Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh Rajdan on 2 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Rakesh Rajdan
FIR NO: 454/2013
P. S. Bindapur
Case ID No. 02405R0322912013
Date of institution of case :08.11.2013
Date on which case reserved for judgment :01.05.2014
Date of judgment :02.05.2014
Advocates appearing in the case :-
Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Ld. APP for State
Sh. L.S. Gautam, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 23.09.2013
b) Offence complained of : U/s 354/354-D/506/509/427 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Ms. Shivani
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : Rakesh Rajdan s/o Late Rajender
Nath Rajdan
local & permanent residence r/o F-35, Gali No.-I, Om Vihar
Extension, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi.
e) Plea of accused : Accused is falsely implicated.
f) Final order : Accused is acquitted from
offences u/s 354/354-D/506/509
but convicted u/s 427 IPC.
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In the present case, accused has been charged for offences u/s 354/354-D/506/509/427 IPC on the ground that he used to harass and stalk complainant Shivani since past one and half year, and used to pass indecent gestures and on 23.09.2013 at about 10.15 to 10.30 p.m at night FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 1/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan at Gali no. 1, Om Vihar Extension, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi he assaulted/used criminal force against her with intention to outrage her modesty and when public gathered and tried to stop him, he threatened to kill the complainant and threw stones upon complainant and other public persons and damaged the car no. DL-8CN-7441 and also abused the complainant.
2. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses on its behalf to prove the case against accused.
3. PW1 is complainant Ms. Shivani who stated in her examination-in-
chief dated 26.11.2013 that she has been working in Muthoot Finance for the last one and a half year and she used to leave home in the morning at around 8.45 a.m and used to return by 8 p.m. She correctly identified the accused in the court and stated that whenever she used to move out, accused Rakesh Rajdan who is her neighbour, used to stalk her and whenever she used to stand in the balcony, accused used to stare at her and used to pass comments that "panjabiyon ki ladkiya aisi hoti hai, paison ke liye bik jaati hain" and "mere ghar ke samne prostitute rahti hai".
4. Pw1 further stated that on 23.09.2013 at about 10 p.m in the night, when she was taking a walk after dinner, accused came near her and asked how much she would charge and caughthold of her arm and touched her breast but she pushed the accused and rushed towards her house and shouted due to which many neighbours gathered and apprehended the accused and beat him up. Pw1 further alleged that accused resisted and managed to skip from the clutches of the neighbours and ran into his house and went upstairs on the roof and FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 2/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan started pelting stones on complainant and neighbours, due to which her vehicle namely Santro car bearing no. DL-8CN-7441 was damaged. She stated that some of the public persons called police at 100 number and police arrived and arrested accused from his house. She exhibited her statement given to the police as Ex. Pw1/A and exhibited her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C recorded before the Magistrate as Ex. Pw1/B. She stated that vehicle belongs to her brother Naveen Arora which was got released by him on superdari and she has brought the car today and exhibited the car as Ex. P1.
5. In her cross-examination dated 10.12.2013 by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw1 stated that she has been residing at H. No. F-38, Om Vihar Extension, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi since her birth and accused is also residing there since very long time and is having two sisters. She stated that she did not disclose to anyone initially regarding harassment by the accused but when it crossed limits, she disclosed it to her mother. She further stated that she did not make complaint to sisters of the accused since she was not on talking terms with them. She stated that accused is harassing her for the last one and half year and even when she used to go to the college, accused used to stare at her and used to pass lewd comments but she never lodged any complaint to the police or college authorities prior to the incident dated 23.09.2013.
6. She stated that she told her mother regarding harassment by the accused in the month of July 2013 but she cannot tell the exact date. She stated that she did not make any call at 100 number on 23.09.2013. She further stated that nobody witnessed the incident on 23.09.2013 or any FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 3/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan other incident that happened with her. She further stated that nobody was available near her at the time of incident and she ran towards her house and disclosed the incident to her mother only. She denied the suggestion that some unknown person broke the glass of her car and accused has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion. She denied the suggestion that accused never harassed or molested her at any point of time. She further denied the suggestion that the present case has been initiated at the instance of the builders or land mafia of the locality who are eager to purchase/acquire the house of accused by hook or crook. She stated that when she gave the statement to the police, her neighbours and parents were also present in the police station and police also recorded the statement of neighbours namely Veena, Nirmala, Sofia, Ashok and Pradeep in her presence.
7. Pw2 is Smt. Neelam i.e. mother of complainant Shivani. She stated that in the month of September 2013, her daughter Shivani had narrated that she was being eve teased by accused ( accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court). She further stated that on 23.09.2013, she heard cries of her daughter and she alongwith her son rushed outside and her daughter narrated that she was again misbehaved with and eve teased by accused. She stated that before they could reach upto Rakesh Rajdan, he ran upstairs and started pelting stones from his roof on them and other public persons due to which the window glass of their car was smashed and thereafter, police officials came and apprehended the accused and accused was also manhandled by the public persons.
FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 4/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan
8. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw2 stated that her son or daughter had not made call at 100 number to the police and one neighbour Veena had made call at 100 number. She stated that her daughter narrated the incident to her at about 9.30 pm. on 23.09.2013. She further stated that accused was taken out of his house and was thrashed by the neighbours in presence of police. She stated that their statements were recorded by the police on 23.09.2013 itself. She denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place on 23.09.2013.
9. Pw3 is Smt. Veena i.e. neighbour of the complainant. She stated that on 23.09.2013, she was taking a walk in the locality and heard cries from other lane and went there and saw that accused (correctly identified by the witness in the court) was pelting stones on public persons from his roof and on inquiry from public persons, she came to know that accused had molested complainant Shivani. She further stated that stones fell on the car of Shivani due to which window pane of car broke and she called police at 100 number. She stated that she does not remember the make and colour of car. She stated that police came and apprehended accused and public persons also manhandled the accused by slapping him.
10. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw3 stated that it is correct that she did not see or hear the accused abusing Shivani. She stated that she called the police at about 9.30 or 10 p.m. She stated that the rear glass of car was broken. She stated that she does not remember the time when police reached at the spot. She denied the suggestion that police had not carried out any investigation in her presence.
11. PW4 is Naveen Arora, who is brother of complainant. He stated that FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 5/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan on 23.09.2013, he was taking rest at home and he heard screaming of his sister who was taking a walk in the lane and he rushed out and came to know that she was misbehaved with by accused Rakesh Rajdan(correctly identified by witness in the court). He stated that many neighbours gathered at the spot but in the meantime accused rushed upstairs to his roof and started pelting stones at the public persons and his Santro car bearing no. DL-8CN-7441 was damaged by the stones and its rear glass was broken. He stated that public persons called up at 100 number and police arrived and brought the accused from his roof and apprehended him and the public persons also manhandled the accused. He stated that his vehicle was taken into possession by the police and he got it released vide superdaginama Ex. Pw4/A. He stated that he had brought the vehicle in the court and the same is Ex. P1.
12. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that he was doing work of repairing rickshaw and bicycles and he used to come back at home at about 9.30 p.m. He stated that he had seen the accused pelting stones on his vehicle and stated that he does not know anything else except the fact of pelting stones by the accused. He stated that police officials reached at the spot at about 1.30 p.m and remained there for about half an hour.
13. Pw5 is Sh. Gajender Huda who is neighbour of the complainant. He stated that on 23.09.2013, he was sleeping and at around 9.30-10 p.m he woke up due to shouts from outside and went outside and saw that accused Rakesh Rajdan was pelting stones on the neighbours and vehicles parked in the locality due to which rear glass of one Santro car FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 6/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan was broken and he rescued some of the kids from the stones and called up at 100 number and then police arrived and took the accused from his house to police station He stated that he came to know that accused Rakesh Rajdan had misbehaved with a girl who is his neighbour.
14. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw5 stated that area of house no. F-35 is about 200 sq. yards out of which 100 sq. yards is in his possession and remaining 100 sq. yards is in possession of the accused. He stated that the portion of accused was agreed to be sold to his partner Vikram Soni by accused on the basis of agreement to sell and admitted that about Rs. 23 lacs is due towards the consideration amount. He denied the suggestion that any FIR was lodged on the complaint of accused Rakesh Rajdan which is pending against him and his partner Vikram Soni regarding beating and causing injury to accused Rakesh Rajdan. He admitted that dispute between him and accused is going on since last two years. He further admitted that accused is not interested to finalize the deal. He admitted that he is in business of property dealing and building constructions. He denied the suggestion that whenever the party with whom they enter into a deal, try to back out from the deal, they use all illegal means to pressurize them to finalize the deal. He admitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident which happened with girl. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in this case in connivance with local police.
15. Pw6 is public witness Smt. Rajrani who is also neighbour of the complainant. She stated that 2-3 months back, she was taking her grand children for a walk near the house and she saw complainant Shivani FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 7/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan coming towards her house on her scooter and suddenly, accused stopped her scooter and started molesting her and Shivani shouted and thereafter accused ran inside his house and went to his roof and started pelting stones. She stated that time was about 9-9.30 p.m and it was dark outside and streetlights were not lit. She stated that she instantly took her grand children inside the house and she again came out of the house and by that time, public of the entire locality had gathered outside and accused was constantly pelting stones on the cars parked outside.
16. Pw6 further stated that public witness Veena called the police and police came at the spot and arrested the accused from inside his house and took him away to the police station and all the residents of locality also went to the police station, where their statements were recorded and thereafter, they came back to their houses early in the morning at 4 .am.
17. Ld. APP had cross-examined the witness in respect of one point with permission of the court and Pw6 stated in her cross-examination that it is correct that she saw complainant Shivani standing besides scooter opposite her house and she had not seen her riding the same.
18. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw6 stated that she could not see clearly from the distance where she was standing, due to darkness, that whether accused was molesting Shivani or not but she had seen the accused standing near Shivani. She stated that she does not know whether Shivani was driving the scooter when accused stopped her but she had seen her standing near the scooter. She denied the suggestion that no such incident had ever happened and false story had been concocted at the instance of Gajender Huda and police officials.
FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 8/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan
19. Pw7 is SI Raj Singh who stated that he had filed the chargesheet only and entire investigation had been conducted by previous IO/SI Ashok Kumar.
20. Pw8 is SI Ashok Kumar who stated that on 23.09.2013 at about 10.45 p.m on receipt of information vide DD No. 111B Ex. Pw8/A, he alongwith constable Pradeep reached at Gali no. 1, Om Vihar where many public persons had gathered and stones were scattered here and there. He stated that one Santro car bearing no. DL-8CN-7441 was found in damaged condition and its rear glass pane was broken and the staff of PCR van had already apprehended accused Rakesh Rajdan. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
21. Pw8 further stated that one girl namely Shivani approached him and lodged her complaint vide Ex. Pw1/A and he prepared rukka Ex. Pw8/B and got the FIR registered which is Ex. Pw8/C and thereafter he prepared the site plan Ex. Pw8/D and arrested accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. Pw8/E & F respectively. He stated that he took possession of the damaged car vide memo Ex. Pw8/G and also took into possession the pieces of stones and bricks and kept them in a plastic bag tied and sealed with seal of AKY and seized them vide memo Ex. Pw8/H. He further stated that he got recorded the statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C and obtained the copy of same vide application Ex. Pw8/I and after recording statement of witnesses, he handed over the file to MHC(R) since he had been transferred. He stated that he can identify the stones which were seized but identity of the stones was not disputed by the Ld. Defence counsel due to which case property was not produced in the FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 9/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan court.
22. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw8 stated that he had not received any call or DD entry regarding eve teasing or any untoward incident with a female. He stated that incident had happened between 10.15-10.30 p.m. He admitted that complainant had not made any call at 100 number. He stated that he never came across with any facts regarding property dispute with accused and Gajender Huda and he has no knowledge if any dispute is pending between accused and Gajender Huda. He stated that accused is having dispute with one Vikram Soni but he has no knowledge whether Gajender Huda and Vikram Soni are working together. He stated that no construction was going on, in the property of Rakesh Rajdan when he visited the spot. He denied the suggestion that no such incident had happened with complainant and he had not conducted fair investigation.
23. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which he stated he is innocent and preferred to lead Defence Evidence . Accused has brought two defence witnesses in his favour who are his sisters.
24. Dw1 is Ragini Rajdan who is sister of accused. She stated that on 23.09.2013, her brother had returned from his work and after taking bath he worshiped and took meal and was inside the house when at about 9.30 p.m, she heard noise and went outside her house. She stated that somebody had thrown stones on their house, therefore, her brother came out of the house to inquire about the same but somebody falsely alleged that her brother had thrown stones and the police falsely implicated her FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 10/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan brother in this case.
25. In her cross-examination by Ld. APP, she stated that she had not lodged any complaint before DCP regarding false implication of her brother in this case.
26. Dw2 is Rashmi Rajdan who is also sister of accused. She also deposed on same lines as Dw1, hence, her evidence need not be repeated for sake of brevity and to save precious time of the court.
27. After closure of defence evidence, case was fixed for final arguments.
Final arguments were heard on the last date and case was fixed for order for today.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF:
28. During final arguments, Ld. Defence counsel argued that there are various discrepancies in cross-examination of witnesses and prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
29. On the other hand, Ld. APP argued that the main public witness i.e. complainant herself has withstood the test of cross-examination and duly supported the case of prosecution and it is a fit case for conviction of accused.
30. Perusal of entire evidence of prosecution reveals that there are various discrepancies in the statement of witnesses. Pw1 complainant Shivani has categorically stated in her cross-examination that nobody had witnessed the incident of molestation on 23.09.2013 and nobody was available near her at the time of incident and she had disclosed the same to her mother only. However, Pw6 Smt. Rajrani who is neighbour of the complainant, stated that she saw the accused Rakesh Rajdan stopped the FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 11/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan scooter of complainant and started molesting her. Complainant has nowhere stated that she was coming on her scooter when accused stopped her. Pw6 is the only witness who alleged that Shivani came towards her house on scooter when accused stopped her.
31. There are various discrepancies in examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of Pw6 herself. Pw6 in her cross-examination admitted that she could not see clearly from the distance where she was standing, whether accused was molesting the complainant or not. She further stated in her cross-examination that she does not know whether complainant was driving scooter when accused stopped her, however she was standing near her scooter at that time. But complainant categorically stated in her deposition that nobody had seen the incident happening with her and she was alone at that time. Hence, the evidence of Pw6 is not reliable as there are various discrepancies in her evidence.
32. Perusal of evidence of all the public witnesses except Pw1 Shivani reveals that all the witnesses have categorically stated that they saw accused Rakesh Rajdan pelting stones from his roof due to which one Santro car was damaged but none of the witnesses have corroborated the version of complainant that accused had also molested the complainant before pelting stones from his roof.
33. The complainant as well as her mother and brother in their cross-
examination have admitted that they had not called the police at 100 number and Pw8 IO/SI Ashok Kumar has also admitted that he had not received any call from complainant at 100 number regarding molestation. Perusal of DD no. 111 B Ex. Pw8/A reveals that the call was regarding FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 12/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan quarrel and throwing of stones by accused from his house. Perusal of seizure memo of Santro Car no. DL-8CN-7441 and seizure memo of the stones recovered from the spot also reveals that IO had recovered the stones and the car on the night of 23/24.09.2013 from the spot. If the accused had actually molested the complainant and tried to outrage her modesty, she would have been the first person to call the police at 100 number and the call would not have been made by another public person.
34. There are various other discrepancies and doubts in evidence of complainant and her mother. Complainant Pw1 Shivani has stated that she had told her mother in July 2013 that accused was harassing her. But her mother Pw2 Neelam stated that her daughter had told her in September 2013 that accused used to harass her. It is strange that despite the fact that accused used to harass her for past one and half year, complainant or her mother never lodged a single complaint against accused prior to 23.09.2013 and on said date also, it was not complainant who called at 100 number, but Pw3 Veena, who is her neighbour called at 100 number and the call was only regarding pelting of stones by accused.
35. The Ld. Defence counsel has been able to raise various doubts as discussed above in the cross-examination of all the public witnesses and the doubts have remained unanswered, and prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt for conviction of accused for offences u/s 354/354-D/506/509 IPC. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to accused and accused Rakesh Rajdan is acquitted of offences u/s 354/354-D/506/509/ IPC.
36. As far as offence u/s 427 IPC is concerned, all the public witnesses FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 13/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan have categorically deposed that they had seen the accused Rakesh Rajdan pelting stones from his roof at public persons due to which one Santro car bearing no. DL-8CN-7441 was also damaged. IO had seized the car and pieces of stones and bricks lying at the spot and the car has been duly exhibited in evidence and the identity of the stones and bricks was not disputed by the Ld. Defence counsel.
37. Though the accused has brought two defence witnesses on his behalf who alleged that somebody was throwing the stones which also fell in their house and thereafter accused was falsely implicated in this case, however both the defence witnesses have stated that they came out of the house to see who was pelting the stones but they did not see anybody pelting the stones.
38. Whereas on the other hand, all the public witnesses have categorically deposed that they had seen the accused standing on his roof and pelting stones at public. The evidence of public witnesses on behalf of prosecution is more reliable since it is the evidence of eye witnesses who had themselves seen the accused pelting stones and there is no reason to doubt their deposition.
39. Hence, this court is of opinion that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for causing mischief and damage to property as defined u/s 425 IPC. It has been proved by the deposition of all the public witnesses that the window pane of Santro car was damaged and the car has been duly exhibited in evidence. This court is of the opinion that damage to the car was of the value beyond Fifty Rupees, the punishment of which is prescribed u/s 427 IPC. Therefore, FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 14/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan accused is found guilty of mischief and convicted for offence u/s 427 IPC. Fix for hearing on quantum of sentence today itself at 3 p.m. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 02nd May 2014. MM-01(SW), Mahila Court Dwarka: New Delhi FIR no. 454/13 ; PS: Bindapur Page no. 15/15 St vs. Rakesh Rajdan