Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Singh @ Lucky on 27 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ALOK SHUKLA, ADDITIONAL SESSION
JUDGE-02, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
CNR no. DLET01-004194-2018
Session Case No. 1138/2018
State versus Deepak @ Lucky & anr.
First Information Report No. 368/2012
Police Station New Ashok Nagar
Under Section 341/354/354A/451/509/174A/34 IPC
In the matter of: -
STATE
Versus
(1) Deepak Singh @ Lucky
Son of Sh. Lallan Singh,
Resident of Khatu Shayam Colony,
Chipiyana Village, near Lal Kuan,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
Currently residint at H.No. G, Royal Tower-5,
Brahanpur, Ghaziabad, UP
(2) Prashant Singh
Son of Lt. Sh. Shiv Singh,
Resident of Khatu Shayam Colony,
Chipiyana Village, near Lal Kuan,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
Currently residint at H.No. G, Royal Tower-5,
Brahanpur, Ghaziabad, UP
Date of Institution : 20.05.2014
Date of reserve for judgment : 05.04.2025
Date of decision : 27.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky and Prashant Singh have been charged for the offences under Section 341/354/354A/451/509/174A/34 IPC.
2. Brief Facts of the case are that after receipt of DD no. 27A dated 09.05.2012, the present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Shivani, daughter of Shri Sheel Page no. 1 Chand, resident of C-233 New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, wherein she stated that she is a student of class 9 in Government Sarvodaya Kanya Bal Vidyalaya and her age is 13 years. She stated that she has been living with her uncle Shri Kanchilal Sharma, son of Shri Devi Prasad Sharma, resident of Quarter No. 1 Type-2 Delhi Jal Board Staff Quarters, Delhi-96 since childhood. On 06.05.2012 at about 10:00 pm, she alongwith her elder sister Archana Tatari, sister Geeta and Gudiya had come to attend the naming ceremony of their nephew which was to be held on 07.05.2012 and were coming from the house of the mehndi artist of the colony. Deepak alias Lucky son of Shri Lallan Singh, Prashant son of Shri Unknown (Lucky's brother- in-law) resident of Quarter no. 10 Type 2 Delhi Jal Board Staff Quarter Kondli, Delhi-110096 and his other friends, whose names are not known were standing in the way after consuming alcohol. On seeing the girls, all of them started passing remarks in obscene language. They all tried to leave quietly, but Deepak alias Lacky stopped Geeta by holding her hand and started moving his hands on her body. She and all her sisters tried to free Geeta from Deepak and protested against his obscene acts on which they all started abusing and hitting them. They all raised alarm and her brothers Manoj and Sonu reached the spot and freed them from the clutches of the above-mentioned people and protested against their obscene acts. Thereafter the above-mentioned people started abusing them too and said 'tumhe hum abhi batate hai' and ran towards them to hit them. She further stated that on seeing this, they all ran towards their house to save themselves. The above-mentioned people entered their house and started threatening by repeating their misbehavior. Her uncle called the police on 100 and informed the police. PCR Van arrived at the spot and on seeing PCR van, all the above-mentioned people ran away saying 'bhago Page no. 2 police aa gayi'. Before accused persons fled from the scene, Meetu and her sister Neetu, both daughters of Shri Lallan Singh had also arrived there with their neighbor Rajkumar, who was carrying an iron rod in his hand. Seeing the police having arrived, all the accused persons started running away from there and during the process, Deepak alias Lucky collided with an electric pole and fell down. The police picked up everyone and took them away. She told the police about the above incident, but the police did not register her complaint. A complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed and thereafter as per orders of the court FIR U/s-354/509/34 IPC was registered against Deepak @ Lucky and Prashant. Investigation was taken up and accused persons were arrested. Statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and after completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court.
CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED
3. Charge for the offences under Section 341/354/354A/451/509/174A/34 IPC was framed against accused persons vide order dated 25.09.2019 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, charge for the offence under Section 174A IPC was framed against accused persons vide order dated 13.09.2024 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
4. Twelve prosecution witnesses were examined during the course of trial.
5. PW1 Ms. Shivani, daughter of Sh. Sheel Chand Sharma resident of C-235, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi deposed that in the year 2012, she was residing with her Tauji (uncle) namely Late Kanchi Lal Sharma at his house bearing no. 1, Type-II Delhi Jal Page no. 3 Board Staff Quarters, Kondli, Delhi-110096 and at that time, she was studying in 9th class. She further deposed that on 06.05.2012, she alongwith her sisters namely Archana, Geeta and Gudiya, who had come to the house of her Tauji to attend the namkaran ceremony of grandson of their Tauji, which was scheduled to be held on 07.05.2012, were returning back to the house after getting mehndi in their hands and in the way to the house, accused Deepak and Prashant alongwith 2-3 their associates met them, who were in drunken condition at that time. She knew the accused persons as they were residing in the same colony and accused Deepak and Prashant were accompanied by Sonu and Jackey and on seeing them, accused Deepak, Prashant and their associates started using filthy language against them. They tried to leave the place quietly, but accused Deepak held the hand of her cousin Geeta, daughter of her Tauji and started misbehaving with her and he assaulted her with his hand at her chest. She further deposed that they tried to save her cousin Geeta from accused Deepak and objected to his conduct and on this, accused persons started abusing them and started beating them. They raised alarm. She further deposed that their house was situated near the place of incident and her cousin brothers namely Manoj and Pramod came there hearing their cries and her cousin brothers saved them from the accused persons. She further deposed that accused persons also abused her cousin brothers and also stated that 'they will see them'. Thereafter, they reached their house and accused persons also reached their house behind them and entered inside the house. She further deposed that accused persons threatened them to kill and to set their house on fire. She further deposed that sisters of accused persons namely Neetu and Meetu also came to their house who were armed with iron sariya (rods) and one Raj Kumar was also Page no. 4 accompanying them and he was also armed with sariya (iron rod). She again said that Neetu and Meetu were not carrying sariya, but Raj Kumar was carrying sariya. She further deposed that her Tauji called at no. 100 and informed the police and when accused saw that police arrived there, they started running from there and during the said process, accused persons had fallen and police lifted the accused persons from there and took them with it. She further deposed that they narrated the incident to the police but they did not lodge their report and they also went to PS but their case was not registered and instead of that, police arrested her brothers and tauji. Thereafter, they made a complaint before the Court and by the order of the Court, case was registered on her complaint Ex.PW1/A, which she had made to the police. She pointed out the place of occurrence to the police and her statement was recorded by the police. She identified the accused Deepak before the court and identity of accused Prashant was not disputed by the Ld. Counsel.
6. PW2 Smt. Geeta wife of Sh. Deepak Upadhyay resident of 249, Bihari Nagar, Sasni Gate, Aligarh, UP deposed that on 06.05.2012, she had come to her parental home situated at Delhi Jal Board staff quarter bearing no.1, Varun Enclave, Kondli Delhi to attend namakaran ceremony of her nephew, which was to be held on 07.05.2012 and on 06.05.2012 at about 10:00 pm, she along with her sisters Shivani, Arcahna and Gudiya were returning from the house of a madam, who had applied mehandi on their hands. She further deposed that on the way, accused Deepak @ Lucky along with his brother-in- law Prashant and 2-3 other persons were standing at the gate of park and on seeing them, accused Deepak and Prashant started abusing them and they crossed from there, but accused Page no. 5 persons followed them and accused Deepak caught her hand. She further deposed that her sisters tried to save her from him but accused persons also abused and teased them and accused Deepak pressed her chest. They raised an alarm and her brothers Sonu and Manoj came there and tried to save them from the accused persons. She further deposed that accused Deepak and Prashant also started beating her brothers but somehow, they saved themselves and ran towards their house. She further deposed that accused persons chased them and came to their house and after coming into their house, accused persons again abused them and threatened them. She further deposed that her father Kanchi Lal called the police by dialing number 100 and police came to their house and on seeing the police, accused started running from there and while running from their house accused Deepak struck with an electric pole and he suffered injuries. She further deposed that later on police officer recorded her statement in this case. She identified the accused Deepak and Prashant before the Court.
7. PW3 Sh. Manoj son of Sh. Kanchi Lal resident of H. No.264, Old Kondli, Main Market near Mayur Vihar, Delhi deposed that in the year 2012, they were residing in Delhi Jal Board staff quarter bearing no.1, Varun Enclave, Kondli, Delhi-110096 and on 06.05.2012 at about 10:00 pm, he along with his brother Sonu were walking near park situated near their house and they heard some noises and after hearing the said noises, he along with his brother Sonu reached near the gate of park and saw that accused Deepak @ Lucky, Prashant and 2-3 other persons were teasing her sisters namely Shivani, Geeta, Archana and Gudia. He further deposed that their sisters were returning home after getting mehandi applied on their hands Page no. 6 and they tried to save them from the accused persons and on this, accused Deepak and Prashant had beaten them, but somehow, they saved themselves and their sisters and went to their house. He further deposed that accused persons thereafter chased them and entered their house. He further deposed that accused persons abused and threatened them in their house. He further deposed that his father called the police by dialing number 100 and on seeing the PCR van, accused persons started running from their house and in the said process, accused Deepak collided with an electric pole and suffered injuries and police took them from there. He further deposed that their complaint was not lodged by the police and even, they were arrested by the police. They filed a complaint case in the court and thereafter, their case was registered. He further deposed that later on his statement was recorded by the IO. He identified the accused Deepak and Prashant before the Court.
8. PW4 Sh. Pramod @ Sonu son of Sh. Kanchi Lal resident of H. No. B-54, Gali No.5, Brahampuri, Seelampur, Delhi deposed that in the year 2012, he along with his father and other family members were residing in Delhi Jal Board staff quarter bearing no.1, Type-II, Varun Enclave, Kondli, Delhi-110096 and on 06.05.2012 at about 10:00 pm, he along with his brother Manoj were walking near the park behind their building and they heard the noises of women. On hearing the said voices, they reached at the gate of park and saw that accused Deepak @ Lucky, Prashant and two other persons teasing his sisters namely Shivani, Geeta, Archana and Gudia, who were returning home after getting mehandi on their hands from the house of a lady residing at house no.33, type-I quarters. He along with his brother Manoj tried to save their Page no. 7 sisters from the accused persons and on this, accused Deepak and Prashant had beaten them but somehow, they saved them and went to their house. He further deposed that accused persons Deepak and Prashant chased them and also abused and threatened from outside of their house. He voluntarily stated that accused persons were unable to enter in their house as their guests were present there. He further deposed that his father called the police by dialing number 100 and on seeing the PCR van, accused persons started running from their house and in the said process, accused Deepak struck with an electric pole and suffered injuries and police took Lucky @ Deepak and after his MLC, police arrested his brother Manoj and father Kanchi Lal. He further deposed that their complaint was not lodged by the police and they filed complaint case in the court and thereafter, their case was registered. He further deposed that later on his statement was recorded by the IO. He identified the accused Deepak and Prashant before the Court.
9. PW5 ASI Virender, No.347, DAP 1st Battalion Delhi deposed that on 23.12.2013, he was posted as Constable at PS New Ashok Nagar and on that day, he joined the investigation of this case along with Sunil Kumar and reached Village Chipyana Khatu Shyam Colony Ghaziabad, UP, where they arrested accused Deepak Singh and Prashant Singh from their house vide arrest memos Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5B respectively and their personal search were also conducted vide memos Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D respectively. He stated that he could identity both the accused persons if shown to him. However, identities of accused persons were not disputed by Ld. Counsel in application for exemption.
10. PW6 Inspector Mohd. Rizwan, No. D-4895, PS EOW Mandir Marg, New Delhi deposed that on 26.11.2012, he was Page no. 8 posted at New Ashok Nagar as Sub Inspector and on that day, he received an order for registration of an FIR from his office and after that he endorsed the said order and handed over the same to the Duty Officer for registration of the FIR. He further deposed that after registration, copy of FIR and original Rukka were handed over to him by the Duty Officer and as per the directions of the senior officers, the investigation was marked to him. He further deposed that complaint of the complainant Shivani was already pending before the order of the court and he also made endorsement on the said complaint Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that on 18.01.2013, he reached at the house of the complainant Shivani and as per her instance, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW6/B and after that recorded the statement of complainant Shivani under section 161 Cr.PC. He further deopsed that during investigation, he also recorded the statement of other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC.
11. PW7 Smt. Gudiya wife of Sh. Pankaj Sharma resident of II. No. D-200, Rohini Sector-22, Delhi deposed that on 07.05.2012, he was living in staff quarter, Varun Enclave, Delhi and on that day, there was a 'naamkaran ceremony of son of her brother and on 06.05.2012, she alongwith Shivani, Geeta and Archana were coming after getting applied mehandi on their hands at about 10:00 pm and when they were coming at their home, accused persons Deepak and Prashant, who were standing near their house after seeing them started abusing and followed them while abusing them continuously. She further deposed that after that when they entered their street, accused persons started manhandling (haathapai) them and they pulled her sister Geeta and Shivani by catching their hands. She further deposed that after seeing that she tried to save them and the said accused persons were touching the breast of her Page no. 9 elder sister Geeta and after that, they shouted for help and in the meantime, her brothers Manoj and Pramod reached at the spot for saving them from the accused persons. She further deposed that their brothers saved them and took to home. She further deposed that the said accused persons were also abusing their brothers and accused persons also tried to assault their brothers but somehow, they all managed to escape from there and reached their home safely. She further deposed that after that accused persons also reached in front of their house and started abusing. She narrated the whole incident to her father and her father made a call at 100 number and after that, the said accused persons ran away from their after seeing that police reached at the spot. She further deposed that police official/IO recorded her statement. She identified both accused persons namely Deepak and Prashant before the Court.
12. PW8 Sh. Niranjan Singh son of Sh. Hari Singh resident of Chhajarasi Colony, Sector-63, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP deposed that on 06.05.2012, he was strolling in the park at about 10 pm after having dinner and at about 10 pm, he heard the noise (shor-sharaba) near Type-II and Type-III staff quarters and after that he reached at the spot, where daughter and neice of Kanchi Lal, Geeta and neice Shivani were present. He also saw Deepak son of Lallan Singh and one another boy who was son in law of Lallan Singh present there. He further deposed that he also saw that both the accused persons were misbehaving with Geeta. He further deposed that he saw that accused Deepak caught hold hand of Geeta at that time and he tried to save Geeta and Shivani from the accused persons Deepak and Prashant. He tried to convince both the parties and thereafter, he went to his home. He further deposed that during Page no. 10 investigation, his statement was recorded. He identified accused Deepak and Prashant before the Court. The witness was re-examined by the Id. Prosecutor as during his cross- examination he had stated that accused Prashant was not present at the spot. During re-examination, witness admitted that IO recorded his statement and the said deposition be read in the examination in chief dated 12.04.2023. Further, in reply to the question that in his examination in chief dated 12.04.2023, witness had stated that both accused persons were misbehaving with Geeta and he had also correctly identified both accused namely Deepak and Prashant but during cross examination dated 30.05.2023 by the Id counsel for the accused, he had stated that he had not seen accused Prashant at the spot, the witness replied that due to darkness at the spot at the time of incident, he could only clearly identify Deepak, therefore, he stated on 30.05.2023 that Prashant was not present at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he has deliberately changed his version and deposed falsely during cross examination as he has been influenced by the accused persons.
13. PW9 Inspector Sunil Kumar No. D-4384, PCR Vigilance, Old PHQ, Delhi deposed that on 09.10.2013, he was posted at PS New Ashok Nagar as Sub Inspector and the investigation of this case was assigned to him. He further deposed that during investigation, on 23.12.2013, he alongwith Ct. Virender went to Village Chipiyana, Khatu Shyam Enclave, Lal Kua, Ghaziabad, where both the accused persons namely Deepak @Lucky and Prashant were found present there. He apprised them regarding the present case and arrested both the accused persons in the present case vide arrest memo of accused Deepak @ Lucky Ex. PW5/A and accused Prashant vide memo Page no. 11 Ex. PW5/B. He further deposed that personal search of accused Deepak @ Lucky was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW5/C and that of accused Prashant vide personal search memo Ex. PW5/D. He further deposed that both accused persons were released on police bail due to bailable offence. He recorded the statement of Ct. Virender. He returned back to police station. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet in the court.
14. PW10 Sub Inspector Rambir Singh No. 5376-D, PS Bhajan Pura, Delhi deposed that on 06.07.2024, he was posted at PS Bhajan Pura and on that day vide DD no. 27-A, departure entry was made for tracing proclaimed offender and after making the departure entry, he alongwith HC Sunil, Ct. Dinesh and secret informer left the police station at about 8 am and reached at Union Residency, Behrampur, Ghaziabad, where secret informer pointed out towards G- Royal, Tower No.5. Union Residency, Behrampur, Ghaziabad stating that proclaimed offender can be arrested from the flat and thereafter, at the instance of secret informer, he apprehended accused Deepak vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/1 and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex PW10/2. He further deposed that later on he lodged DD No. 67A Ex. PW10/3. He further deposed that Kalandara against accused Deepak Ex. PW10/4 was prepared. He further deposed that accused Deepak shown the house of accused Prashant and he arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/5 and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW10/6. He lodged DD No. 68A Ex. PW10/7. He further deposed that Kalandara against accused Prashant Ex. PW10/8 was preared. He further deposed that vide order dated 07.06.2024, accused Deepak and Prashant were declared proclaimed offenders and order is Page no. 12 Ex. PW10/9. He identified both the accused persons before the court.
15. PW11 HC Rahul Sihag No. 1174-East, PS New Ashok Nagar, Delhi deposed that on 07.06.2024, Ld. Court declared accused persons namely Prashant Singh and Deepak Singh @ Lucky proclaimed offenders and the order dated 07.06.2024 is Ex. PW11/1 (judicial notice of the order was taken). He further deposed that SI Ramvir Singh gave information vide DD No. 67-A dated 06.07.2024 regarding the arrest of above said accused persons. He recorded statements of witnesses in the present matter and prepared chargesheet in the present matter after obtaining Kalandara Ex. PW10/8 and Ex. PW10/4 and the chargesheet is Ex. PW11/2.
16. PW12 HC Adesh Taliyan, No. 1830-East, PS New Ashok Nagar, Delhi deposed that on 06.05.2024, he was posted as Head Constable in PS and on that day, the processes under Section 82 Cr.PC issued against accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky and Prashant Singh, both residents of Khatu Shyam Colony, Chipiyana Village. Near Lal Kuan, UP assigned to him by the SHO PS New Ashok Nagar. He went to the given address on the processes and after visiting the address, he submitted his detailed report before the court Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-5. His report u/s 82 Cr.P.C. is Ex. A-6 and the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. issued by the court is Ex. A-7 (judicial notice of the process was taken). He further deposed that certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act regarding the photographs clicked from his mobile phone is Ex. A-8. He also lodged his departure entry vide DD No. 93-A Ex. PW-P-A/9. The production of the original GD No. 93-A was dispensed with as it is official record of PS New Ashok Nagar.
Page no. 13 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED under section 313 Cr.P.C.
17. After completion of prosecution witnesses, statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure of accused Deepak @ Lucky on 06.07.2023 and accused Prashant on 07.07.2023 were recorded. Accused persons submitted that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and all police witnesses were interested witnesses and deposed at the instance of IO. They further stated that the present cross case was registered for getting benefit and for creating pressure on sister of accused, who got registered FIR no. 147/2012 at PS New Ashok Nagar against complainant's brother and father. Accused persons prefer to lead defence evidence and matter was posted for defence evidence.
18. Accused persons could not lead defence evidence despite repeated opportunities and their right to lead defence evidence was closed vide order dated 03.11.2023 and matter was posted for final arguments. However, thereafter, accused persons stopped appearing in the matter and non bailable warrants were issued against them on 08.12.2023, 16.12.2023 & 30.01.2024, which remained unexecuted. Thereafter, processes under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were issued against the accused persons vide order dated 09.02.2024, which were duly executed but accused persons did not appear before the Court and they were declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 07.06.2024 and file was consigned to record room with directions to revive the same. Later on, both accused were arrested and they were produced before the Court vide kalandra under Section 41.1(c) Cr.PC on 06.07.2024 and the matter was revived. Supplementary chargesheet was filed against both the accused persons under Section 174A IPC. Charge under section 174A IPC was framed against accused Page no. 14 persons. Further, prosecution evidence was led. Further, additional statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded 22.01.2025. Accused persons led defence evidence.
19. DW1 Sh. Laxmi Narayan Meena, Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Mayank Goel, ACJM, East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi summoned as witness and he brought the record of the judicial file of complaint case no. 51169/2016 titled as Kanchi lal Vs. Pooja etc. which was adjourned sine die by Ld. ACJM, East, KKD, Delhi vide order dated 07.01.2025 and the copy of complaint of complainant Kanchilal is Ex.DW1/A (running into 6 pages) (OSR). Ld. Addl. PP for the State objected as to relevancy of the said complaint.
20. DW2 Sh. Anand Kumar, Ahlmad in the Court of Ld. ASJ-02, East, KKD, Delhi summoned as witness and he brought the record of the judicial file of case SC no. 713/2016 titled as State Vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma pending in this Court and the MLCs of Deepak, Lallan Singh, Neetu, Rajkumar and Meetu are Ex.DW2/A to Ex.DW2/E respectively (OSR).
21. Ld. APP has argued that testimonies of PW1, PW2 & PW7, which are coherent, concurrent and consistent have proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 06.05.2012, at about 10:00 PM, when complainant Shivani alongwith her elder sister Archana, cousin sister Geeta and Gudiya, who all had come to attend the naming ceremony of their nephew which was to be held on 07.05.2012, were returning to their home from the house of the mehndi artist of the colony, Deepak alias Lucky son of Shri Lallan Singh, Prashant son of Shri Unknown (Lucky's brother-in-law) resident of Quarter no. 10 Type 2 Delhi Jal Board Staff Quarter Kondli Delhi-110096 and his other friends, who were standing in the way to their house in drunken Page no. 15 condition, started using filthy language against them and when they tried to leave the place quietly, accused Deepak held the hand of Geeta and started assaulting her with his hand on her chest. Prosecution witnesses have also proved that when Shivani, Gudiya and Archana tried to save their cousin Geeta from accused Deepak and objected to his conduct, accused persons started abusing and beating them on which they all raised alarm. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW7 have proved that on hearing the cries of PW1, PW2, PW7 & Archana, their brothers Manoj and Pramod @ Sonu reached the spot and freed them from the clutches of the above-mentioned people and protested against their obscene acts on which accused persons Deepak and Prashant and their accomplices started abusing them too and said 'tumhe hum abhi batate hai' and ran towards them to hit them, whereafter PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW7 & Archana ran towards their house to save themselves, however accused Prashant and Deepak followed them and entered their house and started threatening by repeating their misbehavior on which Kanchilal, uncle of complainant called the police on 100 and informed the police. All these prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed that PCR Van arrived at the spot and on seeing PCR van, all the above-mentioned people ran away saying 'bhago police aa gayi'. It is argued that from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Deepak and Prashant are guilty of the offence under section 341, 354, 354A, 509 read with section 34 IPC.
22. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant and prosecu- tion witnesses out of previous enmity and Kanchilal, Uncle of complainant and father of PW2 had earlier lodged a complaint Page no. 16 with the police and thereafter filed a complaint case against the family members of accused persons, Ex.DW1/A in respect of the same. It is submitted that PW2, Geeta had an affair with a boy and she got pregnant, thus, she needed money for abor- tion, and therefore she gave the jewellery and cash from her house to her cousin Shivani however, Kanchi Lal, father of PW2 and Uncle of PW1, filed a false complaint alleging that sister of accused persons blackmailed Shivani and made her to steal jewellery and cash from her house. It is further submitted that Kanchi Lal had been demanding huge sum of money from the father of the accused persons and when he failed to extort money, he along with PW3 and PW4, and one other person trespassed into the house of accused persons on the day of in- cident and molested Ms. Neetu and Ms. Meetu, both sisters of the accused persons and when accused Deepak, with his father, and one neighbour, reached his house on hearing the cries of his sister, Kanchi Lal, his son, Manoj Kumar Sharma, and Pramod assaulted them with iron rods and sticks as a con- sequence of which they all sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.DW2/A to Ex.DW2/E and accused Manoj Kumar Sharma and Pramod are facing trial for the offence under section 308/354/452 read with section 34 IPC. He has further argued that in the testimony of PW1 & PW2 there are no specific alleg- ations against the accused persons of having committed any act, which would show that accused assaulted or used criminal force against them with the intent to outrage their modesty. It is further argued that the case of the prosecution is full of contra- dictions and accused persons are liable to be acquitted of all the charges.
23. There are two versions of the incident, one given by the prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW7 in the Page no. 17 present case and the other given by Defence. Two separate FIRs had been registered i.e. FIR No. 368/12 arising out of complaint Ex. PW/A from which the present trial has emanated and the other is FIR No. 147/12, of which MLCs, Ex.DW2/A to Ex.DW2/E has been summoned in the defence evidence.
24. PW1 & PW2 have deposed that on 06.05.12, while they were returning to their house alongwith Archana & PW7 Gudiya after getting mehndi applied on the occasion of Namkaran cere- mony of the grandson of Kanchilal, accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky and accused Prashant who were standing near the park alongwith their accomplices in drunken condition, started using filthy language and when they tried to leave the place quietly, accused Deepak held the hand of PW2, Geeta and started mis- behaving with her. PW2 Geeta has deposed that accused Deepak Singh pressed her breast. Her statement is corrobor- ated by other eyewitness, PW1. PW7 has also deposed that ac- cused persons were touching the breast of her elder sister Geeta. PW3 and PW4 have also deposed that on hearing the voices of the women, they reached at the spot and tried to save their sisters from the accused persons.
25. Accused persons have been charged with the offense un- der section 341, 354, 354A, 451, 509 IPC read with section 34 IPC. It is apposite to refer to section 354 & 354A IPC, which reads as under:
354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. --
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Page no. 18 354 A. Sexual harassment and punish-
ment for sexual harassment. -(1) A man committing any of the following acts--
(i) physical contact and advances in-
volving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual fa-
vours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
26. Now coming to the question, whether prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons passed lewd/obscene remarks against Geeta, Gudiya, Archana and Shivani and accused Deepak held the hand of PW2, Geeta and pressed her breast and thereafter when Manoj & Pramod, brothers of Geeta somehow set her free from accused Deepak, accused persons followed the PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW7 & Archana and trespassed into the house no. 10 staff quarter of Delhi Jal Board, Type-2 Varun Enclave, Kondli of Kanchi Lal situated on the ground Floor and all the accused persons misbehaved with and threatened the complainant and her family members.
27. PW2 Geeta has deposed that that on 06.05.2012, she had come to her parental home situated at Delhi Jal Board staff quarter bearing no.1, Varun Enclave, Kondli Delhi to attend namakaran ceremony of her nephew, which was to be held on 07.05.2012 and on 06.05.2012 at about 10:00 pm, she along with her sisters Shivani, Archana and Gudiya were returning from the house of a madam, who had applied mehandi on their hands. She further deposed that on the way, accused Deepak @ Lucky along with his brother-in-law Prashant and 2-3 other persons were standing at the gate of park and on seeing them, Page no. 19 accused Deepak and Prashant started abusing them, they tried to leave from there, but accused persons followed them and accused Deepak caught her hand. She further deposed that her sisters tried to save her from him, but accused persons also abused and teased them and accused Deepak pressed her chest. They raised an alarm and her brothers Sonu and Manoj came there and tried to save them from the accused persons. She further deposed that accused Deepak and Prashant also started beating her brothers but somehow, they saved themselves and ran towards their house. She further deposed that accused persons chased them and came to their house and after coming into their house, accused persons again abused them and threatened them. PW1, Shivani and PW7, Gudiya has corroborated the statement of PW2, Geeta. The testimony of PW1 & PW2 are consistent with regard to the fact that accused Deepak held the hand of Geeta and pressed her breast. All these witnesses have also deposed that accused persons were also abusing them. The above act attributed by PW1 & PW2 to accused Deepak are specific and not vague and the testimonies of these witnesses shows use of criminal force by accused Deepak. Ld. Defence Counsel has failed to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses during cross- examination and they have maintained that accused Deepak held the hand of Geeta and pressed her breast. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja, 2025 INSC 19, while discussing the essential ingredients of the offence of section 354 IPC observed as under:
12.1 Criminal force is defined in Section 350 IPC11, however, what exactly does modesty means, which is an essential as-
pect for this Section to apply, has not been defined so as to constitute an of-
Page no. 20 fence u/s 354 IPC. Any discussion on this Section is incomplete without reference to Rupan Deol Bajaj (supra) wherein the Learned Judges observed:
"14. Since the word 'modesty' has not been defined in the Penal Code,1860 we may profitably look into its dictionary meaning. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edn.) modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to woman means "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". The word 'modest' in relation to woman is defined in the above dictionary as "decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; shame- fast". Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language defines modesty as "freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct". In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 Edn.) the meaning of the word 'modesty' is given as "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame pro-
ceeding from instinctive aversion to im- pure or coarse suggestions".
15. ... From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh case [AIR 1967 SC 63 : 1967 Cri LJ 1 :
1966 Supp SCR 286] it appears to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender such as could be per- ceived as one which is capable of shock- ing the sense of decency of a woman ..." 12.2 While we hold the above observa-
tions as also the discussion made in Ma-
jor Singh (supra) in the highest esteem and regard, it must not escape us that the observations were made in the societal context and milieu of that time and its im- port today should be interpreted in our present context. Reference in this regard Page no. 21 may be made to observations by Bhat, J in Attorney General v. Satish , "66. ... These require an element of ap-
plication of physical force, to women. The expression "modesty" was another limita- tion as older decisions show that such a state was associated with decorousness [Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194: 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] of women. This added a dimension of patriarchy and class. [ Section 354 (or any other provision of IPC) does not offer a statutory definition of the term "mod-
esty", and over time, was interpreted broadly, contemporaneously with the de- veloping and acknowledged role of wo-
men in society, to overcome its inherently colonial and patriarchal origins. ... One cannot be unmindful of the circumstances in which these provisions were enacted by a colonial power, at a time, when wo-
men's agency itself was unacknowledged, or had limited recognition. Further, wo- men in India were traditionally--during the time of enactment of IPC, in the mid-
Nineteenth Century--subordinated to the care of their fathers, or their husbands, or other male relatives. They had no share in immovable property; notions of gender equality were unheard of, or not permit-
ted. Women had no right to vote. Quite naturally, the dignity of women-- or in-
deed their autonomy, was not provided for.
67. The advent of the Constitution of India revolutionised--at least in law, all that. Regardless of gender, race, caste, reli- gion or region, or all of the acknowledged sectarian and discrimination enabling bar- riers, everyone enjoyed equality of law, and equal protection of law (Article14). Further, the provision in Article 15(1) pro- scribed discrimination by the State (in all its forms) on various grounds, including gender. Article15(3) enabled the State to Page no. 22 enact special provisions for women and children."
28. In the present case, testimonies of Prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2, & PW7 have proved that accused Deepak held Geeta's hand and pressed her breast, which acts of the accused Deepak qualifies as assault/use of criminal force to Geeta, intending to outrage her modesty. The testimonies of PW1 & PW2 have remained unrebutted and uncontroverted and have stood the test of cross-examination and are further corroborated by the testimonies of PW3, PW4 and PW7. Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence, which proves that accused Deepak Singh@ Lucky on 06.05.2012 abused PW1, PW2, PW7 and Archana when they were returning to the house of Kanchi Lal after getting Mehandi applied to their hands and while they tried to leave, accused Deepak held the hand of Geeta and pressed her breast. Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Deepak is guilty of the offence under section 354 IPC. The evidence led by the prosecution also show that Accused Deepak also held the hand of Geeta and restrained her and she managed to escape only, when her brothers Manoj Kumar Sharma and Pramod intervened, thus the charge under section 341 IPC also stand proved against accused Deepak Singh@ Lucky.
29. The Hon'ble High Court while discussing the fine distinc- tion and overlapping between section 354 & 354A IPC ob- served in T. Manikadan Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and another reported at (2017) 237 DLT 271 as under:
9. Thus when the modesty of a woman is outraged or it is likely to be outraged coupled with an assault or criminal force, Section 354 IPC would be attrac-
ted. Though assault can be by mere ges-
Page no. 23 ture or preparation intending or knowing that it is likely that such gesture or prepar- ation will cause any person present to ap- prehend use of criminal force. This is an act more than mere physical contact with advances involving unwelcome and expli- cit sexual overtures. Ingredients of Sec- tion 354 IPC would show that the same mandate an actus reas of assault or crim-
inal force with an intention to outrage or likely to outrage the modesty whereas a mere physical contact with advances as noted above would attract Section 354A IPC. Though in certain fact situ-
ations there may be cases where there may be an overlap of both Sections 354 and 354A IPC however, there may be cases which may exclusively fall either in Section 354 or Section 354A IPC. Once an offence falls under Section 354 IPC even if ingredients of Section 354A IPC are satisfied, the accused will be pun- ished for Section 354 IPC the same being more serious in nature as it prescribes the minimum sentence of one year and term for imprisonment which may extend to five years.
10. In the present case the allegations proved against the petitioner are that he fondled the breast of the prosecutrix with ill intention and thereafter touched her private parts. Thus, the offence commit- ted by the appellant fulfils the ingredients of Section 354 IPC and not merely Sec-
tion 354A IPC which punishes even a physical contact with advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. Since criminal force has been used by the appellant and the modesty of the prosec-
utrix had been outraged by an act beyond physical contact with sexual overture, in-
gredients of both Sections 354 and 354A IPC being fulfilled, this Court finds no illegality in the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 354 and 354A IPC and the sentences awarded.
Page no. 24
30. Section 354 IPC requires an act of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty, while Section 354A IPC addresses unwelcome sexual advances. Section 354A indicates that both physical contact and sexual overtures must be present for a conviction under this section. In the present case the prosecution witnesses have proved that accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky held the hand of Geeta and pressed her breast. Geeta, who deposed as PW2 has stated that Deepak Singh was abusing her, Shivani, Archana and Gudiya. The offence committed by the accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 354A IPC which punishes even a physical contact with advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. In the present case, though accused Deepak used criminal force against Geeta and her modesty had been outraged by used of criminal force, however without sexual overture, thus ingredients of Sections 354A IPC are not fulfilled. Accordingly, this Court finds that charge under section 354 IPC has not been proved against Accused Deepak.
31. The evidence led by the prosecution shows that there are no specific allegations against the accused Prashant of using criminal force or assault on Geeta, Gudiya, Archana and Shivani with the intention to outrage their modesty or of restraining any of the girls. Before discussing the individual role ascribed to him by the prosecution witnesses, it has to be seen from the evidence led by the prosecution, whether co-accused Prashant shared the common intention to commit the offences committed by accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky. No overt act of specific nature has been attributed to accused Prashant and all the prosecution witnesses have levelled allegations of general nature against him of abusing and threatening, while accusing Deepak Singh and others of the same allegations, who have Page no. 25 not been identified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh v. State of U.P., (2001) 3 SCC 673, while interpreting the concept of vicarious liability under section 34 IPC observed as under:
38. Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 recognises the principle of vicarious liabil-
ity in criminal jurisprudence. It makes a person liable for action of an offence not committed by him but by another person with whom he shared the common inten-
tion. It is a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The section gives statutory recognition to the common sense principle that if more than two per- sons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. There is no gainsaying that a common intention presupposes prior concert, which requires a prearranged plan of the accused participating in an of- fence. Such preconcert or preplanning may develop on the spot or during the course of commission of the offence but the crucial test is that such plan must pre- cede the act constituting an offence.
Common intention can be formed previ-
ously or in the course of occurrence and on the spur of the moment. The existence of a common intention is a question of fact in each case to be proved mainly as a matter of inference from the circum-
stances of the case.
39. The dominant feature for attracting Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") is the element of participation in absence resulting in the ultimate "criminal act". The "act" referred to in the later part of Section 34 means the ultimate criminal act with which the accused is charged of sharing the common intention. The accused is, therefore, made responsible for the ulti- mate criminal act done by several per-
sons in furtherance of the common inten-
tion of all. The section does not envisage the separate act by all the accused per-
sons for becoming responsible for the ulti-
Page no. 26 mate criminal act. If such an interpretation is accepted, the purpose of Section 34 shall be rendered infructuous.
40. Participation in the crime in further- ance of the common intention cannot con-
ceive of some independent criminal act by all accused persons, besides the ultimate criminal act because for that individual act law takes care of making such accused responsible under the other provisions of the Code. The word "act" used in Section 34 denotes a series of acts as a single act. What is required under law is that the accused persons sharing the common in-
tention must be physically present at the scene of occurrence and be shown not to have dissuaded themselves from the in-
tended criminal act for which they shared the common intention. Culpability under Section 34 cannot be excluded by mere distance from the scene of occurrence.
The presumption of constructive intention, however, has to be arrived at only when the court can, with judicial servitude, hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Satrughan Pa-
tar v. Emperor [AIR 1919 Pat 111 : 20 Cri LJ 289] held that it is only when a court with some certainty holds that a particular accused must have preconceived or pre-
meditated the result which ensued or ac-
ted in concert with others in order to bring about that result, that Section 34 may be applied.
32. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh, Supra the presumption of constructive intention has to be arrived at only, when the court can, with judicial servitude, hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention. In the present case, the facts proved from the testimony of PW1, PW2 & PW7 does not show any common intention on the part of accused Page no. 27 Prashant and no specific allegation of use of criminal force or assault on any of the girl with a view to outrage their modesty has been attributed to accused Prashant. Further PW8, Niranjan Singh, who is an independent witness, during his cross-examination stated that accused Prashant was not present at the time of incident. During his re-examination by the Ld. APP, he stated that he had not seen accused Prashant at the spot, the witness replied that due to darkness at the spot at the time of incident, he could only clearly identify Deepak. It is also pertinent to refer to the MLCs relied upon by the defence and exhibited as Ex.DW2/A to DW2/E, which shows that though police in the cross-case, where PW3 & PW4 are accused, have taken all the family members of accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky to the hospital and they were examined by the doctor, however accused Prashant was not found present by the police in the cross-case, when they arrived at the scene of crime nor his MLC has been found in the record summoned by the Defence and exhibited in the testimony of DW2. Thus the presence of accused Prashant at the spot is doubtful.
33. Accused persons have also been charged with the offence under section 451 IPC. However there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with regard to the accusations that accused persons trespassed into the house no. 10 staff quarter of Delhi Jal Board, Type-2 Varun Enclave, Kondli of Kanchi Lal situated on the ground Floor. PW1, PW2 & PW3 have deposed that accused persons followed them and entered into the house, while PW4, volunteered during his examination in chief that accused persons were unable to enter in their house as their guests were present there. PW7, Gudiya has deposed that accused persons also reached in front of their house and started Page no. 28 abusing. In view of the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of Prosecution witnesses, with regard to the fact whether accused persons entered inside the house or not, Court finds that prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 451 against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
34. Accused persons have also been charged under section 509 IPC, which reads as under:
Section 509 : Word, gesture or act inten- ded to insult the modesty of a woman.-- Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any ob- ject, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or ob- ject shall be seen, by such woman, or in- trudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprison- ment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine .
35. Section 354 IPC and section 509 IPC, both deal with outraging the modesty of a woman however, both these sections deal with different type of actions and elements.
Section 354 involves physical assault or force while section 509 involves using words, gestures or acts that are intended to insult or offend a woman's modesty. In the present case, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses though refer to use of criminal force but does not refer to any specific words uttered by the accused persons or any sound or gesture made by them intending to insult the modesty of woman. PW1 & PW2 has made general and omnibus allegations of accused persons abusing and threatening, however their testimonies lack any specific allegations against any of the accused persons. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 509 IPC against the accused.
Page no. 29
36. Both the accused persons have also been charged for the offence under section 174A IPC. The accused persons stopped appearing in the proceedings and thereafter non bailable warrants were issued against the accused persons vide order dated 30.01.2024, however the same were received unexecuted, thereafter process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the accused persons vide order dated 09.02.2024, however the same could not be properly executed and court issued fresh process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against both the accused persons vide order dated 03.04.2024. Reports were filed and statement of process server was recorded according to which process under section 82 Cr.P.C. had been duly executed and both the accused persons were declared proclaimed persons vide order dated 07.06.2024. Both the accused were thereafter arrested on 06.07.2024. Supplementary chargesheet was filed against both the accused persons for the offence under section 174A IPC and separate charges for the offence was framed. Process server who deposed as PW12 has stated that he duly executed the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against both the accused at Khatu Shyam Colony, Chipiyana Village, near Lal Kuan, UP. One of the sine qua non for the offence under section 174A IPC is the proper execution of the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the record reflects that fresh address of both the accused persons namely Deepak Singh @ Lucky and Prashant had already come on record during the court proceedings as fresh bail bonds were furnished by accused Prashant showing his address as KH-400M, plot no. -32, Gali No.8, Om Sai Enclave, Chipyana Bujurg, G.B. Nagar, (UP) and accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky showing his address as H.No. 214, Chipyana Bujurg, Gautam Budh Nagar, (UP) in the year 2019, Page no. 30 whereas the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and executed at old address. Thus, the court finds that though accused persons being aware of the proceedings pending against them had stopped appearing without any reasonable cause, however since the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and executed at the old address on record, thus the offence under section 174A IPC is not proved.
37. As already discussed, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky restrained Geeta by holding her hand and he also pressed her breast with intent to outrage her modesty. Thus accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky is found guilty of the charge under section 341 and 354 IPC. Accused Deepak Singh @ Lucky is acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 451, 509, 354A and section 174A IPC. Accused Prashant is acquitted of the charges under section 341, 354, 354A, 451, 509 read with section 34 IPC and of the offence under section 174A IPC.
38. Bail bonds of the accused Prashant except bail bonds filed under section 437A CrPC stand cancelled and surety stand discharged.
39. Let the accused Deepak @ Lucky be heard on point of sentence separately.
Announced in the open court on this 27th Day of March, 2025.
ALOK Digitally signed by ALOK
SHUKLA
SHUKLA
(Alok Shukla)
Date: 2025.05.27
15:15:59 +0530
Additional Session Judge-2/
Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances)
East/Karkardooma/Delhi27.05.2025
Page no. 31