Delhi District Court
3. Title Of The Case : State vs Reshma & Poonam on 25 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI : ACMM0I
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
1. Case No. : 0433/P/08
2. Unique I.D. No. : 02401R5615552004
3. Title of the Case : State Vs Reshma & Poonam
FIR No. 238/2002
PS : Paharganj
U/s 388/389/120B IPC
4. Date of Institution : 19.08.2004
5. Date of reserving judgment : 25.08.2012
6. Date of pronouncement : 25.08.2012
J U D G M E N T :
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 0433/P/08
b) The date of commission
of offence : In the month of May 2002
c) The name of complainant : Sh. Ram Gopal
S/o Sh. Peshi Ram
R/o 508/2, Mantola, Paharganj,
Delhi
d) The name of accused : 1. Reshma
W/o Parvesh Kumar
R/o 851. Mantola, Paharganj, Delhi
2. Poonam
W/o Vipul Kumar
R/o 8463, Arya Nagar, Nabi Karim, Delhi
FIR NO. 238/2002 State Vs Reshma & Poonam Page
1
of 6
e) The offence complained of : 388/389/120B IPC
f) The offence charged with : 388/511/34 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) The final order : Acquitted
i) The date of such order : 25.08.2012
j) Brief facts of the decision of the case :
1. The present case in respect of offences punishable U/s 388/389 read with section 120B IPC was registered pursuant to directions on the complainant's application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 02.05.2002.
2. The complainant's wife purchased house No. A51, Mantola, Paharganj, Delhi. One Pravesh Kumar held tenancy at first floor of this premises with his wife and others. At the relevant time, an eviction petition was pending with the concerned ARC/Delhi on account of nonpayment of rent. The petition was likely to be decided on the on the date of hearing i.e., 16.04.2002. The incident pertains to a day which is not specified in either the complaint U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C or in the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) dated 13.03.2002 made over to SHO PS Paharganj. On the date of the incident, Smt. Reshma and Poonam, wife & sister of Pravesh Kumar respectively, threatened the complainant at his shop that either he makes payment of Rs. 3 lacs to them as compensation for evicting the premises or be prepared to face a case of rape or attempt to rape or attempt to outrage the modesty of a married women. On registration of the case, the police recorded the FIR NO. 238/2002 State Vs Reshma & Poonam Page 2 of 6 statement of witnesses, arrested the accused persons and filed charge sheet.
3. On the basis of the material at hand, Ld. Predecessor Court framed charge in respect of attempt to commit offences punishable U/s 388/34 IPC. To be precise, the accused persons were charged U/s 388/511/34 IPC to which they claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined five witnesses including the complainant as PW1 and his neighbors namely Sh. Jai Bhagwan (PW2) and Sh. Ramesh Singh (PW3), first IO/Insp. Vinay Malik and second IO/SIAshok Kumar (PW4 & 5 respectively)
5. The incriminating evidence against the accused persons was explained to the both the accused persons namely Reshma and Poonam in their statements U/s 281 Cr.P.C read with Section 313 Cr.P.C . The accused Reshma submitted that a false case was filed by the complainant to harass them to get the tenanted premises vacated. The accused Poonam replied that a falsely case was filed to harass the coaccused. No DE was produced by the accused persons.
6. I have heard the Ld. APP and Mohd. Iqbal Khan, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
7. I have already pointed out that the date of incident is not specified in the complaint U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C and consequently the FIR as well as previous complaint (Ex.PW1/A). The incident pertains to the shop of the complainant. In FIR NO. 238/2002 State Vs Reshma & Poonam Page 3 of 6 its support, the complainant had produced certain witnesses before IO out of whom the prosecution produced PW2 and PW3 in the court.
8. The complainant(PW1) in his 'examinationinchief' does not specify the exact nature of the threat given to him. According to him, he had mentioned all the facts in his complaint made to the police i.e., Ex.PW1/A. The witness was found to be resiling and thus, was cross examined by Ld. APP for State. In the cross examination, this witness volunteered that coaccused Poonam had not uttered a single word to him This stand is against the facts constituted in the complaint (Ex.PW1/A). Being nonspecific about the threat in 'examinationinchief' is also a departure from the fact earlier stated in the complaint (Ex.PW1/A).
9. According to PW2 Jai Bhagwan, at the evening time on the date of the incident, which this witness was unable to recall, accused Reshma alongwith some ladies had come to the shop of Ram Gopal. The accused Reshma was asking the complainant to pay Rs. 3 lacs or to face implication in false cases. The witness could not identify the coaccused Poonam. The witness did not specify the exact threat allegedly given to the complainant. PW3 Ramesh Singh is the only person who gave the date of the incident which is either 7 or 8 March of the year 2002. He saw that 23 ladies were quarreling with the complainant out of whom one was accused Reshma. The accused Reshma was telling Ram Gopal to pay Rs. 3 lacs or face false cases. The other accused was identified by this accused. What is seen from the above testimony is that the incident was in the month of March 2002. All FIR NO. 238/2002 State Vs Reshma & Poonam Page 4 of 6 the three witnesses including the complainant have merely stated about the presence of accused Poonam without highlighting her complicity in the offence. None of these witnesses including the complainant have specified about the nature of the case in which false implication was threatened.
10. The aforesaid can be gathered from paraD of the document Ex.PW1/A. As per the same, the threat was to face case of rape/attempt to rape or attempt to outrage the modesty of a married women. The complaint is dated 13.03.2002. The exact date of the incident is not provided in the complaint. The same, as per the witness PW3, is either 7th or 8th March 2002.
11. In this context, PW1 i.e., the complainant was , during his cross examination by the defence, confronted with a document (Mark PW1/DA). This is purportedly the photocopy of the complaint made over by the complainant to SHO PS Paharganj on 08.03.2002. The document becomes receivable in evidence as the complainant admitted that he had made the said complaint to the police. Moreover, the original complaint (Ex.PW1/A) makes a reference to the previous complaints of the complainant. Perusal of document (Mark PW1/DA) reveals that the complainant specified that Poonam and Reshma had come to his shop and threatened him that they can teach lessons to the complainant and to his family by making them go to the court. There is no iota of the averment in respect of the demand of Rs. 3 lacs failing which to face false cases of the nature referred to in paraD of document (Ex.PW1/A). This fact has been actually abandoned by PW1 in his 'examinationinchief' and never specifically stated by witnesses FIR NO. 238/2002 State Vs Reshma & Poonam Page 5 of 6 PW2 & 3.
12. The aforesaid discrepancy creates doubt. Two versions of the same incident are produced before the court. The allegations made in Ex.PW1/A may be an improvement over the allegations made in document Mark PW1/DA.
13. This is not a case of a simple threat under section 506 IPC for which the accused persons are not otherwise charged with. On the contrary, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the attempt was made on the complainant to commit extortion by threat of accusation of an offence of the nature described in section 388 IPC. As this is not found to be the case, both the accused persons namely Reshma and Poonam are accordingly acquitted from the charges framed against them. Their PB/SB are extended for further period of six months in compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (MANISH YADUVANSHI) on 25.08.2012 ACMM01 DELHI
It is certified that this judgment contains 06 (six) Pages and each page bears my signature.
(MANISH YADUVANSHI)
ACMM01 DELHI
FIR NO. 238/2002 State Vs Reshma & Poonam Page
6
of 6