Delhi District Court
State vs . Umakant Jha & Anr. on 17 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH:MM/MAHILA COURT-01
(SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. UMAKANT JHA & ANR.
FIR No: 209/12
New Case No. 90016/2016
U/s : 354/509/506/34 IPC
P.S : Badarpur
Date of Institution : 09.01.2013
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 10.03.2017
Date of judgment : 17.03.2017
JUDGMENT
1. FIR No. of the case : 209/12
2. Date of the Commission : 24.07.2012
of the offence
3. Name of the accused : (1) Umakant Jha
S/o Sh. Gauri Kant Jha
R/o H. No. 304, G-Block
Mohan Baba Nagar,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
(2) Sujeet Kumar Jha
@ Kundan
S/o Sh. Uma Kant Jha
R/o H. No. 304, G-Block
FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 1/11
Mohan Baba Nagar,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
4. Offence complained of : 354/509/506/34 IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Acquitted.
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 24.07.2012 at about 09.30 AM near Shiv Temple, G-Block, Mohan Baba Nagar, Badarpur, New Delhi accused Umakant Jha and Sujeet Kumar in furtherance of their common intention used criminal force against complainant with intent to outrage her modesty and also abused her in a filthy language and criminally intimidated her thereby threatening to kill her and hence, an FIR was registered U/s 354/506/509/34 IPC at Police Station Badarpur. Matter was investigated and challan was filed in the Court on 09.01.2013.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charge of offences U/s 354/506/509/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons namely Umakant Jha & Sujeet Kumar and the charge was duly explained to both accused persons in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 15.10.2013. Thus, the matter was put to trial.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In Order to prove the above said allegations against the accused person, the prosecution has cited 5 witnesses out of which all witnesses were examined.
4. PW-1 Gudia being complainant was examined on 20.01.2014 wherein she deposed that on 24.07.2012, she was residing at G-2 & 5, Gali No. 9, Mohan Baba Nagar, Badarpur, New Delhi and on that day FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 2/11 she went near the temple to get the water from the pipe of Jal Board and when she was doing so, one person namely Umakant and his son namely Kundan came there. Then Kundan threw her bucket from the spot and abused her in the "gandi" language. Accused Umakant caught hold of her hair and Kundan gave beatings to her. She further deposed that her clothes were torn and when she raised an alarm, some neighbours came at the spot. On seeing them, the accused persons ran away from the spot and someone informed the police and she was taken to the Police Station where her statement was recorded which is Ex-PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A. She further stated that both the accused persons abused her by saying "Randi ho tumhar aadmin nahi hai, tumahre ghar me kisi ko be ghushwa dege, tumhari ladki uthwa dege tum kuch nahi kar sakogi". Thereafter Police took away both the accused persons and obtained her thumb impressions on the arrest memos as well as personal search memos which are Ex-PW1/B to Ex-PW1/E and all four memos are bearing her thumb impressions at point A. Both accused persons were correctly identified by her.
5. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel after an application U/s 311 CrPC was moved and allowed. She deposed that no other public persons were present except Kalawati. The complainant was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/A wherein the name of accused Kundan was not found mentioned. She deposed that crowd had assembled at the time of incident. However, she does not know the name of any person in the crowd.
Remaining cross-examination is the matter of record and hence the same is not being repeated here as it will be discussed during the FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 3/11 reasoning part of the Judgment.
6. PW-2 Kalawati was examined on 08.09.2014 wherein she deposed that complainant Gudia is her neighbour and on 24.07.2012, at around 9.15AM, the complainant Gudia had gone to fetch water from Shiv Mandir and she had also gone for the same purpose. Suddenly, accused Umakant (correctly identify by the witness) hit the bucket of Gudia/complainant with his leg and started shouting at her and also abused her. Thereafter, the son of the accused namely Umakant (correctly identified by the witness) also joined accused Umakant and started abusing Gudia by saying that "tu Randi hai". They were also abusing with "Ma Bahan ki gaaliya". Both the accused persons were manhandling the complainant Gudia and also pushed her, due to which she fell down on the road and shouted for help. Both the accused persons threatened her as well as the public persons present there. In the meantime accused persons went away from the spot. She stated that the complainant called the Police from her mobile phone.
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein. However, her cross-examination is not being repeated here as the same would be discussed in the reasoning part of the Judgment.
8. PW-3 Duty Officer/ HC Ram Avtar was examined on 13.01.2015 wherein he deposed that on 24.07.2012, he was posted at PS Badarpur as a Duty Officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight and at about 06:10 PM, SI Rajiv handed over the Tehrir for registration of FIR and left for the spot. The same was registered at FIR No. 209/12, U/s 354/509/506/34 IPC. After that, he sent the original Tehrir and copy of FIR through HC Vijender to IO at about 06:30 PM.
9. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 4/11 despite opportunity given.
10. PW-4 Constable Dinesh was examined on 13.01.2015 wherein he deposed that on 24.07.2012, he was posted at PS Badarpur as constable and at about 09:30 AM in the morning, he received a call to reach Mohan Baba Nagar, Badarpur, New Delhi as some quarrel had taken place. He alongwith IO/ SI Rajiv reached the spot and met the complainant Gudia wherein she disclosed that a quarrel had taken place between her and the accused persons over the issue of drinking water and both accused tried to outrage her modesty and also threatened her. Thereafter, she came to the police station in the evening for lodging the FIR and accused Umakant was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at Point B and his personal search memo was also prepared which is already Ex.PW1/E bearing his signatures at Point B. Thereafter, the accused to Apollo Hospital for medical examination. (witness correctly identified the accused).
11. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. However, his cross-examination is not being repeated here as the same would be discussed in the reasoning part of the Judgment.
12. PW-5 SI Rajiv Kumar was examined on 08.12.2015 wherein he deposed that on 24.07.2012, he was posted at P.S. Badarpur as SI and on that day, he received a call of quarrel vide DD No. 17A. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Dinesh went to the spot i.e. Shiv Mandir, G Block, Mohan Baba Nagar, Badarpur, New Delhi where he met complainant Gudia and she told him that accused Uma Kant Jha and his son Sujit @ Kundan had misbehaved with her over water issue. Thereafter at about 5.20 pm in the evening the complainant came to the PS and he recorded her statement, which is already Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point B. FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 5/11 Thereafter, he endorsed the complaint as rukka, which is Ex. PW5/A, bearing his signatures at point A and handed over the same to Duty Officer for the registration of FIR. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant & Ct. Dinesh went to the spot and at the instance of complainant he prepared site plan, which is Ex. PW5/B, bearing his signatures at point A. Meanwhile, HC Bijender came at the spot and handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, he handed over the copy of FIR to the complainant. Thereafter, he searched for the accused persons and at the instance of complainant, he apprehended accused Uma Kant Jha from front of his house. After interrogation the accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/E, bearing his signatures at point C. Thereafter, he recorded the supplementary statement of complainant u/s 161 CrPC.
Next morning i.e. on 25.7.2012 he received call from the complainant that the other accused Kundan has been seated at Shiv Mandir at the spot. Thereafter, he went to Shiv Mandir and met the complainant and she pointed out towards accused Kundan who was apprehended, interrogated and arrested him and his personal search was conducted vide memo is already Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signatures at point B, Ex. PW1/D, bearing his signature at point B. After completion of the investigation he filed the chargesheet in the Court. (Both the accused were correctly identified by the witness).
13. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. However, his cross-examination is not being repeated here as the same would be discussed in the reasoning part of the Judgment.
14. As all witnesses were examined by the Prosecution, PE was ordered to be closed on 07.04.2016. Statement of the both accused FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 6/11 persons U/s 313 CrPC were recorded on 18.05.2016 in which they stated that they wishes to lead defence evidence.
15. The accused persons, examined 2 witnesses in their defence. However, the same is a matter of record and their testimonies are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
16. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the State and by Counsel for accused. Heard. Considered.
REASONS FOR DECISION
17. Before appreciating the evidence as stated above in brief, it is necessary to state the law/ essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC which are as follows :
1. There must have been assault or use of criminal force on a woman;
2. Such assault or use of criminal force must have been made-
(a) With intention to outrage her modesty; or
(b) With knowledge that her modesty was likely to be outraged.
18. The essential ingredients of Section 506 IPC are as follows:-
1. 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.
2. With intend to cause alarm to that person.
3. Or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 7/11 bound to do,
4. Or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do
19. The essential ingredients of Section 509 IPC are as follows:
1. Intention to insult the modesty of a woman.
2. Insult must be caused :
(i) By uttering any words, or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending that such words or sound shall be heard or the gesture or object shall be seen by such women, or
(ii) By intruding upon the privacy of such woman In light of the above mentioned ingredients, it is necessary to examine whether from the material on record, the offence U/s 354/506/509/34 IPC against the accused persons are made out or not.
20. The main witness in the present matter is the complainant namely Gudia who deposed during her examination in chief that on the date of the incident when she had gone to the temple to get water, accused Uma Kant Jha and co-accused Sujeet Kumar Jha @Kundan came there and Kundan threw her bucket and abused her in abusive language and accused Uma Kant caught hold of her hair. On this, she raised an alarm and some neighbours came at the spot. They also abused her "Randi ho tumhar aadmin nahi hai, tumahre ghar me kisi ko be ghushwa dege, tumhari ladki uthwa dege tum kuch nahi kar sakogi" .
21. To test the veracity of the complainant it is necessary to examine her statement in light of her original complaint and also her cross FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 8/11 examination. In her original complaint Ex.PW1/A the complainant nowhere stated that the accused persons abused her by saying "Randi ho tumhar aadmin nahi hai, tumahre ghar me kisi ko be ghushwa dege, tumhari ladki uthwa dege tum kuch nahi kar sakogi"
22. Also, admittedly the incident happened at 09:30 a.m, however DD no.39A was registered at 06:10 p.m. There is no explanation of the delay by the complainant or by the prosecution. During her examination in chief she stated that many public persons had gathered, however during her cross examination she stated that no public persons were presence except Kalawati. The name of the public witness Kalawati has nowhere been stated by the complainant in her original complaint Ex.PW1/A. The complainant further stated in her cross examination that crowd had assembled at the time of incident, however she did not know the name of any person in the crowd.
23. In her examination in chief she stated that someone had informed the police, however in her cross examination she stated that she had called the police through her mobile phone. She again contradictory herself by saying that some other person had also informed the police but she does not know who had called on 100 number. In her statement Ex.PW1/A she stated that she had called from the mobile phone of one lady on 100 number.
24. She stated in her examination in chief that accused persons tore her clothes. However, it is not the case of prosecution that the torn clothes were ever collected by the IO. In her cross examination she admitted that police had not collected torn clothes. She admitted that she did not go for medical examination as no injury was caused to her.
25. To lend credence to her testimony the prosecution examined one FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 9/11 Kalawati as PW-2. She deposed that complainant is her neighbour. However, no such averment was made by the complainant as regards her knowing Kalawati as her neighbour. Kalawati further deposed that on that day when complainant had gone to get water from Shiv Mandir, accused Uma Kant hit her bucket with leg and abused her and accused Sujeet @Kundan also joined him and abused complainant by saying "Tu Randi Hai". She stated that both of them were manhandling the complainant and pushed her due to which she fell down on the road and shouted for help and public persons were threatened by both accused persons.
26. In her cross examination she stated that when she reached the spot there were no public persons and there was a quarrel taking place between the family member of the accused and the complainant on the other side. She further stated that she reached the spot on hearing noises and when she heard the noises she was present at her home.
27. The testimony of PW-2 is also ridden with contradictions to the effect that as per her cross examination she came after hearing noises and thus could not have seen what was deposed by her in her examination in chief. She stated that family member of the accused were present at the spot, however this fact has nowhere been stated either by the complainant or by the IO in the their testimonies. She was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC wherein (Tu Randi Hai) has nowhere been written.
28. Thus, it is clear that the complainant has not been able to withstand the test of cross examination which has rendered her testimony doubtful. Even the public witness namely Kalawati has not been able to corroborate the sequence of events as stated by the prosecution/complainant. Remaining witnesses are formal witnesses FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 10/11 being the police officials who stated that the complainant did not giver her statement soon after the incident as she stated that she would give her statement after talking to her relatives. This explain the delay in registration of FIR. IO further stated that he did not find any public person who could state about the incident. However, PW-2 Kalawati has been made a public witness. There is no explanation as to how on the next dayi.e 25.07.2012 he came to know that Kalawati had also seen the incident. If Kalawati was present at the spot, as has been stated by her, the IO would have met her at the spot and would have stated so in his testimony.
29. Thus, it is clear from the above mentioned discussion that the prosecution has not been able to prove commission of offence U/s 354/506/509/34 IPC by the accused persons namely Uma Kant Jha and Sujeet Kumar Jha @Kundan and hence the accused namely Uma Kant Jha and Sujeet Kumar Jha @Kundan are is acquitted U/s 354/506/509/34 IPC.
Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the Court Court on 17.03.2017 (Chetna Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court-01/SED/Saket New Delhi/ 17.03.2017 FIR No. 209/2012 State Vs Umakant Jha & Anr. Page No. 11/11