PS Mangol Puri. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant reached at C2/52, West Enclave Pitampura, Delhi. In the meantime, Ct. Ram Prasad, also reached at the above said spot. He prepared site plan on the instance of the complainant which is Ex.PW5/B bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that on 20.05.1999, accused Daljeet Singh (correctly identified) surrendered before the concerned Court. He made application for interrogation of accused Daljeet @ Babaji. Accused Daljeet was formally arrested and personally searched in the present case vide memos already Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C respectively bearing his signature at point C. He recorded the statement of witnesses.
He further deposed that on 17.06.2000, he had formally arrested suspects Mrs. Kanwaljeet Banga and Bhupender Singh Banga vide memos Ex.PW5/X1 and Ex.PW5/X2 bearing his signature at point A. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before Hon'ble Court through SHO.
FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 9/ 16
During his crossexamination, he failed to remember whether any article was seized by him at the spot or not. He also failed to remember whether any torn clothes were handed over to him by the complainant.
Thereafter PE was closed.
4. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence on record along with documents were put to him to which his stand was of general denial and also stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent. Akhand Path was being performed at Gurudwara since 01.03.1999 to 26.05.1999 and on 16.05.1999 a langar was held at the premises after bhog of Akhand Path. Kamaldeep Chopra, Dheeraj Chopra, Mrs. Sangeeta Chopra and Mrs. Amrit Chopra came at 11:00 A.M in the gurudwara and some people were also with them and he was threatened to vacate the premises and he said that it belongs to the society who have eight members. With the permission and intention of all the eight members of the society the premises will be vacated as it belongs to the society and he was beaten and filthy and abusive language was hurled on him and said that if he don't vacate the premises, they will implicate him in some false case. In the evening of 16.05.1999, Nishan Saheb was cut and holy books were thrown out and torn and cash box was also looted. A call was made at 100 number by Dr. Kamaljeet Banga and they went to PS also for lodging the complaint to the said effect but no complaint was lodged against the miscreants. He had initiated a private complaint also against all above four mentioned persons. FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 10/ 16 A compromise talk was also held 4/5 years back. He chose to lead evidence in his defence.
In his defence accused examined two witnesses namely Shailender Kumar as DW1 and Ravinder Chhikara, UDC as DW2.
DW1 Shailender Kumar, Asstt. Ahlmad brought the summoned record i.e. case file of CC No.261/01, PS Mangol Puri. The original of the certified copy in the file. He further deposed that he had checked and verified the certified copy with the original from Page No.1 to 21 on the documents marked as Ex.DW1/5. Certified copy of the order dated 11.09.2002 is also checked and verified with the original and the same is Ex.DW1/6.
DW2 Ravinder Chhikara had brought the original book No.IV containing GPA registered as document no.12810 in book no.IV Volume No.139 on Page No.63 to 65 registered on 26.06.1996 Ex.DW2/1 is the certified copy of the document and the original is produced (OSR). He had also brought the original book No.IV containing SPA registered as document no.12811 in book no.IV Volume no.139 on page no.66 registered on 26.06.1996 Ex.DW2/2 (wrongly mentioned as Ex.DW2/1) is the certified copy of the document and the original is produced (OSR). He had also brought the original book no.1 containing sale deed registered as document no.2377 in book no.1 volume no.765 on page no.76 to 80 registered on 11.05.1999 Ex.DW2/3 (wrongly mentioned as Ex.DW2/2) is the certified copy of the document and the original is produced (OSR). He FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 11/ 16 had also brought the original book no.I containing rectification deed registered as document no.2423 in book no.I volume no.766 on page no.80 to 82 registered on 12.05.1999 Ex.DW2/1 is the photocopy of the document.
5. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of accused as well as complainant. I have also heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. Ld. Defence counsel has filed various judgments. The record has also been perused carefully. The judgments filed on behalf of accused does not deal directly to the present case and some of them are basically on the ingredient of Section 354 IPC.
6. To bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 354 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove:
i) that the person assaulted was a female;
ii) that the accused assaulted or used criminal force against her;
iii) that he intended thereby to outrage her modesty; or
iv) that he knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the testimony of the witnesses and perused the entire material on record carefully. FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 12/ 16
8. The complainant/PW1 (name withheld) has given specific and categorical statement of the incident. She has identified the accused correctly in the Court and her testimony inspires the confidence of this Court as there is no contradiction or inconsistency in the same. PW 2 and PW 5 are the eye witnesses to the said incident qua commission of offence u/s 354 IPC and their testimony has also corroborated the version of complainant in toto and deposed that when they reached at the spot the accused was holding the hand of the complainant. Though PW2 has stated that accused hugged the complainant whereas PW5 and the complainant deposed that accused caught hold the hand of the complainant but the nomenclature of the said act would not amount to contradiction in their statement. PW 3, 4 and 6 are the official witnesses and nonseizure of the torn shirt would not wash away the prosecution case in its entirety.
DW1 and DW2 are formal witnesses to the fact that there is property dispute between parents of the complainant and the accused but they are not witnesses to the incident.
The only defence taken by the accused is that present false case has been filed due to property dispute between him and parents of the complainant.
9. As already earlier stated that the testimony of complainant/ victim/PW1 (name withheld) is without any inconsistency and inspire the FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 13/ 16 confidence of this Court and minor contradiction qua the investigation can not be said to wash off the prosecution case, it is concluded that the Prosecution has proved the case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, for the commission of offence punishable u/s 354/509 IPC. Consequently, accused Daljeet Singh is hereby convicted for the 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 04.03.2015.
(Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM, Mahila Court, North West Rohini Courts,Delhi FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 14/ 16 State v. Daljeet Singh FIR No.486/99 U/s : 354 /509 IPC PS : Mangol Puri 11.03.2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict with Ld. Counsel Sh.Sandeep Vishnu and Anil Kumar.
Sh. Digvijay Singh, Ld. Counsel for the complainant. An application u/s 3 / 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360 Cr.PC 1973 has been filed on behalf of convict.
Ld. Counsel for convict has submitted that convict is aged about 50 and convict has a big family comprising of three sons. Ld. Counsel for convict has further submitted that present FIR pertains to year 1999 and chargesheet was filed in year 2002 and convict has faced trial for almost 13 years. He further submits that there is no previous involvement of accused in any such matter. He further submits that he has deep roots in the society. He further submits that convict has now reformed himself and is not involved in such offences nor he will commit such offence in future. Hence, it is requested that he be admonished under Probation of Offenders Act or he be released on probation for good conduct considering the age and trauma he has faced during the trial.
On the other hand, Ld.APP for the State has requested for maximum punishment to the convict stating that offence committed by him is serious in nature therefore, no leniency be shown to the accused in the present matter. Ld. APP for the State has further argued that absence of previous conviction in crime against women is not of much relevance FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 15/ 16 and probation in such matters should not be given.
Ld. APP for the State has relied upon judgments of Apex Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State and Dhananjay Chatterjee v. State.
Ld. APP for the State has further argued that crime against women is to be dealt seriously as it is not a normal offence and after conviction sympathy should not be granted to convict.
Arguments heard. Case file perused.
In the present matter, I am not inclined to give benefit of probation to the accused as the crime against women is on high rise and releasing accused on probation would not have deterrent effect in the society, which is need of the hour. But considering the age of the accused and keeping in view the present facts and circumstances of the case, convict is released after due admonition for offence u/s 509 IPC and is sentenced imprisonment till the rising of the Court for commission of offence u/s 354 IPC.
Copy of this order be given to convict free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM: MC: NW: Rohini 11.03.2015 FIR No.486/99 State v. Daljeet Singh Page No. 16/ 16