Delhi District Court
State vs Subhash Cali on 14 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT GARG, JMFC-08 PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Cr No. 55880/2016
State vs. Subhash Cali Cotey
FIR no. 44/2016
PS Delhi Cantt.
JUDGMENT
Date of the Commission of offence 07.02.2016 Date of Institution of the case 20.03.2016 Date of reserving the judgment 06.12.2024 Date of pronouncement of judgment 14.01.2025 Name of the Complainant Sh. Sm. Bimla Devi W/o Banwari Lal R/o B-10, Purana Nangal Gaon Delhi Cantt-10.
Name of Accused, their Parentage Sh. Subash Cali Cotey S/o Lt. Sh. Govind Cali Cotey R/o C-115, Old Nangal Village Delhi Cantt.
Delhi.
Offences complained of or proved 289/338/509 IPC Plea of accused Plead not guilty Final order Convicted u/s 289 IPC and 337 IPC & Acquitted u/s 509 IPC Digitally signed ANKIT by ANKIT GARG Date: GARG 2025.01.15 17:29:01 +0530
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report is that 07.02.2016 at about 09:35am, at Purana Nangal Village, Near Gurudwara. Delhi Cantt, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Delhi Cantt, accused knowingly or negligently omitted to take care about his pet dog Roat Willer as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life or personal safety of others and his dog bite to the complainant Bimla Devi and caused grievous injury on her person and thereby accused committed offences punishable u/s 289/338 IPC, and secondly on the above said date, time and place, accused used filthy words against the complainant Bimla Devi in order to insult her modesty and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s 509 IPC, and within my cognizance.
INVESTIGATION AND NOTICE/CHARGE
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under sections 289/338/509 IPC was filed against accused. Consequently, he was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, the copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to him as per norms.
3. Thereafter, charge under sections 289/338/509 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the offence. Accordingly, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.01.15
17:29:05
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses.
4.1 PW1 Smt. Vimla Devi appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
I am the labour by profession. On 07.02.2016, I had quarrel with accused Subhash, present in the Court today (correctly identified by the witness) on the issue of parking of motorcycle. On that day, my tenant had parked his motorcycle in front of my house. Accused Subhash opposed to park motorcycle of my tenant in front of my house and beaten me and quarreled with me. The pet dog of accused hite me as accused went inside and release his pet dog (black colour) and allure the dog to hite me in my left leg at the ankle. Accused also used abuses language towards me. I called at 100 number. Police took me to DDU Hospital for medical examination. My medical examination got conducted there. I gave complaint to police, Ex.PWI/A, bearing my signature at point A. Police inquired me and prepared site plan at my Instance At this stage, 4 photographs shown to the witness. Witness has correctly identified the photographs. Same are Ex.PH-1 (colly).
XXXXXXX Sh. Ramesh Chand Malik, Ld. LAC for the accused.
I had studied upto 1" class. It is wrong to suggest that motorcycle of the tenant of the complainant was parked in the front of house of accused. At the tine of incident, I was working as a labourer in my native village. It is correct that I had given on rent my Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2025.01.15 17:29:08 +0530 property situated in Delhi where the alleged incident had happened. It is wrong to suggest that there were eight tenants residing in my property It is wrong to suggest that first altercation took place between my tenant and accused and thereafter, accused quarrel with me when I came at the spot after hearing the At this stage, witness is confronted with Ex. PWI/A from point A to Al where the fact "Gali me motorcycle khadi karne ko le karke kahasuni ho rahi thi, usi dauran me waha pe ayi" is so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that the dog was released by the accused then the dog bites on my left left.
At this stage, witness is confronted with Ex.PWI/A from point B to B1 where the fact "Kutta Subhash ke ghar se nikal ke aya or bhonkne laga" is so recorded.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
4.2 PW2 Ct. Dev Prakash appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
On 07.02.2016, I was posted as constable at PS Delhi Cantt. On that day, I along with HC Lakhmi Chand were on emergency duty. HC Lakhmi Chand received a call regarding quarrel at Old Nangal. Delhi Cantt. We went to the spot. After reaching the spot, we came to know that injured had been shifted to the DDU hospital. We received information from DDU hospital regarding admission of injured in DDU hospital. I went to the hospital and brought the MLC of the injured at the spot. 1 handed over the MLC to HC Lakhmi Chand. HC Lakhmi Chand handed over me rukka for registration of FIR. I went to PS and got recorded the FIR. Thereafter, ANKIT GARG Digitally signed by ANKIT GARG Date: 2025.01.15 17:29:12 +0530 after registration of FIR, I came back to the spot along-with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to HC Lakhmi Chand IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A, bearing my signature at point A. Accused is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). I also conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW2/B, bearing my signature at point A. 10 recorded my statement.
XXXXXXX Sh. Ramesh Chand Malik, Ld. LAC for the accused.
It is wrong to suggest that neither I visited the spot nor I joined the investigation. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the behest of Sr police officials. It is wrong to suggest that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the PS. 4.3 ASI Bal Kishan appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
On 07.02.2016, I was posted at PS Delhi Cantt. as Duty officer, and my duty hours were from 04:00 pm to 12.00 mid night. On that day, at about 07:35 pm, I received the rukka through Ct. Dev Prakash sent by HC Lakhmi Chand. On the basis of which I got registered FIR Ex.PW3/A (OSR), bearing my signature at point 'A' The FIR was got registered through computer installed at PS Delhi Cantt.. The said computer was under my lawful control at that time and the FIR Ex.PW3/A was registered on the basis of tehrir The computer was being used in routine manner for similar purpose. After registration of FIR, print out of the same was obtained running in two pages bearing my signatures at point A. Nothing adverse took place so as to affect the correctness of the information so fed in the computer I also Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Date:
GARG GARG 2025.01.15 17:29:16 +0530 made endorsement on rukka which is EX. PW3/B bearing my signature at point A Another print of FIR was also obtained which was tagged in the FIR register as per rules. Today, I have brought the original FIR register maintained at the PS, containing the original FIR, it is compared and return. After registration of FIR, I handed over the original rukka with copy of FIR to Ct. Dev Prakash to be handed over to IO HC Lakhmi Chand for further investigation. I have also issued my certificate under section 65B Evidence Act qua FIR, same is already on record, Ex.PW3/C. bearing my signature at point 'A' XXXXXXX by Sh. Ramesh Chand Malik, Ld. LAC for the accused.
Nil. Despite opportunity given.
4.4 PW4 Ritesh Kumar appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
I do not know the exact date but the incident was 3-4 years ago. I parked my bike infront of my house. My neighbour accused Subhash Uncle, present in the court correctly identify by the witness, asked not to park the bike in front of my house. Thereafter I made a complainant to my landlord regarding stand the bike. My landlord asked to Subhash Uncle to park the bike in front of his house. But Subhash Uncle said Kewal landlord ki bike hi yahah par khadi hogi kiradaro ki nahi" Thereafter scuffle took place between Subhash Uncle and my landlord. Meanwhile the son of landlord came at the spot. Thereafter accused Subhash went to his room and after some time he returned back with his pet dog and released his pet dog at my landlord. The dog bite my landlord on the leg/foot. Thereafter I made a call on 100 number after some time police Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2025.01.15 17:29:20 +0530 reached at the spot. Police official recorded my statement at PS. The landlord also received the injury on her face. The bread of the dog rotweiler. The mouth/ face of the dog was also not caged/tied.
XXXX by Ld LAC Sh Ramesh Chand Malik.
I was tenent of the landlady for the last 6 years till the date of incident. Accused was residing in front of house of the complainant/ landlady. I used to park my bike in front of my house. Accused never objected to parking of the bike before the alleged incident. It is correct that I called the landlady on that day. I do not recollect whether police official read over the statement to me or not. At this stage witness is confronted with his statement marked as A from point to A to Al to which the witness stated that he has not stated this fact to this police. I do not know the exact height of the log. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
4.5 HC Lamkhmi appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
That on 07.02.2016, I was on emergency duty from 08:00 to 08:00 pm. I DD No. 8A was received about a fighting from Old Nangal village Delhi Cantt. I along with Ct. Vedpraksh went to the spot and it was informed ot us that one woman was bitten by dog and the said woman had been taken to hospital. After one and a half hour, information was received that a woman was admitted in DDU hospital. I along with Ct. Vedpraksh went to DDU hospital and recorded her statement which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/A bearing my endorsement at point B. Thereafter, we came on the spot and rukka was prepared which is now exhibited as Ex.PW5/A bearing my signature at point A. The same was handed over to Ct.
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2025.01.15 17:29:25 +0530 Vedprakash for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back to the spot along with original tehrir and copy of FIR. He handed over the same to me Thereafter, we had interrogated the person i.e. accused Subhash whose dog had bitten the victim. After some time, the victim also came on the spot after getting discharged from the hospital. Site plan was prepared on her instance. Same is now exhibited as Ex.PW5/B bearing my endorsement at point A. The victim had also informed that her tenant got involved in fight with the accused on parking of motorcycle and the accused was abusing and fighting with her tenant. After interrogation, accused was arrested vide arrest memo which is already exhibited as Ex.PW2/A bearing my signature at point B. Personal search memo of accused was prepared which is already exhibited as Ex. PW2/B bearing my signature at point B. disclosure statement of accused was recorded which is now exhibited as Ex.PW5/C bearing my signature at HC Lakhmi Clu poire A. Thereafter, the accused was released on bail as the offence was bellable in nature. Thereafter, statement of witness was recorded and charge sheet was prepared.
At this stage, it is submitted by ld. Counsel for the accus that he will not dispute the identity of the accused at the stage of final arguments Opinion on MLC was obtained and in that injury was referred as grievous. Thereafter, Section 338 IPC was inserted.
XXX by Sh. Ramesh Chand, LAC for the accused. Rewti was tenant and he was male Statement of tenant was recorded on spot on the same day. The dog was of black colour.
At this stage, witness is shown the photographs of the dog which is now exhibited as Ex.PW5/DA and he has correctly Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG Date:
GARG 2025.01.15
17:29:29
identified the same. It is wrong to suggest that it was not the same dog who had bitten the victim. It is wrong to suggest that Rewti is not the tenant of the victim. It is wrong to suggest that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
4.6 Dr. Ajay Sharma appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
On 07.02.2016, I was posted at DDU hospital as CMO. On that day the injured namely Vimla Devi was brought to the hospital at about 11 to 11:15 AM. Patient was treated and MLC was prepred vide MLC No. 38789 EX PW6/A bearing my signature at point A. The MLC opined nature of injury as simple. After giving first aid the patient was refered to eye speciality.
XXXX by Ramesh Chand Malik, Ld. LAC for acused.
Nil. Opportunity given.
4.7 PW7 Dr. Manik Mittal appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
On 07.02.2016, I was posted at DDU hospital as Senior resident Dr., eye department. On that day the injured namely Vimla Devi was refered to me from casualty for further treatment. I examined the eyes of the patient. Patient was treated and MLC was prepred vide MLC No. 38789 already EX PW6/A bearing my signature at point B. The MLC opined nature of injury as simple from opthalmology point of view.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.01.15
17:29:34
+0530
XXXX by Ramesh Chand Malik, Ld. LAC for acused. It is correct that no fresh injury was noted down in the MLC and the MLC opined simple injury.
5. Accused in his defence lead DE and examined one witness. The deposition of the witness is reproduced as under:
5.1. DW1 Sh. Praveen Kumar appeared before the court and his deposition is reproduced as under:
I am residing at abovestated address alongwith my fam- ily since my childhood. The present accused residing in my neigh- bourhood and I know him personally from last 15-20 years. Com- plainant Vimla also residing adjacent to my house. On 07.02.2016, the tenant of victim/complainant namely Ritesh used to park his mo- torcycle in front of the house of the complainant and due to parking is- sue there were verbal exchange between accused and Ritesh and in the meanwhile, complainant came out from her house. She started abusing the accused there was hue and cry and the dog of the accused came out from house, as the door was open it was not having a cage on its mouth and started barking at her and bite on her left knee. The dog was regularly injected. In my presence accused did not abuse in any manner towards the victim/complainant.
XXX by Ld. APP for the state.
It is correct that police officials came to spot on the date of incident. I never informed the concerned police officials regarding the fact which I narrate in my chief today. It is wrong to suggest that I am a planted witness in the present case at the behest of accused and Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2025.01.15 17:29:38 +0530 today I am deposing falsely just to save the accused from criminal lia- bility. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
6. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.10.2024 and he submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he admitted that his dog bit the victim Bimla Devi and there was an altercation between him and the victim on the date of incident. He did not know how his dog went out and bit the victim. May be the door remained opened. There were 18-20 people outstanding there. He was willing to compensate the victim but she demanded Rs.2 Lacs and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He didn't intentionally let his dog out and he might have left his gate opened by mistake. He lead DE.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. Final arguments on behalf of rival parties were heard. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the records of the case.
8. Ld. counsel for the accused submits that this is a false and frivolous case against the accused persons based out of previous animosity between accused and the complainant. The accused person never released the pet dog towards the complainant so that complainant could get hurt. He never abused her and the same is a concocted story. Thus, accused persons shall be acquitted in the present matter.
9. Ld. APP for the state submits that accused person shall be convicted in the present matter as all the evidences are against the Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Date:
GARG GARG 2025.01.15 17:29:44 +0530 accused person. The complainant has deposed clearly against the accused and an independent witness i.e. PW4 Ritesh Kumar has also corroborated the story of the complainant that the pet dog rot willer had bitten the complainant and it was not on leash. Therefore, he shall be convicted in the present matter and given maximum punishment.
10. As per the prosecution, the accused person had committed an offence u/s 289/338/509 IPC. After going through the arguments and material on record, the court holds that accused is liable to be convicted u/s 289 IPC and 337 IPC. There is lack of evidence to convict the accused person u/s 509 IPC and he shall be acquitted for the same.
11. Section 289 IPC states that "Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with negligent conduct towards animals: If someone knowingly or negligently fails to take steps to protect people from danger or grievous hurt from an animal in their possession, they can be punished with up to six months in jail, a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both. To convict someone under Section 289, it must be proven that someone was bitten by the dog."
12. To prove the charge under this section, it needs to be proved that the act of the accused person was negligent with respect to anyone which can cause danger to human life.
13. The fact of the case is that the accused person and the complainant were neighbours and accused person had a pet dog. It was a rot willer and it is well known that this dog is a ferocious dog.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.01.15
17:29:50
On 07.02.2016, the complainant and the accused had a quarrel and the rot willer of the accused person was not on leash. According to the complainant, it was deliberately released in her direction by the accused person so that it could bite her whereas it is the version of the accused that the dog was inside the house of the accused and it came out of the house and bit the complainant on its own. PW1 and PW4 have deposed that the former version and DW1 on behalf of accused has deposed in consonance with the latter version.
14. Even if the version of the defence witness is believed to be true, it clearly suggests that the rot willer of the accused was not on leash and it had bitten the complainant while the complainant was outside on the road. It is not the case that the complainant was inside the house of the accused and willingly came near the dog. The complainant was standing in front of her house and she could not have reasonably apprehended any threat from such pet which was allegedly inside the house. Section 289 IPC only requires that there should be a negligent conduct with regard to an animal which can cause danger to human life. And, a rot willer is a ferocious dog. Leaving such dog without leash and keeping the door open is a negligent act and it is even admitted by defence witness that the dog came out of the house and bit the complainant. Therefore, the version of the accused person only suggests that offence u/s 289 IPC was committed by the accused.
15 Section 338 IPC states that "Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with causing grievous hurt to a person by an act that endangers human life or the personal safety of others. The Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT GARG GARG Date:
2025.01.15 17:29:55 +0530 punishment for this offense is: Imprisonment for up to two years, A fine of up to one thousand rupees, Both imprisonment and a fine".
16. As stated above, it is the case of the accused only that the dog had bitten the complainant. It is also not disputed that the dog was not on leash at that time. But as per the MLC on record and deposition of PW6, it has come on evidence that the nature of injury suffered by the complainant was of simple nature. Therefore, the accused is being convicted of lesser offence u/s 337 IPC. The negligent act of the accused person has been established by the prosecution and the injury on the person of the accused is also not disputed. Therefore, the accused person is convicted of offence u/s 337 IPC.
17. Section 509 IPC states that " Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, 1 [shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine."
18 To prove the charges under this section the prosecution needed to prove that the modesty of the complainant was insulted deliberately by the accused. The only evidence led for this purpose is the statement of PW1 that is the complainant. In her deposition, she has merely stated that abuses were hurled by the accused towards her. Neither it has been stated as to what abuses were hurled by the accused nor it has been alleged that they were hurled to outrage her Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Date:
GARG GARG 2025.01.15 17:29:59 +0530 modesty. Even if, it is assumed that abusive language was used by the accused person, there are numerous judgments of superior courts in which it has been categorically established that merely hurling abuses would not constitute an offence u/s 509 IPC. The intent to outrage the modesty of the woman has to be clearly established by the prosecution. Merely, stating in deposition that abuses were hurled against the complainant is not sufficient. The intention to outrage the modesty was needed to be established. In the absence of any other evidence qua the same, the accused is acquitted for charges u/s 509 IPC.
19. Therefore, the court holds that the accused has committed an offence u/s 289 IPC and 337 IPC. He is acquitted for offence u/s 509 IPC. In view of the above-mentioned reasons, the accused Subhash Cali Cotey is convicted for offence u/s 289 IPC and 337 IPC and he is acquitted u/s 509 IPC.
20. This judgment contains 15 pages and each page is signed by the undersigned.
Announced in the open court ANKIT Digitally signed by
ANKIT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.01.15
on 14.01.2025
17:30:04 +0530
(Ankit Garg)
JMFC-08, PHC, ND