Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/534944/2016 on 30 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MM02, MAHILA COURT, NORTH
WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
FIR No. : 10/13
PS : Maurya Enclave
U/s 506/509/507 IPC
Unique I.D. No. 02404R0175882013
CIS No. 534944/2016
State v. Aditya Aggarwal
J U D G M E N T :
a)Serial No. of the case : 343/2/14
b)Date of commission of offence : 05.01.2013
c)Name of the Complainant : Identity with held.
d)Name parentage and address
of accused : Aditya Aggarwal S/o Late Shri
R.P. Aggarwal R/o A46,
Sanjay Nagar, Sector 2,
Rohini, Delhi
e) Offence complaint of : 506/507/509 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Date on which judgment was
reserved : 30.08.2016
h)Final Order : Acquitted
i)Date of decision : 30.08.2016
Brief Statement and Reasons for Decision:
1.The present FIR has been registered on the allegations that the accused made calls to the complainant and her father at odd hours on mobile and landline number. Accused criminally intimidated the complainant by anonymous communication. He insulted her modesty by uttering words / abuses that such words will be heard by the complainant. On these allegations, FIR was got registered. After FIR No. 10/13 State v. Aditya Aggarwal Page Number 1 of 8 investigation, charge sheet for the offence u/s 506/507/509 IPC has been filed. On appearance of the accused, copy of the charge sheet was supplied. Arguments on charge were heard. Prima facie charge for the offence u/s 506/507/509 IPC was made out against the accused and charge was accordingly framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses.
PW1 father of the complainant stated that accused used to call on his mobile and his daughter's mobile phone in odd hours. He extended threats and used vulgar language. The accused threatened to kill him and his daughter. He used to threaten his daughter to deface her by throwing acid. He made the complaint of above said incident to the police station in February 2012. After making complaint Mark A, the accused and his parents came to the police station. The parents of accused asked forgiveness for their son and promised that their son will not harass the complainant and PW1. But after two months, again he started the same. Then PW1 gave a complaint Mark B dated 10.05.2012 and complaint Mark C dated 29.05.2012 to SHO concerned but police did not take any action against the accused. He made complaint dated 14.07.2012 to DCP, North West, Ashok Vihar Delhi. The accused sent obscene/vulgar email Mark E1 to E10 to his son, his daughter and daughter in law from fake email ID used by him FIR No. 10/13 State v. Aditya Aggarwal Page Number 2 of 8 and sent obscene picture and vulgar language to his daughter on her face book account. He made a fake facebook ID of his daughter and used a nude photo of his daughter to fix her profile picture. The accused did not stop even after PW1 made complaint to the EOW (Cyber Cell) Mark F. The EOW officials sent a letter to DCP, North West to take legal action against the accused. The accused made a complaint against PW1 at police station Prashant Vihar in which he used unparliamentary language against the complainant and PW1. Accused used to threaten him by saying "tum apne ghar call girl racket chalate ho, aur aap apni beti ko as a call girl bejete ho". Due to the harassment by the accused, PW1 changed his mobile number and residence. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
During cross examination by Ld. APP for State PW1 admitted that on 05.01.2013 and even two year prior to the above mentioned date, the accused called his daughter and him at odd hours on mobile and landline number. The accused called from anonymous numbers to threaten them. The accused is a computer /IT professional. The accused got in contact with his daughter while she was working at South Delhi and Gurgaon on her mobile number and also at landline number. On 22.06.2012 the accused called at his mobile number, used vulgar language and gave threats to kill. His daughter made complaint against the accused at PS Maurya Enclave.
PW2 ASI Rishipal stated that on 05.01.2013, he received FIR No. 10/13 State v. Aditya Aggarwal Page Number 3 of 8 a complaint marked by the SHO on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered with certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW1/C. He also made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B. PW3 Ct. Om Prakash stated to have joined investigation with IO SI Kanhiya Lal. He stated to have apprehended the accused at the instance of the complainant and produced before the IO, who arrested the accused in his presence. PW3 correctly identified the accused in the Court.
PW4 Retd. SI Kanhaiya Lal corroborated the prosecution version. He stated to have arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW4/B. The complainant did not appear for her deposition in the Court despite summons sent through DCP. After cross examination of the witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed.
3. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused Aditya Aggarwal and his statement u/s 281 Cr.PC was recorded. In reply to the incriminating evidence accused stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He has not made any telephonic calls to the complainant or her father. He did not threaten them. The complainant has got false case registered against him. The witnesses are interested witnesses. He does not have any previous involvement in any other case. He chose not to lead any evidence in defence. The FIR No. 10/13 State v. Aditya Aggarwal Page Number 4 of 8 matter was listed for final arguments.
4. I have heard Ms. Yogita Kaushik, Ld. APP for the State and Shri Raghav Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the Court record. It is cardinal principle of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
5. In the present case, the father of the complainant and her daughter are the most important and vital witnesses of the incident. However complainant has remained untraceable despite making sincere efforts. The reports of summons to the complainant have been received unexecuted even through DCP. Hence, as the complainant remained untraceable, in the absence of her indispensable testimony the burden of proof which was on the prosecution has not been discharged beyond reasonable doubt.
6. During cross examination PW1 the father of the complainant did not remember the phone number from which the accused used to call the complainant and PW1. He did not remember the email ID from which accused sent the mails. He stated that no documents was given to him by the EOW Cell relating to identification of the fake email ID. He stated not to have given any FIR No. 10/13 State v. Aditya Aggarwal Page Number 5 of 8 obscene pictures of his daughter sent by the accused to the police officials for inquiry. PW4 the IO did not know how many complaints were earlier file against the accused by the father of the complainant. He did not remember the DD number of the complaint on which he made inquiry. Even though PW4 stated to have verified all the numbers from which the accused made calls as per version of the complainant. But no verification form of the service provider is placed on record by the IO. He could not tell which numbers belong to the accused. He did not verify the documents Mark E1 to E10 which were given to him by the father of the complainant through cyber crime cell for reasons best known to the IO. The IO even fail to prepare the seizure memo while taking the documents Mark E1 to E10. He did not know whether the email Mark E1 was sent by the complainant to the accused or not. Hence statement of PW1 and PW4 and the allegations raised by them are found to be vague without any specific phone number or email ID or the alleged obscene messages and pictures.
7. Moreover, no public witness has been joined at the time of arrest in the investigation. PW3 admitted during cross examination that he did not make any DD entry when he went out of the police station for arrest of the accused.
8. It is the defence of the accused that an amount of Rs. 97,000/ in cash was given by the accused to the complainant and the FIR No. 10/13 State v. Aditya Aggarwal Page Number 6 of 8 complainant did not return the same. Later the complainant again demanded Rs. 50,000/ from the accused. When the accused refused the present FIR has been lodged.
9. The identity of the accused is most germane aspect of a criminal trial. However as the complainant has remained untraceable, the identity of the accused as perpetrator of the offence could not be established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Moreover, there is shoddy investigation by the IO as the IO has failed to verify the emails and the email account. The IO has not even contacted the service provider for verifications of the mobile number and the call detail record (CDR). Hence, even if it is presumed that the incident took place as alleged by the prosecution, it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who committed the offence or was involved in the offence. It is not proved that it was the accused who harassed to the complainant. Hence, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus placed upon it.
10. It is not established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the incident took place or that it was the accused who committed any offence or was involved in the offence. Accordingly, accused Aditya Aggarwal is entitled for acquittal. In view of the above discussion accused Aditya Aggarwal stands acquitted for the offence u/s 506/507/509 IPC. The accused is directed to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.10,000/ and FIR No. 10/13 State v. Aditya Aggarwal Page Number 7 of 8 furnish his recent photograph and present address. Accused seeks time to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC. Earlier bail bonds are extended for furnishing of recent photograph and fresh bail bonds for 31.08.2016 at 4.00 pm. Announced in open Court on this 30th day of August 2016 Susheel Bala Dagar Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court02,North West Rohini Courts, Delhi All pages signed.
FIR No. 10/13 State v. Aditya Aggarwal Page Number 8 of 8