Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul Bhasin on 29 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 769/05
P.S. : Shalimar Bagh
Unique ID No. : 02404R0021512006
State
Vs.
Rahul Bhasin
S/o Yogender Kumar Bhasin
R/o A-2/116, LIG Flats,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
Date of institution of case : 06.03.2006
Date of reserving the judgment : Not reserved
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.09.2014
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 900/2/SB 2. Date of Commission of Offence: 09.09.2005 3. Date of institution of the case: 06.03.2006 4. Name of the complainant: Ms. Bindiya Sethi 5. Name of the accused: Rahul Bhasin 6. Offence complained or proved: 506/507/509 IPC 7. Plea of Accused : "Not Guilty" 8. Final Order: Acquitted 9. Date of Final Order: 29.09.2014 FIR No. 769/05 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 1 of 7 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1.Succinctly, the facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 09.09.2005 and on previous dates, accused Rahul Bhasin uttered obscene words to Dr. Bindiya Sethi intending to insult her modesty by making telephone calls from mobile no. 9350202616 on the mobile no. 9350777111 of complainant Dr. Bindiya Sethi, having taken precaution to conceal the name/identity. The accused also criminally intimidated her by giving threat to kill her and her husband. Matter was reported to police, accused was arrested and upon completion of necessary investigation, challan was prepared and filed in court for trial.
2.The copies of charge sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3.Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offence U/s 509/506/507 IPC was framed against the accused on 07.07.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined following witnesses:-
PW-1 ASI Rajender deposed that on 09.09.2005 he was posted as duty officer at PS Shalimar Bagh from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on receipt of rukka brought by Ct. Shiv Chauhan sent by ASI Gyanavir. He recorded the FIR Ex. PW 1/A and made endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW 1/B. PW-2 Sh. Ankur Godara deposed that accused is his friend. In the year 2005, he usually made a call to Rahul on his no. 9350202616 from his mobile no.FIR No. 769/05 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 2 of 7
9312291881. He does not know who is the owner of sim of mobile no. 9350303616 but the same no. has been used by the accused Rahul Bhasin.
PW-3 Dr. Anmol Sethi deposed that he does not know anything about this case. The police never met him in connection with this case. The said witness was declared hostile by the ld. APP for State and was cross-examined by ld. APP for State.
5.In the present case, the main witness namely Bindiya Sethi was not traceable. Summons were also issued to the complainant Bindiya Sethi through SSP, Dehradoon but they received back unserved. The father of complainant namely B. N. Jham met at the address and stated that the complainant is no more interested with the prosecution of the present case. The father of the complainant did not disclose the address of the complainant. The three witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution. The other witnesses cited in the list of witnesses are police officials and the doctors who are not the ocular witnesses. No fruitful purpose would have been served by examining the remaining witnesses. Accordingly, Prosecution evidence was closed. As nothing incriminating was found on record against the accused which could warrant examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C., it was dispensed with.
6.I have carefully perused the judicial record and have heard arguments advanced by ld APP for the state as well as by ld defence counsel.
7.In the present case, the accused Rahul Bhasin is charged u/s 506/507/509 IPC on the allegations that on 09.09.2005 and on previous dates accused uttered FIR No. 769/05 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 3 of 7 obscene words to Dr. Bindiya Sethi intending to insult her modesty by making telephone calls from mobile no. 9350202616 on the mobile no. 9350777111 of complainant Dr. Bindiya Sethi having taken precautions to conceal the name/identity and also criminally intimidated her by giving threat to kill her and her husband.
8.The section 506/507/509 IPC are reproduced as follows:
Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.
Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 507 Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of FIR No. 769/05 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 4 of 7 either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section.
Section 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 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.
9.To prove the culpability of the accused Rahul Bhasin for the offences charged, the prosecution was under the obligation to prove the following ingredients:
-That obscene words were uttered by the accused to insult the modesty of the complainant;
-That accused criminally intimidated the complainant and by anonymous communication;
10.The prosecution has not examined even a single material witness to prove its case. The main witness i.e. Bindiya Sethi who was the complainant in the present case was not traceable during the trial of the case. No other eye witness has been cited or examined to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The complicity of the accused could have been proved by the ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. The ocular witnesses turned hostile or are not traceable and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. It is FIR No. 769/05 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 5 of 7 well settled law that on convict the accused on circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused and no other. It was held by the Apex court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343),that:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
11.It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof. No evidence has come on record to prove the culpability on the part of accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and FIR No. 769/05 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 6 of 7 therefore, the accused is entitled to be exonerated.
12.In the light of above discussion and observations, accused Rahul Bhasin is hereby acquitted for the offence U/s 506/507/509 IPC. Bail bond stands cancelled and surety is discharged. Documents, if any be returned after cancellation of endorsement on the same.
13.File after necessary compliance be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court ( SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI )
29th day of September 2014 Metropolitan Magistrate,
Rohini Courts: Delhi
FIR No. 769/05 PS Shalimar Bagh Page 7 of 7