Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/73330/2016 on 25 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MM, MAHILA COURT04, WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Meenu Kaushik.
FIR No. : 601/04
PS : Rajouri Garden.
U/s 323/354/506(2)/509 IPC
Unique I.D. No. 02404R0979982005
CIS No.73330/2016
State v. Mohan Singh
J U D G M E N T :
a)Serial No of the case : 69/2/16
b)Date of commission of offence : 02.06.2000
c)Name of the Complainant : Identity with held
d)Name parentage and address
of accused : Mohan Singh S/o Sh. Pritam
Singh R/o A48, T.C.Camp,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi
e) Offence complaint of : 323/354/506(2)/509 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Date on which judgment was
reserved : 07.01.2017
h)Final Order : Convicted under section `
323/509 IPC
i)Date of decision : 25.01.2017
Brief Statement and Reasons for Decision:
1.The present FIR has been registered on the allegations that on 02.06.2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the premises of PS Rajouri Garden accused used criminal force upon the complainant to outrage her modesty and outraged her modesty and criminally intimidated her by threatening to kill her and caused hurt upon her person. He insulted the modesty of the complainant by uttering abusive words and that such words were heard by the complainant. On these allegations, FIR FIR No.601/04 State v. Mohan Singh Page Number 1 of 10 was got registered and investigation was carried out. After investigation charge sheet for the offence u/s 323/354/506(2)/509 IPC has been filed. On appearance of the accused, copy of the charge sheet was supplied. Arguments on charge were heard. Prima facie charge for the offence u/s 323/354/506(2)/509 IPC was made out against the accused and was accordingly framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses.
PW1 HC Satish Kumar registered the FIR Ex.PW1/A. PW2 Complainant was the president of Jagriti Mahila Smiti, who stated that accused used to do business of illicit liquor and he had other illegal business. He was involved in other illegal activities. Uma used to object the said activities but accused instead of mending his ways, he started harassing her by calling her by names, abusing her and by taking bath in front of her in naked condition. Three FIRs got registered against the accused by Uma and proceedings against accused under 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. Accused had made atmosphere of the area bad. She is a social worker and Uma came to her office. She went to Police Station to register the FIR but police officials were reluctant to register FIR and then she along with Uma went to office of DCP(West Zone) on 02.06.2000 at about 2:30 pm and narrated the complete incident and the officer passed the order for registration of case U/s 447/380/506 IPC and to arrest the accused. She proved the photocopy of instructions as MarkA. Thereafter, she along with Uma called at police station by the SHO. Accused Mohan Singh and his wife namely FIR No.601/04 State v. Mohan Singh Page Number 2 of 10 Baljit Kaur were already sitting there. SHO directed SI Naresh Kumar to record the statement of Smt. Uma on the direction of DCP. At that time accused Mohan Singh was also sitting with SI Naresh Kumar and Ct. Prem Singh. She further stated that both the police officials started pressurizing the complainant to compromise the matter and accused threatened the complainant that he will harass her more and will kill her. She further stated that accused and his wife attacked on her from back side. Wife of accused caught hold her hairs and both of them started beating her in the presence of SHO by fist blow and accused Mohan torn her saree and used abusive language for her and Uma. Accused also gave threats that he will kill her, Uma and their families. Thereafter, statement of complainant was recorded and present FIR was registered. She proved the present FIR as Ex.PW2/A. PW3 Uma deposed that accused Mohan Singh beat her and called her names like Champa Bai. She further stated that accused take bath in front of her door in naked condition and when she objected, the accused threatened her stating that the entire police station is with him. Thereafter, she went to police station but police officials did not lodge her complaint and told her that she is making false complaints. Thereafter, she along with PW2 Complainant went to police station Rajouri Garden but they could not meet SHO at that time thereafter they went to DCP Office, who gave some directions to SHO in writing. Thereafter, they went to police station where they found accused Mohan Singh alongwith his wife Baljeet Kaur already present there. She further stated that SI Naresh Kumar along with Prem Singh pressurized her to withdraw her complaint. She further FIR No.601/04 State v. Mohan Singh Page Number 3 of 10 stated that wife of accused pulled hairs of Complainant and accused gave beatings with kicks and fist blows and even pulled her saree. She is partly cross examined by Ld. APP for state wherein she admitted that she was given beatings by accused on 02.06.2000 and he also misbehaved with her and she lodged an FIR no. 545/00 in this regard. She further admitted that accused started quarreling with her.
PW4 Insp. Naresh Kumar stated that on 02.06.2000, on the basis of complaint received from Uma against accused Mohan Singh, accused along with his wife, complainant and Uma came to police station and when he was indulged in talks with accused and Uma, complainant was interfering in the said talks. At that moment, accused resisted to said interference and there was exchange of hot words between both of them. Thereafter Complainant gone out of his room and after five minutes SHO called him and there also Complainant was making interference and suddenly accused slapped her. He further stated that they apprehended the accused and on the basis of statement of complainant registered the present FIR.
PW5 SI Pawan deposed that on 03.08.2004 he recorded the statement of witnesses and on 25.09.2005 arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and personal search memo Ex.PW5/B. PW6 ACP Balraj Singh Dahiya, who deposed that on 02.06.2000 he was posted as SHO at police station Rajouri Garden. He deposed that on day Smt. Uma and Complainant came to his office and complained that the IO SI Naresh Kumar is asking them to FIR No.601/04 State v. Mohan Singh Page Number 4 of 10 compromise the matter without their consent and will with accused Mohan. He further stated that when he alongwith complainant and Smt. Uma standing outside his office he called the IO and accused Mohan Singh and when accused came there, he started abusing Complainant and when she asked him not to do so, he slapped Complainant. Then he intervened and tried to save complainant. Thereafter IO apprehended the accused and put behind the bars.
3. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused Mohan Singh and his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. In reply to the incriminating evidence, accused Mohan Singh stated that he is innocent and complainant is habitual for blackmailing the persons of the locality and as he could not fulfill her demands, hence, present case was registered against him. He chose not to lead any evidence in defence. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
4. I have heard Sh. Yogender Singh Chaubey Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State and perused the Court record.
5. In order to prove its case prosecution has to show the following ingredients of the offence u/s 323/354/506(2)/509 IPC.
(i) That the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person.
(ii) That the accused assaulted or used criminal force to a woman with intention to outrage her modest.
(iii) The accused uttered some words or made some sounds or gestures or exhibited any objects or intruded upon the privacy of a woman.
FIR No.601/04 State v. Mohan Singh Page Number 5 of 10
(iv) That the accused threatened the complainant with injury to her person or reputation or property with intent to cause alarm to the complainant.
6. In the present case, the complainant is the most vital witness. She has categorically stated that accused along with his wife was present in the Police Station when she reached the police station along with PW3 Uma. As per complainant, accused and his wife attacked on her from back side. Wife of accused caught hold her hairs and both of them started beating her in the presence of SHO by fist blow and accused Mohan torn her saree and used abusive language for her and Uma. Opportunity to cross examine the complainant was given to the accused but the same was not availed by him. Then after almost three years, an application to cross examine was moved on behalf of accused, which was allowed vide order dated 02.08.2016. however, the said application was allowed subject to availability of witness and it was specifically mentioned in order at the time of allowing of said application that in case the witness is not found available, then her examination in chief shall stand. In the present case summons issued to complainant for her cross examination received back with the report that complainant has been expired on 04.09.2015. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended during final arguments that as complainant could not be cross examined, hence her examination in chief could not be read. Ld. counsel for accused has relied upon Kalyan Lahiri v. State, Cri.L.J.484. But the same does not come in his support, as at the time of allowing of the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. it was made clear that application is allowed only subject availability of witness. This way testimony of complainant remained FIR No.601/04 State v. Mohan Singh Page Number 6 of 10 stand.
PW3 Uma has supported the version of complainant to the extent that accused gave beatings to complainant with kicks and fist blows and even pulled her saree. Opportunity to cross examine PW Uma was not availed by accused. Even on allowing his application under section 311 Cr.P.C. PW Uma was not cross examined by accused. PW4 and PW6 supported the incident to the extent that there were exchange of hot words between complainant and accused and accused slapped the complainant. As per PW6 accused abused the complainant. PW3, PW4 and PW6 did not support the version of the complainant regarding giving threats by the accused to kill complainant and PW Uma and their family. Even PW Uma did not corroborate the version of complainant regarding giving of threats by accused. The fact that accused verbally abused the complainant and slapped her upon exchange of hot words has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
7. It is not the case of the accused that he was not present at the spot. As per the accused, complainant is habitual for blackmailing the persons of the locality and he could not fulfill her demands, hence present case was registered against him. Even if version of accused is relied that complainant was habitual of blackmailing the local persons, then also this fact cannot be denied that accused verbally abused the complainant and slapped her in police station. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6 have independently supported the case of prosecution to this extent beyond reasonable doubt. In such a situation it is highly unlikely for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused in case no such incident took place with the complainant.
8. Thus, it is proved that the accused uttered words which FIR No.601/04 State v. Mohan Singh Page Number 7 of 10 are insulting to the modesty of the woman i.e. the complainant in this case. PW3, PW4 and PW6 have also supported the version of the complainant. However, the prosecution is not able to prove any intentional use of criminal force or assault against the complainant to outrage her modesty by the accused. PW 2 i.e. complainant stated that accused torn her saree while PW3 stated that accused pulled the saree of complainant. PW4 and PW6 did not depose regarding pulling or tearing the saree of complainant by accused. Hence, the ingredients for the offence u/s 354 IPC are not proved against the accused. Also the ingredients for the offence u/s 506 IPC have remained unproved as the prosecution is not able to show any alarm caused to the complainant due to the threat extended by the accused.
9. In the wake of the above discussions, the prosecution has been able to discharge the onus placed upon it and has proved the ingredients of the offence U/s 323/509 IPC. It has been proved that the accused uttered words and abused with intention as well as knowledge that modesty of the complainant will be insulted thereby. Moreover, accused slapped the complainant in the police station. In view of the above discussions, accused Mohan Singh stands convicted for the offence u/s 323/509 IPC. Put up for hearing on quantum of sentence for 30.01.2017.
Announced in open Court on this 25th Day of January 2017 Meenu Kaushik Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court04,West District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi All pages signed.
FIR No.601/04 State v. Mohan Singh Page Number 8 of 10 FIR No. 601/04 PS Rajouri Garden State v. Mohan Singh 30.01.2017 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Amar Singh Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Convict with Ld. Counsel Shri Yogender Singh Chaudhary. Arguments on the point of sentence have already been heard. Ld. Counsel for convict submits that offence U/s 323 and 509 IPC are punishable with simple imprisonment for one year. It is further submitted that convict remained in judicial custody in the present case since 25.09.05 to 07.06.06 and hence benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be given to convict. He has prayed for leniency for the convict.
Per contra Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for complainant has opposed the aforesaid submissions of the convict and has submitted that the maximum punishment be awarded to the convict, so that a deterrent message be sent to the society and like minded people be discouraged from entering into crime against woman. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for complainant that there are several cases pending against the accused which were filed by the complainant and other female victims and hence convict deserves no leniency.
The sentencing is a delicate act in which the Court is required to take the over all view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the sentence should serve prolific purpose of serving the society at large. The convict must be awarded such a sentence, which discourages the other like minded people of the society from such offences against woman. The Court has also to keep in mind that the purpose of sentence is not only deterrent but also reformative.
In the present case, In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and by balancing the mitigating or extenuating and aggravating factors, I am of the opinion that the convict namely Mohan Singh be sentenced to simple imprisonment for eight months and fine of Rs. 1000/ U/s 509 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 500/ U/s 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences for simple imprisonment shall run consecutively. Benefit U/s 428 Cr.PC be given to the convict as per law.
Copy of the order be given to the convict free of costs.
Announced in the Open Court Meenu Kaushik
On this 30th day of January, 2017 Metropolitan Magistrate
Mahila Court04,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
At this stage, an application u/s 389 Cr P.C for suspension of the sentence is moved by the convict through his counsel today in the Court. Heard. In view of the submissions made, the application stands allowed. Sentence of the convict is suspended for 30 days i.e., till 01.03.2017 to enable him to file an appeal or to serve the sentence. Convict is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ Bonds furnished and accepted till 01.03.2017.
Meenu Kaushik Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court04) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.