Delhi District Court
Fir No.343/2014 Ps : Hauz Qazi State vs . Pulkit on 24 September, 2019
FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Pulkit
FIR No. 343/2014
PS : Hauz Qazi
U/s : 506/509 IPC
Date of Institution : 10.02.2015
Date of reserving of order : 21.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 24.09.2019
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLCT020066372015
1. Serial No. of the case : 297197/16
2. Name of the Complainant : Neha Choudhary
3. Date of incident : 06.10.2014
4. Name of accused person :
Pulkit S/o Dhanraj Jindal, R/o H. No. 19/12, First Floor, Shakti Nagar, Delhi07
5. Offence for which chargesheet was filed : S.506/509 IPC Page 1 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit
6. Offence for which charge has been framed : As above
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Judgment : 24.09.2019 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Mr. Pulkit, the accused herein, has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 506/509, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.10.2014, there was some quarrel between Smt. Pushpa, mother of the complainant, and Smt. Lata, relative of the accused. During said quarrel the accused reached there and started misbehaving with the mother of the complainant. He pushed the mother of the complainant.
When the complainant objected the accused also started abusing the complainant. He had caught hold of the neck of the complainant. A call was made to the PCR. On the statement of the complainant, present FIR was registered. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused Page 2 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 506/509, Indian Penal Code.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Court. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable under Section 506 (PartI) and 509 IPC was framed against the accused. It was read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 05 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Smt. Pushpa is the mother of the complainant. She has deposed that on the ground floor of H.No. 2924, First Floor, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, one "Lata Ji" used to run a business. Later on she had sold the said ground floor. Even after selling of the property, her workers used to come regularly for using the toilet on the ground floor. She had opposed such act and conveyed her protest to Lataji. On 06.10.2014, in the afternoon, she had gone to the factory of Lata Ji to short Page 3 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit out the issue. However, she started quarreling. In the meantime, one boy named Pulkit came there and pushed her. Her daughter Neha Choudhary had also reached at the spot. Her daughter had told Pulkit as to why he had pushed her mother. Pulkit had caught hold of the "Girehban" of her daughter and pushed her and threatened saying, "Tu Mujhe Janti Nahi Mai Kaun Hu, Tera Woh Haal Karunga Ki Tu Muh Dikhane Layak Nahi Rahegi". Thereafter, her daughter had called PCR at no.
100. After some time, police officials reached at the spot. They had compromised with Lata Ji. They had made complaint against Pulkit.
6. The witness could not identify the accused in the Court during her examination in chief even when her attention was drawn towards the accused by the Ld. APP.
7. PW2 Smt. Neha Chaudhary is the complainant. She has deposed that on 06.04.2014, she had reached at the spot, after hearing loud noise. Public persons were also gathered there. Accused Pulkit had pushed her mother. He used abusive languages to her mother. She intervened to stop Pulkit from doing such act.
Page 4 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit He also started abusing her and threatened saying, "Tum Mujhe Janti Nahi Ho Mai Tera Woh Haal Karunga Ki Tu Kisiko Muh Dikhane Layak Nahi Rahegi". She called at no.
100. Police came at the spot. IO recorded her statement which is Ex. PW2/A. Police registered the FIR. Police prepared the site plan at her instance which is Ex. PW2/B. Police arrested the accused Pulkit vide memo which is Ex. PW2/C.
8. The witness identified the accused in the Court. Ld. APP put a leading question to the witness with the permission of the Court. Witness admitted that accused had caught collar of her Kurta (Girewan) after extending threat to her.
9. PW3 Ct. Subhash Chand is the police official who had joined the investigation with the IO. He has deposed that on 22.12.2014, he alongwith SI Dharambir had reached at the spot after receiving the PCR call regarding the incident. The IO had recorded the statement of the complainant. He had taken the rukka to the PS. Investigation was marked to SI Devender Singh after registration of FIR. The accused had come at the PS and Page 5 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit the IO had conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/A.
10. PW4 ASI Kashmir Singh was the Duty Officer who had registered the FIR No. 343/14. He has proved the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW4/A (OSR), the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex. PW4/B, and the endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW4/C from point X to X1.
11. PW5 ASI Devender is the IO of the case. He has deposed that on 22.12.2014, he had received a complaint from SHO for inquiry. Thereafter, he reached at H. No. 2924, Peepal Mahadev and met with the complainant. He recorded the statement of the complainant which is Ex. PW2/A. He returned at the PS and made the endorsement on the statement which is from point Y to Y1. He handed over the tehrir to the DO for registration of FIR. He reached at the spot. Ct. Subhash had reached at the spot with the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over to him for further investigation. He prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW2/B. He made inquiry to trace some witnesses in the locality. However, Page 6 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit none came forward. Thereafter, at the instance of the complainant he arrested Pulkit vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He recorded the statement of the complainant and other witnesses. He had prepared the challan and filed in the Court.
12. The witnesses were crossexamined. The prosecution evidence was closed.
13. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to him. He would state that he was falsely implicated. He had not committed any such crime. He has stated that Smt. Lata is his maternal grand mother in relation. One day Ms. Neha and her mother had come at the factory of Smt. Lata. There was some dispute between the complainant and her mother on one side and Smt. Lata on the other hand regarding use of some toilet. They started quarreling. They had also beaten Smt. Lata with sleeper. He was present there. The servants were trying to pacify the parties and to resolve the matter. Some police officials had come there. They made some inquiry from Smt. Lata. Thereafter, they left. Later on she was told Page 7 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit by Smt. Lata that they had compromised the matter. In the end of December 2014, the police had called him. They did not tell him anything about the case.
14. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
15. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The testimonies of the eye witnesses have proved that it was the accused who had committed the offences. The identity of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. The delay in registration of FIR is not such that it creates doubts on the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
16. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. There is delay in registration of FIR. The alleged incident had taken placed on 06.10.2014 while the FIR had been registered on 22.12.2014. Thus there is delay of more than two months which has Page 8 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit remained unexplained. Further, the prosecution witnesses themselves states that some settlement had arrived between the parties on 06.10.2014 after the incident. However, the said settlement is not brought on record of the Court. In fact the entire matter was compromised between the complainant and Smt. Lata on that day. The accused was later on falsely implicated to create a pressure upon the family of the accused. There is no PCR call of the complainant on record in which such an allegation is shown to be made. No public person had joined the investigation at any point of time to substantiate the allegation of the complainant and her mother. The complainant and her mother are interested witnesses. Their testimony may not be relied upon in the absence of any public witness. False allegations have been made against the accused. Reasonable doubts have been raised on the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is prayed that benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
17. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
Page 9 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit
18. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
19. In the present case, the accused has been charged for committing offences punishable under Section 506/509 IPC.
20. Section 506, IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation. Offence of criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC. Section 509 IPC provides punishment for insulting the modesty of a woman. The Sections read as under :
Page 10 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit "503. Criminal intimidation.--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. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.--Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
21. To prove an offence under Section 506 IPC, it is essential that the ingredients of Section 503 IPC are proved. The requirements of Section 503 are as follows:
(a) A person threatens another with injury.
Page 11 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit
(b) The injury is to i. his person, reputation or property, or ii. to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
(c)The intention is i. to cause harm to that person, or ii. to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, as means of avoiding, execution of such threats, or iii. to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding execution of such threat.
22. Besides the above stated three requirements as stated in section itself, it is also required that the alleged threat caused alarm to the complainant. Mere threat in itself is not an offence. If the person advancing such threats is unable of executing them, and if the person, to whom such threats are advanced, do not get alarmed by raising of such threats alone, no offence is made out. In judgment titled Amitabh Vs. NCT of Delhi 2000 CRI. L.J.4772 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as follows: Page 12 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit "The averments made in the FIR and in the case diary statement of the complainant against the petitioners also do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under section 506/509 IPC. The threats alleged to have been given to the complainant Ms. Bharti by the petitioners do not fall within the definition of criminal intimidation in as much as the complainant has nowhere stated that the threats given by the petitioners caused an alarm to her. It is well settled that mere threat is no offence".
23. In judgment titled Kanshi Ram Vs. State 86(2000) DLT 609 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed in para 11 as follows: "So far as the offence under section 506 IPC is concerned, the complainant Israr Ahmed stated in his case diary statement that at the relevant time the petitioner had exhorted his security personnel to thrash the journalists. According to Israr Ahmed, the exact words used by the petitioner were "Maro Salon Ko". Strangely enough, Israr Ahmed has nowhere stated in his statement that the alleged threat had caused an alarm to him. On the contrary, the circumstances of the case clearly go to show that even after the alleged threat, the complainant or other media persons did not retrace their steps. It is wellsettled that mere threat is no offence. That being so, the threat alleged to have Page 13 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit been given by the petitioner does not fall within the mischief of Section 506 IPC. Consequently, no charge under section 506 IPC can be framed against the petitioner on the basis of the said evidence". (Emphasis supplied).
24. In judgment titled Surinder Suri Vs State of Haryana 1996(2) RCR the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed as follows: "The gist of the offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. The threat must be one which can be put into execution by the person threatening. A threat, in order to be indictable must be made with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. As for instance, mere vague allegations by the accused that he is going to take revenge by false complaints cannot amount to criminal intimidation".
25. Thus, it is no more res integra that in order to prove the offence under Section 506, IPC, there must be evidence to show that the complainant was alarmed by the threats advanced by the accused. In the present case, however, there is not even an iota of evidence to prove that the complainant was alarmed by the threats advanced by the accused, if at all any such threats were ever Page 14 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit advanced. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused can not be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506, IPC.
26. This is not the only reason to acquit the accused. He is also charged with offence punishable under Section 509, IPC. In the present case, as the record would reveal that the alleged incident had taken place on 06.10.2014. However, the present FIR is registered on 22.12.2014. Thus, there was delay of more than 2 months in registration of the present FIR. Considering the nature of the offences alleged in the present case, the delay of more than two months is material. The delay has not been explained by the IO in the final report. In her cross examination complainant Ms. Neha Choudhary, PW2 has stated that the police had recorded her statement only on 06.10.2014 and no other statement was recorded at any point of time. However, perusal of record would show that the statement Ex.PW2/A, which had become the basis of present FIR bears the date as 22.12.2014 alongwith the signature of the complainant. This is the date when the present FIR was registered. There is no explanation Page 15 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit available on the record as to who had mentioned the date of 22.12.2014 on the statement of the complainant which, according to her, was recorded on 06.10.2014. It has also remained unexplained as to why the FIR was not registered on 06.10.2014 itself after recording the said statement of the complainant. All these circumstances create reasonable doubts on the case of the prosecution.
27. It has come during the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that on 06.10.2014, a PCR call was made by the complainant after the alleged incident. The prosecution did not bring on record the said PCR call. The accused had however brought on record, during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, the copy of DD No. 16A dated 06.10.2014, DD No. 25 A dated 06.10.2014, PCR form no.1 dated 06.10.2014, DD No. 23A dated 06.10.2014, DD No. 15A dated 06.10.2014, all related to PS : Hauz Qazi, the photocopy of the wireless lock PS :
Hauz Qazi dated 06.10.2014 which are stated to have been obtained by the accused through RTI from the police department. DD No. 16A dated 06.10.2014 is shown to be recorded at 2:05 p.m., regarding house no. 3704, gali Lohe Page 16 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit Wali Chawri Bazar. DD No. 25A is shown to be recorded regarding the presence of police officials at H. No. 3704 where the caller Ms.Neha told the police officials that one shopkeeper had removed the key of her Dvan. Certainly these DD entries do not appear to be related to the present case. Then there is copy of DD No.15A dated 06.10.2014 which is shown to be recorded at 12:05 p.m., regarding quarrel at H.No.2924, Gali Peepal Mahadev. This DD number appears to be recorded on the call of the complainant as the address mentioned in the DD entry is the residential address of the complainant. In the said DD entry only it is mentioned that there was quarrel. It does not contain any allegation of any misbehave with lady by any male. There is PCR Form number 1 regarding the said PCR call which has been brought on record by the accused during the crossexamination of prosecution witnesses. The document is part of Ex. PW2/DX1 (colly 3 pages). The PCR call is shown to be made regarding quarrel between two ladies. Thus, there is no mentioning of any misbehavior with any lady by a male. The said DD entry No. 15A is shown to be filed vide DD No. 23A of the same Page 17 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit date. It is mentioned in the said DD entry that the police officials had reached at the spot where Smt. Pushpa, mother of the complainant was found. She had told the police official that the call was made as one person had used the toilet of her house and it had settled that no outsider would come to use the toilet and the dispute had been settled. Therefore, the complaint was filed. Thus, it is shown by the defence, on the preponderance of probabilities, that there was dispute between mother of the complainant and Smt. Lata regarding use of the toilet and the same was amicably settled. In these circumstances, reasonable doubts have been raised on the allegation of the prosecution.
28. Even the complainant and her mother, PW2 and PW1 have stated in their crossexamination that they have compromised the matter with Lata Ji. They have however stated that they had not compromised with accused Pulkit. The said compromise was the best evidence to show that the complainant had not compromised with accused Pulkit. However, the said compromise had not been brought on judicial record.Page 18 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019
FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit There is no explanation provided as to why the said record was not filed with the final report. It also creates reasonable doubts on the case of the prosecution.
29. As discussed hereinabove, there is delay of more than two months in registration of FIR. PW1 and PW2 are interested witnesses. No doubt their testimonies can not be discarded completely. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate their testimonies. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lallu Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand AIR 2003 SC 854 has held that the Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. The Court may classify the oral testimony of a witness into three categories namely (i) wholly unreliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, Page 19 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019 FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of such a witness.
30. In the present case also, for the above mentioned reasons, some corroboration was required to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubts. It has been admitted by PW1 and PW2 that workers of Ms. Lata had been using the toilet on the ground floor of the premises where complainant and her family members were residing. It has also been admitted by them that there was a quarrel with Ms. Lata, the relative of the accused. The defence has shown a motive to falsely implicate the accused. It would not be safe to convict the accused without corroboration by some independent evidence.
31. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of material available on record. He is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubts. He is therefore acquitted.
Page 20 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019FIR No.343/2014 PS : Hauz Qazi State Vs. Pulkit
32. The accused has already furnished a bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C with one surety, with a photograph and ID Proof. Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2019.09.24 17:07:16 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar) th this 24 Day of September 2019 MM08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.Page 21 of 21 MM08(Central)/THC/Delhi/24.09.2019