Delhi District Court
Fir No.644/2002 State vs . Rajesh Kumar Ps: Rajouri Garden on 6 August, 2016
FIR No.644/2002 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar PS: Rajouri Garden
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT03),WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No :644/2002
P.S. Rajouri Garden
U/s 354/506/509 IPC
STATE vs. Rajesh Kumar
1. Case Unique I.D. No. : 02401R6239532004
2. New No. : 63315/2016
3. Date of complaint : 16.08.2002
4. Name, parentage & address
of the accused : Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Hukam Singh
R/o B45, Hari Enclave, PartI,
Near Sultan Puri, Delhi
5. Offence complained of : U/s 354/506/509 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acquitted U/s 354/509 IPC &
Convicted U/s 506 IPC
8. Date of order : 06.08.2016
JUDGMENT
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION :
1. Accused has been forwarded by the SHO of PS Rajouri Garden to face trial U/s 354/506/509, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
Page 1 of 8FIR No.644/2002 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar PS: Rajouri Garden
2. In a nut shell, the prosecution story is that complaint was made by the complainant PW victim that the accused Rajesh Kumar followed the complainant and uttered vulgar words to her and when the complainant was waiting at the bus stop for her bus, he caught hold of her hand and stated that he shall not leave her. He asked her to come with her and then he threatened her that he shall put acid on her face and thereafter he asked her to come with him. It is alleged that the accused had used criminal force upon the complainant, thereby outraging her modesty. On this complaint, FIR was registered and after completion of remaining investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
3. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused free of cost U/s 207 CrPC. Finding a prima facie case, accused Rajesh Kumar was charged U/s 354/506/509 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution to prove its case examined five witnesses namely PW1 HC Veema Sharma is the DO. PW2 Suman Kumar is the cousin brother of the complainant. PW3 is the complainant/victim. PW4 Ct. Jawinder was inadvertently again examined as PW6. Vide order dated 14.12.2012, this fact was brought in the knowledge of the Ld. Predecessor Court and it was observed that his testimony recorded as PW6 shall not be considered. PW5 Saumya Suri is the mother of victim. Thereafter, PE was closed.
5. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately wherein accused denied all the allegations levelled against him. The accused chose to lead defence evidence. In his defence evidence, he examined two Page 2 of 8 FIR No.644/2002 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar PS: Rajouri Garden witnesses namely Sh. Guljar Singh as DW1 and Sh. Jai Singh as DW2. They were duly crossexamined by the Ld. APP and discharged. Thereafter, the DE was closed.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and thoroughly.
7. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences U/s 354/506/509 IPC. I shall deal with the offences U/s 354/509 IPC first as they are inter connected in view of the facts of the present case. Section 354 IPC provides for punishment for outraging the modesty of a woman. Section 509 IPC provides for punishment of intruding upon the privacy of a woman by indecent words or gestures.
8. Ld. APP for the state has argued that in the present matter, both the offences are made out against the accused. It is stated that the complainant/PW3 has stated on oath that on the date of incident, the accused followed her and uttered vulgar words to her. Thereafter, while the complainant was waiting at the bus stop for her bus, he caught hold of her hand and stated that he shall not leave her and he shall put acid on her face and thereafter he asked her to come with him. It is stated that the complainant has further deposed on oath that the accused had been stalking her in the past. He had sent her love letters which are Ex.PW3/C1 to Ex.PW3/C14. However, it is submitted that she has deposed on oath that she had rejected his advances and still he was coming after her. Hence, it is submitted by Page 3 of 8 FIR No.644/2002 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar PS: Rajouri Garden Ld. APP that it is apparent that the accused by way of his conduct and gestures had intruded upon the privacy of the complainant. Also, by the act of physically following her and holding her hand forcibly, he had used criminal force upon the complainant, thereby outraging her modesty.
9. Further, Ld. APP submits that in this regard, the statement of PW2 Suman Kumar is also relevant. He is the cousin brother of the complainant. Admittedly, he did not witness the incident in question but he saw the accused, the complainant and the police at the spot, at that time. Hence, by virtue of his statement, it is proved that the parties were actually present at the spot and that this is not a false FIR.
10. Ld. APP has also relied upon the statement of PW5 Saumya Suri, who is the mother of the complainant. She has also reiterated the complainant's version that the accused used to follow her daughter despite their explaining it to him that she is not interested in keeping contact with him. In view of these circumstances, Ld. APP for the State prays for conviction of the accused.
11. Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has submitted that the offences are not made out. It is submitted that actually the complainant is the estranged wife of the accused. They got married on 03.05.2000 but the complainant left the matrimonial house. However, the accused wanted to patch up things with the complainant and hence, he was trying to pacify her. The accused had filed a petition U/s 9 Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as HMA) before the Ld. ADJ, where the decree was passed in his favour on 14.08.2003.
Page 4 of 8FIR No.644/2002 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar PS: Rajouri Garden The certified copy of the judgment and decree is placed on record. Ld. Counsel also relied upon the photographs of the parties which are Ex.PW3/DA1 to Ex.PW3/DA16. It is submitted that these are the photographs of the marriage of the accused and the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has also admitted in her cross examination that she knew the accused since many years. She had denied the factum of marriage but the same is proved by virtue of the judgment of Ld. ADJ. Hence, it is submitted by Ld. counsel that the complainant is the wife of the accused, so the offences in question do not attract.
12. Also, it is submitted that the letters in question Ex.PW3/C1 to Ex.PW3/C14 have not been proved to have been written by the accused. No evidence to this effect has been led by the prosecution. Even, the complainant has admitted in her cross examination that she is not aware if the same are in the handwriting of the accused or not. Hence, even this fact is not proved that the accused used to bother the complainant by writing the alleged love letters to her.
13. I have perused the entire record. The complainant, as pointed out by APP has stated on oath that despite her refusal, the accused was continuously following her, writing love letters to her and on the date of incident, he followed her till bus stop, held her hand and asked her to come with him. The fact that he was following her has also been corroborated by the testimony of PW5 Smt. Saumya Suri. The presence of the parties at the spot is proved by the testimony of PW2 Suman Kumar. Furthermore, the incident was allegedly committed at 10.00 am and the FIR has been registered at 11.55 am. There is also, hence, no delay in the registration of the FIR.
Page 5 of 8FIR No.644/2002 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar PS: Rajouri Garden
14. Interestingly, the fact that the accused was following the complainant has not been denied by him. In his statement U/s 313 CrPC, he has merely stated that the complainant is his wife. However, he has not offered any explanation regarding the incident in question. Also, in the cross examination of the complainant as well, there is no suggestion or question to this effect. Hence, from the material available on record and the unrebutted testimony of the complainant, it is proved that on the date of incident, the accused followed her, held her hand and asked her to come with him.
15. However, it is also proved from the judgment dated 14.08.2003 passed by the Court of Ms. Indermeet Kaur Kochar, the then Ld. ADJ that the complainant is the wife of accused. Ld. APP, on this, has argued that the judgment may not be taken into consideration as firstly, the same is an exparte decree and secondly, even if it is assumed that she is the wife of the accused, the same does not give the accused a right to assault the complainant. He also submits that at the time of commission of the offence, the decree was not passed by the Ld. ADJ Court and hence, at that point of time, this was not established that the complainant was the wife of the accused. The first argument is not maintainable. The complainant has admitted in her cross examination that she is aware of this decree. She has further stated in her cross examination that she filed the present case only for cancellation of the proceedings U/s 9 HMA. She has further admitted in her cross examination that she has not filed any separate civil case for nullifying the above mentioned decree. In view of the same, the exparte decree dated 14.08.2003 has attained the finality. As per that judgment, the fact that the Page 6 of 8 FIR No.644/2002 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar PS: Rajouri Garden complainant is wife of the accused stands established.
16. Now, her testimony that she is not the wife of the accused has no relevancy in the eyes of law. Now coming to the incident in question, the complainant has alleged that on the date of incident, the accused followed her till bus stop, held her hand and asked her to come with him. In the opinion of the Court, this would not amount to outraging her modesty as this is merely an attempt by a husband to pacify his wife, make things work and restore their conjugal relationship. Apart from the fact that he held her hand and asked her to come, the complainant has alleged that he made certain vulgar words and remarks but she has not elaborated on these comments and remarks in her entire evidence. Hence, her allegations to this effect are vague and cannot form the basis to make out the offence against the accused. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, in the opinion of the Court, the offence U/s 354/509 IPC are not made out against the accused.
17. Accused has also been charged for the offence U/s 506 IPC, which provides for punishment for criminal intimidation. In this regard, the complainant has stated on oath that the accused had threatened her that he would throw acid on her face. As discussed above, she has reiterated this statement on oath. This has been vehemently denied by the accused in his statement U/s 313 CrPC but no cross examination has been conducted by the accused on this fact. Furthermore, PW5 Smt. Saumya mother of the complainant has also corroborated the complainant's version to this effect. Furthermore, as pointed out by Ld. APP, the presence of the parties on the spot has been proved by the testimony of PW2 Page 7 of 8 FIR No.644/2002 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar PS: Rajouri Garden Suman Kumar. Hence, in the opinion of the Court, from the above mentioned circumstances, it is proved that the accused has extended this threat to the complainant. Now, even if the complainant is his wife, that does not give a right to the accused to extend threats to her. Hence, he is convicted for this offence.
18. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the accused is convicted for the offence under Section 506 IPC.
Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 06.08.2016 (Ruchika Singla) MM (Mahila Court03) West,THC,Delhi.
Page 8 of 8