Delhi District Court
State vs Phool Singh on 19 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PADMA LADOL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 100/2016
PS Inderpuri
U/S : 354/354C/354D/506 IPC, 1860
State V/s Phool Singh
Cr.C No. 4557/2017
CNR No. DLND020213102016
Date of Institution 25.10.2016
Complainant Manju
W/o Sh. Jyoti Singh
R/o WZ-83, Village Dasghara, New
Delhi
Name, parentage and address of the Phool Singh
accused S/o Late Sh. Devi Ram
R/o WZ-83/7, Village Dasghara,
New Delhi
Offence complained off Section 354/354C/354D/506 Indian
Penal Code
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Final Order Acquitted
Date of Judgment 19.10.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argued by: Ms. Shruti Singhal, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
FIR No. 100/2016 LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19
State Vs. Phool Singh 16:39:11
+0530
Page 1 of 31
JUDGMENT
1. The SHO, Police Station Inderpuri has presented this charge-sheet against above named accused for initiation of trial U/s. 354/354C/354D/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that in and around year 2012, the prosecutrix/victim had purchased a house at WZ-83 Dasghara Village, New Delhi from late Sh. Devi Ram (father of accused). When she started construction at the said premises, accused started troubling her. On 06.05.2016 at around 6.45 PM, accused beat her on the road and threatened her to leave the said house else he would get her, her husband and children killed. Based on the complaint of the prosecutrix/complainant, present FIR was registered and investigation ensued. During investigation, site plan was prepared and statement of prosecutrix u/s. 164 Cr.PC got recorded. During further investigation, witnesses were examined and their statement u/s. 161 CrPC were recorded. Accused was arrested, however was released on police bail. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, final report was presented for trial against accused Phool Singh u/s. 354/354C/354D/506 IPC.
COGNIZANCE, COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 207 CRPC AND PLEA OF ACCUSED Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 FIR No. 100/2016 16:39:17 +0530 State Vs. Phool Singh Page 2 of 31
3. After presentation of charge-sheet, accused were summoned by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Copy of the charge- sheet was supplied to accused u/s. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). Thereafter, charge u/s. 509/506 IPC was framed against the accused by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 19.12.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. It is important to note that the charge u/s. 509 IPC was framed on the allegations of showing the pictures of complainant to other persons and charge u/s. 506 IPC was framed on the allegations of criminal intimidation to kill her husband and children.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined three witnesses and relied upon following evidence -
Witness exhibiting Identification Description PW-1 Ms. Manju Ex. PW-1/A Statement of complainant PW-2 ASI Chanderpal Ex. PW-2/A Arrest Memo of Accused PW-3 SI Narender Ex. PW-3/A Site Plan Ex. PW-3/B Bail Bonds of Accused Admitted Documents Ex. P1 Statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC Ex. P2 FIR No. 100/2016 Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:39:23 FIR No. 100/2016 +0530 State Vs. Phool Singh Page 3 of 31
5. PW-1 Ms. Manju W/o Jyoti deposed that in the year 2012, she purchased H. No. WZ-83 from one person namely late Sh. Devi Ram. Thereafter, in the year 2016 when she started renovation of the above mentioned house, one person namely Phool Singh S/o Devi Ram started troubling / harassing her. She further deposed that he used to take her photographs and used to point out her to the other persons. He also threatened her to kill her husband, children and her if she does not abandon the aforementioned house. PW-1 has further deposed that on 06.05.2016 at about 6.45 p.m when she was going to her house, accused came on a bike with another person and he pulled her on the road by pulling her clothes (witness pointed towards her upper part of her suit). She also deposed that accused also gave beatings to her and thereafter, he fled away from the spot as she had started shouting for help. Thereafter, she called the police officials. After sometime, police came at the spot. The police officials recorded her statement on the next day, which is at Ex. PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. That she also pointed out the spot, where the incident took place. That on the same day, she had also visited the PS, where she found the sister and mother of the accused and she came to know that accused had beaten them also and they came to PS to lodge complaint against him. Witness further deposed that she also accompanied the police officials to the court for recording her statement. She narrated the whole incident to the Ld. Magistrate. The statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. is at Ex. P1 (admitted by accused Digitally FIR No. 100/2016 signed by PADMA State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA LANDOL Page 4 of 31 LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:39:29 +0530 u/s 294 Cr.PC). Witness further deposed that accused still keeps on harassing / troubling her and on 18.05.2016 also abused her, pulled her on the ground and beat her. That accused also took her photographs. PW-1 correctly identified the accused in Court.
In her cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that the accused is known to her since the year 2016 and that prior to 2016 there was no meeting, quarrel or altercation with the accused. She has further deposed that she firstly met Phool Singh in PS Inderpuri somewhere in March 2016. That prior to March 2016 she never met Phool Singh. Phool Singh had complained against her regarding construction of the house WZ-83, Village Dasghara. She also stated that prior to the present complaint she did not lodge any complaint against Phool Singh. Witness further deposed that she started construction at the above said address in February 2016 and it was completed in June-July 2016. That after she purchased the constructed house, accused had no objection but accused started to have objection regarding her constructing the house. Firstly, the accused objected the construction in 2016 and the accused filed a complaint regarding construction in the PS and the police official called her at the PS and she came to know that accused Phool Singh had objected to her construction. Witness has further deposed that after the said incident, Phool Singh also harassed her on regular basis but she does not remember the exact date and time of these incidents. She had not given any police complaint regarding harassment by the accused FIR No. 100/2016 Digitally signed by PADMA State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA LANDOL Page 5 of 31 LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:39:35 +0530 prior to the present case. She denied the suggestion that she did not file any complaint prior to the present case as accused did not harass her. PW-1 deposed that accused used to take her photograph on his mobile phone. That she cannot say which mobile phone or make, he used to take her photos from distance and that she also cannot tell from how much distance he used to click her photos. Witness further denied the suggestion that accused did not take her photographs. She deposed that she does not remember the exact date when accused clicked her photos but stated that it was in the month of March 2016. That sometime he clicked her photographs at about 11 a.m and sometime at about 5 p.m. Witness further deposed that in the year 2016, she was residing at Gole Market, however she cannot tell the exact address. That she has apprehension of threat to her and her family members' life and safety. PW-1 denied the suggestion that she is voluntarily not disclosing the address and she does not have any threat perception from the accused. She further deposed that she used to come at the construction of her house at WZ-83 Dasghara at about 7 a.m and used to remain there till 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. That she used to supervise the construction and her husband did not come there. That the accused used to point out towards her from a considerable distance and therefore, she could not identify the person to whom the accused pointed towards her. She denied the suggestion that accused did not point her out to anybody as there was no person along with the accused at any point of time as stated by her in my statement. She Digitally signed by FIR No. 100/2016 PADMA PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Phool Singh LANDOL Date: Page 6 of 31 2024.10.19 16:39:41 +0530 deposed that there were almost 5-7 labourers working at the site. Witness voluntarily stated that sometimes there were only two labourers. That on the day of incident there were 4-5 labourers working at the site. Witness voluntarily stated that by the time of incident, all of them had left. That she did not take attendance of the labourers. She denied the suggestion that she is not aware if the labourer left the spot when the incident took place as she did not mark their attendance. She also deposed that she wrote down the complaint in detail regarding the incident in the PS on the next day of incident and she gave the details in her complaint as much as she remembered at that time. She further deposed that she gave just one written complaint to the police regarding the incident and she did not give any further statement /complaint regarding the above said incident. That she used to come and go the construction site i.e. WZ-83 Dasghara Village from her house at Gole Market by auto rickshaw or by bus and it took about 45 minutes in bus and 20 minutes in auto rickshaw. PW-1 further deposed that on the day of incident, she came at the construction site by bus no.725 and after the incident she returned back to her house at Gole Market in auto rickshaw from the PS. She called the police at about 7 p.m and the police officials did not record her statement/complaint on the day of incident and asked her to come next day with her husband. She further deposed that she had not given her complaint on
06.05.2016 when the incident took place. That she had given her complaint to the police on 07.05.2016 i.e. the very Digitally FIR No. 100/2016 signed by PADMA State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
Page 7 of 312024.10.19 16:39:47 +0530 next day of the incident. Witness voluntarily stated that she had given a 100 number call to the police on the day of occurrence and the police visited the place of incident and the concerned police official instructed her to come to the police station on the next day. She further deposed that she cannot tell the name of police personnel who reached the spot upon receiving the 100 call, however there were two police personnels. That the police officials reached the place of incident at about 07 to 07:15 pm on 06.05.2016 and they remained at the spot for about 5 minutes and upon instructing her to come to the police station they left the spot. She further deposed that she had also visited the police station on the same day. However, at the police station she was told to come on the next day. She narrated the incident to the police at the spot as well as at the PS. That she had also suffered injuries due to the incident. She did not ask the police to get her medical examination done as she did not know that it should have been done. That she did not consult any physician for her injuries and rather took the medicine on her own and had also used bandage. PW-1 denied the suggestion that she did not consult the doctor as she did not receive any injuries nor did any such incident occur. She further denied the suggestion that the police also did not get her medical examination done as she did not receive any injury or any mark of injury. Witness further deposed that she cannot show any proof that some construction was going on but she has proof in order to show that she was present at the place of incident. She submitted that she could Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL FIR No. 100/2016 LANDOL Date:
State Vs. Phool Singh 2024.10.19
16:39:52 Page 8 of 31
+0530
say so as the building material was lying over there, masons were working over there. That at the time when the incident took place, none of her labour was present as the incident took place near the bus stop and there were lots of people. When she raised alarm, there were certain persons present who came to her, however, when the police reached at the spot, they had already left the spot. Witness further deposed that the incident occurred at about 06:45 pm and the police reached the spot at about 07:00 pm. She denied the suggestion that no fight took place and that nobody witnessed the incident despite the fact that number of persons were standing over there. That she wrote the complaint to the police and mentioned the entire facts and nothing remains unmentioned in her complaint. Witness voluntarily stated that the remaining facts were disclosed to the Court. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the facts as mentioned in the complaint and before the Court in her statement were improved after she was tutored to mention the said fact which were not written in her original complaint to the police station. That her statement before the Ld. Magistrate was recorded two days after the date of incident i.e. on 09.05.2016. Then the attention of the witness was drawn to the proceeding u/s. 164 CrPC already Ex. P1 dated 01.10.2019 and read over to the witness and she admitted that certain portions of her statement u/s 164 CrPC are not mentioned in her police complaint. Witness voluntarily stated that she had mentioned all the facts in her statement u/s 164 CrPC which were missed in the police Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL FIR No. 100/2016 LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 State Vs. Phool Singh 16:39:58 +0530 Page 9 of 31 complaint. PW-1 further deposed that she had told the police regarding the fact that Phool Singh used to click her photographs from mobile phone. She conceded that she has never seen any such photographs as stated by her in her statement and she never asked the police about the recovery of alleged photographs from accused. Witness denied the suggestion that the photographs has never been clicked by the accused from mobile phone. She further deposed that she has never requested the police to recover the alleged mobile phone from which her alleged photographs were taken by the accused. She denied the suggestion that she never requested as no such photographs were ever taken by the accused from any mobile phone. She further deposed that it is only because of the fact that she purchased the house i.e. H.No. WZ-83, Village Dasghara, New Delhi that there was an altercation between her and the accused. She further conceded that in her deposition before this court on 26.07.2022, she has stated that "on the same day I had also visited the police station where I found the sister and mother of the accused and I came to know that accused had beaten them also and they came to police station to lodge the complaint against him". She admitted that she has not written the said fact in her complaint dated 07.05.2016 given to the police station Inder Puri. She deposed that she have stated the said fact to the Ld. Magistrate during her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. That she has gone through her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the concerned Ld. M.M. and she did not find any of her such Digitally FIR No. 100/2016 signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Phool Singh LANDOL Date: Page 10 of 31 2024.10.19 16:40:05 +0530 statement given to the concerned Ld. M.M. Witness further deposed that she has not stated even to the police to take action against those persons who used to sit behind the accused on his vehicle and to whom he used to point out towards her. She then denied the suggestion that she did not inform about the said fact to the police as the accused was not accompanied by any of such person. PW-1 admitted that after the present FIR and another FIR bearing no. 109/16 there was no repetition of like incidents at the instance of any accused person or any of his accompanying persons.
She denied the suggestion that any of such incident as recorded on 06.05.2016 has never taken place on the basis of which the frivolous FIR was recorded against the accused persons. She admitted that accused had not assaulted her but he had maltreated her. Witness voluntarily stated that accused had pulled her suit below the neck and due to which she fell down, then he threatened her to leave the house, otherwise the accused would kill her, her husband and children. She further deposed that the incident took place on 06.05.2016 and whatsoever had happened with her on 06.05.2016 was incorporated by her in her complaint dated 07.05.2016 given to the PS Inder Puri. PW-1 denied the suggestion that accused had any point of time never threatened her to kill or her family or her husband. She deposed that apart from the above threatening, the accused did not give any other threats to her. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely and that as she has grudge against the accused on account of having purchased Digitally signed by FIR No. 100/2016 PADMA PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Phool Singh LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 Page 11 of 3116:40:16 +0530 the house bearing no. WZ-83, Village Dasghara, as the consequence of which the frivolous FIR has been lodged against the accused. She further denied the suggestion that the accused had never assaulted or insulted her in order to outrage her modesty.
6. PW-2: ASI Chanderpal deposed that on 14.05.2016, he was posted at PS Inderpuri as HC. On that day at about 09:00 A.M, he along with IO namely ASI Narender Kumar went to the house of the accused i.e. house No. 87/7, Village Dasghara. There the accused, namely Phool Singh, S/o Devi Singh was already present and his arrest was made by the IO vide arrest memo Ex-PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the accused was released on police bail. His statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO. PW-2 correctly identified the accused in Court. He was not cross-examined despite giving opportunity.
7. PW-3: SI Narender deposed that on 07.05.2016, he was posted at PS Inderpuri as ASI. On that day in morning time, the complaint was received by the DO and it was marked to him for further investigation. Thereafter, the rukka was prepared and on the said rukka the endorsement was made and FIR was registered. He went to the spot of occurrence, Ved Prakash Shastri Marg Bus Stand. The site plan was prepared which is at Ex-PW3/A bearing his name at point A. He further deposed that on 09.05.2016, the complainant was taken to the court for the recording of her statement u/s 164 Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL FIR No. 100/2016 LANDOL Date:
State Vs. Phool Singh 2024.10.19
16:40:22 Page 12 of 31
+0530
Cr.PC by Ld. MM. There her statement was recorded, which is at Ex-P1 bearing his signatures at point A. That on 14.05.2016 he along with HC Chanderpal went to the residence of accused Phool Singh i.e. house No. 83/7, Village Dasghara. Accused was present and his arrest was made vide arrest memo at Ex-PW2/A bearing his signatures at point B. He further deposed that the accused was released on police bail vide bail bonds at Ex-PW3/B bearing his signatures at point A. He recorded the statement of HC Chanderpal u/s 161 Cr.PC. PW-3 correctly identified the accused in Court.
In his cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that he conducted investigation on the complaint of the complainant that the accused used to click photograph and also used to share those photographs with other persons. He further deposed that he had inquired the said facts from other persons however he cannot tell the name & address of the person from whom he had inquired the aforesaid facts. Witness denied the suggestion that the accused never clicked photographs and for the same reason he did not investigate or recover the camera as alleged by the complainant in her complaint. He further denied the suggestion that no inquiry was made from any public person with regard to the above mentioned facts. Witness further deposed that there is no police picket near to the point of incident and there is a police chowki near the point of incident but that is abandoned. He denied the suggestion that the said police chowki is not abandoned and it is renovated and police Digitally FIR No. 100/2016 signed by PADMA State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
Page 13 of 312024.10.19 16:40:28 +0530 persons are always available at the said police chowki. PW- 3 further deposed that he did not inquire from any public witness as all of them refused to join the investigation and that Police cannot under procedure compel them to depose the incident which has taken place in their presence. He also denied the suggestion that no such incident has ever occurred that is why no public person was examined in this regard. He admitted that the complainant had refined her statement into many such new facts which were not part & parcel of the original complaint which is at Ex-PW1/A. He deposed that he did not investigate qua the new facts stated by the complainant in her complaint before Ld. Magistrate U/s. 164 Cr.PC. Witness also denied the suggestion that the complainant was tutored by him for her improved statement before the concerned Ld. MM and that the dispute between the complainant and the accused pertains to the property bearing No. WZ-83 which the complainant had illegally taken from the father of the accused and it was not a case of maltreatment alleged by the complainant in her complaint. Witness further deposed that the Complainant had given her complaint on 07.05.2016, however, the incident occurred on 06.05.2016. He also deposed that he did not take the complainant for medical examination and that he does not know whether the complainant refused for her medical. He further admitted that if a complaint is received regarding assault, manhandling, as a matter of practice, they always have a medical examination of complainant. PW-3 denied the Digitally FIR No. 100/2016 signed by PADMA State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA LANDOL Page 14 of 31 LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:40:42 +0530 suggestion that the medical examination of the complainant was not got conducted as no such incident has ever been taken place. He further expressed his unawareness as to how many bus stands are there near the place of incident. That the name of the bus stand where the incident took place is Village Dasghara.
8. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded on 04.06.2024 and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The accused submitted that he never had any kind of fight with the complainant/victim and he never intimidated her or troubled/harassed her. He has further stated that complainant has filed a false case as there is a property dispute between them. Accused further denied having taken any photograph of complainant/victim or having come on a bike with any person on 06.05.2016. He said he was at his shop on that date. He has further went on to state that in fact complainant herself threatens him of filing false cases against him. That he had made police complaint against her but police did not take any action. Accused has further stated that house bearing no. WZ-83/7 comes in his share of ancestral property, however, his entire family including his mother, brother and sister in connivance with the complainant got the said house transferred in the name of complainant/victim by misguiding and deceiving his father. Accused has further FIR No. 100/2016 Digitally signed by PADMA State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA LANDOL Page 15 of 31 LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:40:48 +0530 stated that police had come to his house on 13.05.2016 and not on 14.05.206, further police forcefully made him sign on certain documents. As he is not educated, he does not know what were those documents. In the end, accused pleaded innocent, however, chose not to lead DE.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts by examining all the material witnesses who have supported the prosecution version in material aspects. Prosecution has relied on the testimony of complainant/victim who has successfully stood the test of cross-examination and her testimony is same throughout. All the PWs have successfully proved the ingredients of the provisions and to show that there is nothing to suggest otherwise in the present case than the commission of the offence u/s. 509/506 IPC by the accused. Accordingly, conviction of the accused was prayed.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has raised several objections. He has argued that the prosecution has never disclosed the name of another person who was allegedly accompanying the accused on bike on the date of incident. It is further contended that the alleged photographs and torn cloths of victim have never seen the light of the day. Prosecution never produced those evidence despite FIR No. 100/2016 Digitally signed by State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA PADMA LANDOL Page 16 of 31 LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:40:54 +0530 being vital for their case. Defence has further argued that victim was not medically examined, hence there is nothing on record to establish that she got hurt at the instance of accused. It is further contended that there is no utterance of any word, making of any sound or gesture or exhibiting of any object by the accused so as to attract Sec. 509 IPC. Ld. Counsel for accused has further argued that prosecution has failed to examine any eye-witness/public witness to the alleged offence, hence, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. Hence, case is liable to be dismissed and the accused deserves to be acquitted of the present offence.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
11. After giving anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perusing the case file meticulously, this court is of the opinion that at the heart of the matter is a determination as to:
i) whether the accused Phool Singh on 06.05.2016 at around 06.45 PM with an intention to insult the modesty of complainant, uttered any word, made any sound or gesture, or exhibited any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such complainant, or intrudes upon the privacy of complainant;
ii) whether on the same date, time and place, the accused Phool Singh threatened the complainant with any injury to her and her family members, with intent to cause alarm to Digitally signed by FIR No. 100/2016 PADMA PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Phool Singh LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 Page 17 of 31 16:41:00 +0530 her, or to cause her to do any act which she is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which she is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
12. At the outset, it would be beneficial to peruse the provisions under which the accused has been charged i.e. Section 509 and Section 506 of IPC:
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.
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.
Criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC as:
Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL FIR No. 100/2016 LANDOL Date:
State Vs. Phool Singh 2024.10.19
16:41:06 Page 18 of 31
+0530
503. Criminal intimidation:
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, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.-A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
1st Point for determination:
13. At the onset, it is imperative to discuss the essential ingredients of Section 509 IPC which are as under:
i. Intention to insult the modesty of a woman; ii. The insult must be caused by:
a) uttering any words, or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that the gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or
b) intruding upon the privacy of such a woman.
Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 FIR No. 100/2016 16:41:13 +0530 State Vs. Phool Singh Page 19 of 31
14. Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code encapsulates two pivotal components for establishing an offence: firstly, the presence of an intention to insult the modesty of a woman, and secondly, the manner in which this insult is perpetrated. The fundamental ingredient of this provision is the requirement of intent, where the accused must possess a deliberate intention to affront or insult the modesty of a woman. The insult itself can take place through two distinct modes. It can occur verbally or visually by uttering specific words, making sounds, or displaying gestures or objects, with the deliberate intent that these words, sounds, gestures, or objects are heard or seen by the woman involved. Alternatively, insult can manifest as an intrusion upon the woman's privacy, meaning thereby encroaching upon her personal space or violating her sense of privacy intentionally, in a manner that affronts her modesty. In essence, Section 509 emphasizes that intent is the cornerstone of this offence, necessitating a deliberate affront to a woman's modesty for the Section to be invoked.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkripal v. State of M.P. (2007) 11 SCC 265 has discussed the essence of woman's modesty as:
"12. What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined in IPC. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter.
FIR No. 100/2016 Digitally
signed by
State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
Page 20 of 31
LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19
16:41:20
+0530
The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this Section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex..."
Further, in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the test for outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 509 of IPC, has observed as under:
"In State of Punjab vs. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63) a question arose whether a female child of seven and a half months could be said to be possessed of `modesty' which could be outraged. In answering the above question Mudholkar J., who along with Bachawat J. spoke for the majority, held that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354 IPC. Needless to say, the 'common notions of mankind' referred to by the learned Judge have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. The other learned Judge (Bachawat J.) observed that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute of her sex. From the above dictionary meaning of 'modesty' and the interpretation given to that word by this Digitally signed by PADMA FIR No. 100/2016 PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Phool Singh LANDOL Date:2024.10.19 Page 21 of 31
16:41:35 +0530 Court in Major Singh's case (supra) it appears to us that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is, is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman..."
16. It is clear from the above judgments that the essence of a woman's modesty is inherently linked to her gender. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Varun Bhatia v. State & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5288 has defined 'modesty' under Section 509 as:
"31. In view of the above, "Modesty," as defined by various dictionaries, encompasses a range of meanings that converge on a common theme of propriety, chastity, and adherence to societal norms. In the context of women, modesty signifies a commitment to, scrupulous chastity in thought, speech, and conduct, and a sense of shame-fastness that arises from an aversion to impure or coarse suggestions. It also implies freedom from coarseness or indecency, emphasizing the importance of adhering to accepted social norms in one's actions and expressions. This multifaceted concept underscores the significance of maintaining moral purity, integrity, and decorum in one's conduct, reflecting a sense of reserve and propriety that Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 FIR No. 100/2016 16:41:42 +0530 State Vs. Phool Singh Page 22 of 31 transcends mere modesty and extends to broader cultural and societal expectations."
17. Hence, 'modesty', as per Section 509 IPC is a quality associated with female individuals as a group, stemming from their gender. In determining whether an act amounts to an insult of modesty, the crucial factor is the culpable intention of the accused. The reaction of the woman involved is relevant but not always conclusive. Essentially, the test for ascertaining an insult or outrage to modesty revolves around whether the actions of the offender could reasonably be perceived as capable of shocking a woman's sense of decency.
18. It is further settled law that mere insult or abuse does not fall within the ambit of Section 509 IPC. However, if the insult is directed towards the feminity of a woman, it will attract the wrath of provision. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in Swapna Barman v. Subir Das 2003 SCC OnLine Gau 196.
19. Now coming to the facts of the case in hand. The complainant has alleged that accused used to click her pictures, show it to persons accompanying him and at times points her to the other persons. As correctly contended by Ld. Counsel for accused, those pictures have never seen the light of the day. Complainant has nowhere explained what kind of pictures did the accused click, whether it was of her FIR No. 100/2016 Digitally signed by State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA Page 23 of 31 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:41:49 +0530 particular body part or from what distance such pictures were clicked. In fact, complainant/PW-1 has categorically deposed in her cross-examination that she cannot tell from how much distance accused used to click her pictures and has further deposed that she cannot tell the details/make of mobile phone on which accused used to click her pictures. No picture, whatsoever has come on record. The mobile phone, on which the accused allegedly clicked the complainant's pictures were never seized by the IO for reasons best known to him. Not just this, complainant has not named or atleast described the physique of any person to which the alleged pictures were shown. It is also pertinent to note that as per the testimony of complainant/CW-1 in Court as well as her statement before police at Ex. CW-1/A, there are no allegations of clicking her pictures on the date of incident in question i.e. 06.05.2016. She has vaguely stated that accused used to click her photographs with no specific detail of date, place or nature of photographs. In her further cross-examination on 05.09.2023, complainant/CW-1 has specifically admitted that she has never seen any such photographs. Also, the allegations of pointing her to the other persons is vague in nature specially when there is no explanation as to how the accused used to point her to other persons, whether such pointing was at the particular part of her body or whether some more gesture was accompanying with the pointing which made such conduct/gesture insulting to her modesty. There are no specific allegations by the complainant in this regard. In order to attract the Digitally signed by FIR No. 100/2016 PADMA PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Phool Singh LANDOL Date: Page 24 of 31 2024.10.19 16:41:55 +0530 wrath of provision under Section 509 IPC, it must involve an indecent conduct on the part of the accused, wherein the accused's behaviour or actions are such that they deliberately and egregiously offend or insult the modesty, dignity, and self-respect of a woman. However, in the present case, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the conduct of accused was inherently indecent or insulting. Mere act of clicking pictures or pointing the complainant to other persons (without any specificity), even if assumed to be true do not per se qualify to be an 'indecent or scandalous' conduct.
20. In the preceding paragraphs, it is seen that the culpable intention of the accused is an essential ingredient of Section 509 IPC. However, in the case in hand when the allegation against the accused itself is vague in nature, there is no occasion to determine if the accused had a culpable intention. Even if the allegations are assumed to be true, accused cannot be said to have an intention to insult the modesty of complainant in the absence of any evidence, whatsoever. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ingredients of Section 509 are not fulfilled. Therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.
2nd Point for Determination
21. For proving an offence under Section 506 of IPC prosecution is required to prove:
Digitally FIR No. 100/2016 signed by PADMA PADMA State Vs. Phool Singh LANDOL LANDOL Date: Page 25 of 31 2024.10.19 16:42:02 +0530
(i) that the accused threatened some person.
(ii) that such threats consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested.
(iii) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
22. In Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 7 SCC 423, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing Section 506, which defines the criminal intimidation observed as under:
"11. ****** A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do."
12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and FIR No. 100/2016 Digitally signed by PADMA State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA LANDOL Page 26 of 31 LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:42:09 +0530 obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the mind of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of the appellants posting a comment on Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC."
23. It is clear from above that the fundamental requirement of the provision under Section 506 IPC is the intention of FIR No. 100/2016 Digitally signed by State Vs. Phool Singh PADMA PADMA LANDOL Page 27 of 31 LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:42:17 +0530 accused to cause alarm in the mind of victim or cause the victim to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which the victim is legally entitled to do. Reliance in this regard is placed on Mohammad Wajid vs State Of U.P AIR 2023 SC 3778. A mere scuffle or abuse devoid of intention does not amount to criminal intimidation. Same has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Johar v. State of U.P (2019) 14 SCC 207.
24. In the case in hand, complainant/CW-1 has deposed in Court that in the year 2016, when she started the renovation of house, accused threatened her to kill her, her husband and children if she did not abandon the house. In the statement given to police at Ex. PW-1/A, complainant has mentioned that on 06.05.2016 accused had threatened her to abandon the house, else he would get her, her husband and children killed. In her statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC before Ld. MM, she has also stated that on 06.05.2016, accused threatened her to leave the house else he would kill her and her children.
However, there are no such allegations of criminal intimidation on the date of incident i.e. 06.05.2016 in the testimony of complainant given before Court. Rather, she has made a general statement that in the year 2016 accused used to threaten her to abandon the house else he would kill her and her family members.
Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:42:26 FIR No. 100/2016 +0530 State Vs. Phool Singh Page 28 of 31
25. As seen above, the intention of accused is sine qua non to attract the wrath of Section 506. Intention is a mental condition which has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. In other words, whether threat was given with intention to cause alarm to the person threatened has to be established by evidence to be brought on record. The threat must be intended to cause alarm, however, the degree of such alarm may vary in different cases, but the essential matter is that it is of a nature and extent to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and take away from his acts that element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Amulya Kumar Behera vs Nabaghana Behera Alias Nabina And Ors.
1995CRILJ3559.
26. In the case in hand, there is no material on record which shows that the accused had the intention to cause alarm in the mind of complainant. Moreover the complainant herself never felt alarmed because as she has stated that right from the time she started renovation of the house, accused has been threatening her to abandon the house. However, had she been alarmed she must have done some overt act as a result of that 'alarm' or taken some action against the accused. Though the test under this Section is not the effect of such threat or intimidation on the victim, however, same is a relevant factor in order to establish the intention of accused. It is an admitted fact that the parties herein i.e. Digitally signed by PADMA FIR No. 100/2016 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
State Vs. Phool Singh 2024.10.19 Page 29 of 3116:42:34 +0530 complainant and accused has a dispute over the house bearing no. WZ-83. Accused has also stated in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC that her family members in connivance with the complainant have transferred the said house in the name of complainant which the accused believed to be his share of the ancestral property of his family. In the considered opinion of this Court, there are no materials to hold that accused threatened the complainant to cause injury to the complainant and his family members with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant, or to cause her to do any act which she was not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which she is legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. In Inder Pratap Singh and Ors. v. State of H.P and Anr. 2003 (1) Crimes 345 (HC) (decided on 21.06.2002), Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held that Section 506 IPC is not attracted where the accused extended mere threats with a view to deter the victim from interfering with what the accused is believed to be his exclusive property. In the case in hand, there is nothing on record to show the requisite mens rea on the part of accused. The present facts and circumstances show that the threat to kill the complainant and her family does not call for the penal visitation as under Section 506 IPC.
FINAL ORDER Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:42:41 +0530 FIR No. 100/2016 State Vs. Phool Singh Page 30 of 31
27. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Phool Singh is hereby acquitted of offence punishable u/s. 509/506 IPC.
Digitally signed by PADMAPADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:38:50 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (PADMA LADOL) on this 19th October, 2024 JMFC-04: New Delhi: PHC Certified that this judgment contains 31 pages and each page Digitally signed bears my signatures. PADMA by PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.10.19 16:38:56 +0530 (PADMA LADOL) JMFC-04: New Delhi: PHC FIR No. 100/2016 State Vs. Phool Singh Page 31 of 31