Delhi District Court
State vs . Sharad Duggal on 18 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS VASUNDHARA AZAD, MM03, SE,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Sharad Duggal
FIR No.421/2014
Police Station : H. N.Din
Under Section : 323/509 IPC
Date of institution : 01.09.2014
Date of pronouncement :18.05.2019
JUDGEMENT
a) Cr. cases number of the case 86372/2016
Date of commission of
b) 21.05.2014
offence
c) Name of the complainant Arti Duggal
Sharad Duggal
Name, parentage and address S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
d) of the accused R/o H.No. H53, 2nd Floor, South Extn. Part1, New Delhi
e) Offence complained of Section 323/509 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Convicted
h) Date of final order 18.09.2019.
FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.1/11 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.05.2014 at about 1.15PM in front of Bangali Sweet, South Extn. New Delhi within jurisdiction of PS K. M. Pur, accused intentionally caused hurt to the complainant Ms. Arti Duggal and also uttered indecent words to her and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 323/509 IPC.
ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court, charges of accusation for the offences punishable under Section 323/509 IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The prosecution in all examined four witnesses.
(1) PW1 HC Birender Singh has proved FIR registered by him in the present matter as ExPW1/A. (2) PW2 Arti Duggal has deposed that on 21.05.2014, when she was coming from Nehru Stadium along with her two children namely Chaitnaya and Anya, at about 1.15pm near Bengali Sweets, South Extension PartI, accused Sharad Duggal showed her his middle FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.2/11 finger, made obscene facial expressions towards her and also abused her in filthy language, i.e. "Behan Chod Mai Tuje Bataunga" "Behan Chod". PW2 has also deposed that apart from the aforesaid, the accused had also slapped her thrice on her cheeks. PW2 has proved her statement given to the police as ExPW2/A as well as arrest and personal search memo of accused as ExPW2/B and ExPW2/C. (3) PW3 Retired SI Ram Sharan has deposed that on 21.05.2014 he upon receipt of DD No.7A which is ExPW3/A along with W/Ct. Vimlesh reached at the place of occurrence and conducted inquiry. PW3 has also deposed that medical of complainant was done and FIR was registered in the present matter. PW2 has proved site plan prepared at her instance as ExPW3/C. (4) PW4 W/Ct. Bimlesh has deposed along the lines of PW3 as she accompanied him at the spot of occurrence upon receipt of DD No.7A.
4. Vide statements recorded on 19.11.2018 & 18.07.2019 accused admitted genuineness of statement of Arti Duggal u/s 164 CrPC dated 22.05.2014 as ExP/A/1 and MLC of injured Arti Duggal bearing no.94507 as ExP/A/2 in the present case u/s 294 CrPC.
After examination of abovesaid witnesses, PE was closed.
FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.3/11 STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
5. In his examination under Section 313 CrPC., the accused denied the entire evidence put to him wherein he stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated by the complainant in the present matter on account of property dispute and opted to lead DE. He produced Ms. Garima Duggal and examined as DW1 in his favour. Testimony of DW1 as under:
(a)DW1 Ms. Garima Duggal had deposed that that her brother Sharad Duggal was present at the house entire day and false complaint has been lodged against him by complainant Arti Duggal who is her sister in law.
ARGUMENTS
6. The Ld. APP has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in entirety and the charges against the accused u/s.323/509 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it is argued by counsel for accused that accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter by the complainant.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
7. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused persons have been considered.
FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.4/11 Offence u/s. 323 IPC
8. In the present case, PW2 is the complainant Arti Duggal who has specifically deposed that the accused on the day of the incident slapped her thrice. Same is duly corroborated by PW2's MLC bearing no. 94507 and dated 21.05.2014 which has been admitted by the accused u/s 294CrPC as ExP/A/2. It is mentioned in the MLC that complainant was observed to have suffered 'linear bruise of size 3cmx 1cm' and the opinion as to nature of injury was given as sample.
9. Punishment for causing injuries which are 'simple' in nature is provided in Section 323 IPC. Specifically, Section 323 IPC is the punishing section for the commission of offence of voluntarily causing Hurt defined under Section 319 IPC. Section 319 of IPC defines Voluntarily Causing Hurt as : " Whoever voluntarily causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person, is said to cause hurt."
10. PW2 has very categorically specified that accused on the day of the incident slapped her thrice and her evidence remains unshaken during crossexamination. PW2 has consistently deposed with regard to the offence committed by accused Sharad Duggal. Evidence of witnesses cannot be brushed aside because of some minor contradictions. The consistent testimony of PW2 regarding hurt caused to her has been duly corroborated by her MLC. The said injuries did not occur in FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.5/11 vacuum, rather they are to be accounted for.
Further,the conduct of the accused was such that it can be safely inferred that the accused intended to and was fully conscious that by his conduct, hurt would be caused to the other party.
11. Also, the testimony of injured witnesses has its own efficacy and relevancy. It is a wellsettled law that once the eye version is given particularly by the injured himself, the Court would normally rely upon such version of the prosecution unless it suffers from serious infirmities or improvements (Balbir Singh V. State of Punjab, (P&H) 2003 Cri.L.J. 3148). The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies and discrepancies that do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded.
12. In State of Gujarat V. Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai, (Gujarat) (DB) Cri.L.J 2531 it was observed that while appreciating evidence of the injured witnesses it has to be kept in mind that their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted. They do not have any reason to omit real culprits and implicate falsely the accused persons. Further in the case of State of UP v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of rejecting the prosecution versions either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.6/11 witnesses. The Court held that if there is a ring of truth in the main case, the case should not be rejected.
13.Reliance can also be place upon the findings given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Sayed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh VII (2010) SLT 724 wherein it was observed that: "Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." Further, in State of U.P. Vs. Kishan Chand, Appeal (crl.) 29 of 1999, Supreme Court observed that the testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witnesses sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends supports to their testimony that they were present during the occurrence. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
14. Therefore, in light of the aforementioned as well as the fact that the FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.7/11 testimony of PW2 remains unshaken during cross examination, and that the MLC of injured PW2 Aarti Duggal which is Ex. P/A/2 also states that injury noted on PW2 was a 'linear bruise of size 3cmx 1cm', the guilt of accused Sharad Duggal stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
15.Thus, the consistent testimony of PW2 regarding hurt caused to her has been duly corroborated by her MLC. The said injuries did not occur in vacuum, rather they are to be accounted for. In so far as the inconsistencies and anomalies highlighted by Ld. Counsel for the accused are concerned, I am of the view that these inconsistencies are very minor in nature that are not sufficient to disclose the otherwise reliable version of the complainant.
Offence u/s 509 IPC
16. In the present case, the ingredients of provision of S. 509 have also been professed. The provisions of S. 509 speaks of insult to the modesty of a woman by various means including 'intruding upon the privacy of the women'. The offence alleged under Section 509 of IPC reads:
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 FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.8/11 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."
17. The complainant has specifically stated in her testimony before the court that the accused showed her his middle finger, made obscene facial expressions towards her and also passed remarks "behan chod mai tujhe bataunga" towards her. This is undeniably amounts to making utterances/gestures intending to insult the modesty of a woman.
18. The only defence put by the accused during crossexamination of the complainant is that she has filed a false complaint against the accused person on account of property dispute. The complainant has specifically denied the suggestion that on account of property dispute, accused has been implicated. There is no material on record to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant. Further, it is also settled law that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the pros ecutrix if the court finds it trustworthy, reliable and worthy of credence. It is quality not quantity or number of witnesses that matters. Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act does not require any minimum number of witnesses to be examined for proving a particular fact.
FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.9/11
19. Secondly, the accused for the first time in his defence evidence took the plea of alibi. However, not a single suggestion was given to the PW1 during her crossexamination that that accused was not present at that date, time and place of incident. It is very well settled preposition that it is for the accused to lead evidence during the trial to sustain plea of alibi. If plea of alibi is taken by the defence, burden lies upon him under Section 106. His plea of alibi or any other plea or plea of any other fact having special knowledge can only be proved by the person who has taken plea (see 2009 CRI.L.J. 400: "Hari Narayan Singh (in Jail) v. State of W.B." CALCUTTA HIGH COURT). In the present case the accused person has produced one witness, his sister i.e. DW1 Ms. Garima Duggal to prove the plea of alibi. However, DW1 has admitted that at the time of incident, she was not present at the house where as per her testimony, the accused was present the entire time when the alleged incident occurred. Therefore, the testimony of DW1 does not establish that the accused has not misbehaved with the complainant. Hence, in the present case the accused has not discharged its burden to establish his plea of alibi.
20. Further, much weight cannot be attached to testimony of DW1 who being sister of the accused is an interested witness. So the defence has failed to establish that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.10/11
21. Complainant PW2 has fully supported the case of the prosecution in material particulars. Therefore, case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused Sharad Duggal is convicted for offence u/s 323/509 IPC.
Conclusion
22. From the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the case of prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for offences under Section 323/509 IPC.
23. Since the prosecution has conclusively established all the essential ingredients against the accused Sharad Duggal as provided U/s 323/509 IPC, beyond any reasonable doubt, accused Sharad Duggal stands convicted for the said offences.
Accused be heard on quantum of sentence.
Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally signed byANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18.09.2019. VASUNDHARA VASUNDHARA AZAD AZAD Date:
2019.09.18 15:10:14 +0530 (VASUNDHARA AZAD) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03 SED/ SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI FIR NO.421/2014, State Vs. Sharad Duggal PSH.N. Din Page no.11/11