Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sangeeta vs Satbir Sehrawat & Anr on 23 September, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014
Date of decision : September 23, 2014
"A" (Prosecutrix, name withheld)
... Appellant
vs.
Satbir Sehrawat and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellant.
Surinder Gupta, J The prosecutrix filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon (Ex.PA) levelling allegations for offence punishable under Sections 376/376-B/506/323/379/452/341/354/406 IPC, which was sent to the Police Station City, Gurgaon, for registration of the FIR and FIR No.344 dated 19.6.2012 was registered against respondent No.1.
As per the prosecutrix, she is a widow, aged 29 years having a daughter aged 10 years. She came in contact with respondent in the year 2005 when he was posted as Block Education Officer at Mewat. The prosecutrix had gone to his office to apply for the post of Guest Teacher. She was posted at Government Primary School, Mandarka. As she was not having any means of transport to go to Government Primary School, Mandarka, she made a complaint to this effect to respondent No.1 who exhibited fake sympathy with her with the allurement of getting the attendance for the whole week marked on Saturday and deputed one teacher to take the petitioner to her school on Saturday. That teacher made offer to DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.27 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014 -2- have sexual relationship with the prosecutrix and she complained to the respondent No.1 who took no action against him and asked the prosecutrix to come to his office for marking her attendance. Taking undue benefit of his status, the respondent started black mailing the prosecutrix to establish sexual relation with her and threatened that in case of her refusal, she will be turned out of job. He posted the prosecutrix on deputation in his office and started exploiting her physically against her wishes.
On 10.9.2008, the prosecutrix was posted as J.B.T. Teacher in Government Girls Primary School, Pal, Faridabad, but the respondent got her deputed on deputation at Government Primary School, Tauru. He took a room on rent at Naharpur Roopa for the prosecutrix so that he could fulfill his lust and there he molested her under threat. When the prosecutrix refused to have sexual relations with the respondent she found that he had shifted all her luggage and documents to Pinjore and threatened the prosecutrix either to bow to his wishes or he will not return her luggage and original documents. The respondent had been taking her to 'Shama Restaurant', Gurgaon and there he established sexual relations with her against her wishes. As and when the prosecutrix objected, he used to quarrel with her, beat her and threatened to get her services terminated. He had also taken her to many hotels in Gurgaon and established sexual relations with her. One night the prosecutrix was taken to Haryana Tourism Centre, Sohna where the prosecutrix was given sleeping/intoxicant pills in juice and all her SMS and call details were deleted from her phone. The prosecutrix stopped talking with respondent No.1 who threatened to get her murdered and got her transferred to Government Girls Primary School, Sector 21, Faridabad. He engaged some goons type boys to follow the DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.27 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014 -3- prosecutrix. He had been harassing her through incharge of Government Primary School, Sector 21, Faridabad and stopped her three months salary. On 28.4.2012, he himself misbehaved with the prosecutrix at Rajiv Chowk, Gurgaon.
The prosecutrix moved an application to the Police Commissioner, Gurgaon. On enquiry, the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix were found correct. Thereafter, the matter was sent to Deputy Commissioner of Police (West), Gurgaon, who avoided to register the FIR.
On registration of the FIR on complaint of prosecutrix, under the order of Court, the respondent No.1 was arrested from his residence at Pinjore on 3.7.2012 and brought to Gurgaon where he was got medically examined on 4.7.2012.
After completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, who vide order dated 1.4.2013 committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions as the offence punishable under Sections 376/376-B are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.
The case was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon for trial. She vide orde4r dated 24.4.2013, found a prima facie case for offence punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC against respondent No.1 and charge sheeted him accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined ASI Sri Bhagwan PW-1, Dr. Ritu Nandal PW-2, ASI Narender Singh PW-3, Prosecutrix PW-4, Dr. Amit Kumar PW-5, EHC Lalit Kumar PW-6, Ombir Singh PW-7, Mani Ram PW-8, Inspector Rajender Singh PW-9, Sher Singh DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.27 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014 -4- PW-10, Naresh Kumar Draftsman PW-11, ASI Bijender Singh PW-12 and Constable Vinay Kumar PW-13.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in this case the trial court has failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix is a divorcee and single parent. She was working as Guest Teacher and the respondent No.1 was posted as Block Education Officer and as such was in a dominating position. The prosecutrix had a 10 years old daughter and she could not compromise her job or afford to loose it. Taking undue benefit of his dominating position, the respondent exploited the prosecutrix sexually. He also kept her service book in his possession. The mere fact that the prosecutrix was of the age of 29 years and a married lady could not be a reason for discarding her statement. The court failed to realize the plight of the prosecutrix who suffered the trauma of sexual exploitation by the respondent.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the record and trial court file.
Before proceeding further and discussing the prosecution evidence it will be relevant to refer to the statement of the prosecutrix which spells out the relationship of the prosecutrix with the respondent during the period of 2005 to 2012 as follows :-
1. On her appointment as Guest Teacher, she met the respondent who was posted as Block Education Officer, Tauru. She had been appointed at Government Primary School, Mandarka but had no conveyance to go to the school. The respondent called the Head Teacher, DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.27 13:29 Government Primary School, Manderka, Sh. Asha Ram I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014 -5- and asked him to ensure the presence of the prosecutrix only on Saturday. He was asked to take the prosecutrix to school and then bring her back. She worked as Guest Teacher for about two years and during this tenure also worked on deputation in the office of B.E.O. She had been teaching the students at Government Primary School, Manderka only one day of week and marked her presence of entire week on that day. She had also taught at Government Primary School, Didhara for about five months.
2. When the Head Teacher of Government Primary School, Manderka asked to have sexual relationship with her, the prosecutrix made complaint to the respondent. He asked her to visit Block Education Office once in a week and assured that her presence would be marked by calling the attendance register. In the year 2005, the respondent asked for sexual relationship for the first time. She never resisted but continued going to his office to attend her job. The respondent had sexual relation with her for the first time in the year 2006 in his office. She remained in contact with the respondent from May, 2006 to September, 2008. On 10.9.2008, she got the job of regular J.B.T. Teacher and was posted in Government Girls Primary School, Pali, Faridabad. It was not the station of her choice but she remained posted there from DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.27 13:29 10.9.2008 to 31.12.2008. From 1.1.2009 to 12.3.2012, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014 -6- she remained on deputation at Government Primary School, Tauru. She submitted the joining report mark-A before the respondent and was allowed to join at Government Primary School, Tauru against vacant post.
The prosecutrix has admitted her signature on this joining letter.
3. In May, 2011, the respondent took a house on rent at Naharpur Roopa @ Rs.7000/- plus electricity charges per month. She lived in that house for about one month and shifted her entire house hold articles in that house. She was also maintaining her kitchen in that house. The respondent came to her 2-3 times in that house and she accompanied him once or twice from this house to school.
4. She had gone to Bombay and Shirdi with the respondent in October, 2010 by air. She stayed with him at a hotel for 2-3 days. She has stated that she was given beatings to the extent of making her unconscious. She was then taken to a doctor who warned the respondent of his behaviour but she never lodged any complaint in the matter.
5. The respondent used to take her to 'Shama Restaurant' Gurgaon once a week during entire period of seven years and had sex with her there without her consent. He had also taken her to several hotels at Gurgaon as well as out DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.27 13:29 side Gurgaon and performed sexual intercourse with her I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014 -7- even there. She never made any complaint to the Manager or any other worker in Shama Restaurant, Gurgaon.
6. It is admitted that after her appointment as J.B.T. Teacher, Director Elementary Education Haryana had the power to transfer her and her appointing authority was Director, Education Department, Haryana, Chandigarh.
7. The respondent used to take her to his house in the absence of his family members.
8. She used to talk to the accused daily on mobile.
9. The respondent had given her the mobile No.9295869469.
10. DW-1 Surjan Singh has proved that daughter of the prosecutrix was admitted in Spring Daisy Convent School, Rewari Road, Tauru, District Gurgaon under the sponsorship given by the respondent who had been paying the fee of her daughter who studied in that school for one year. He has placed on file the sponsorship given by the respondent for admission of the daughter of the prosecutrix and undertaking to pay the school fee Ex.DW1/A to DW1/B.
11. The respondent had also transferred an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the prosecutrix on 9.7.2010 and 9.10.2010. This fact has been proved by Suresh Kumar, Manager, State Bank of India, Shivaji Nagar, DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.27 13:29 Gurgaon.
I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014 -8- The above discussed facts which have come in the statement of the prosecutrix and the evidence produced on file go a long way to show that the prosecutrix was maintaining relationship with the respondent for a long period of seven years. She also had sexual relations with him. The only fact to be seen is as to whether the sexual relationship was with her consent or she was submitting to the respondent under some threat or coercion.
The first plea raised by the prosecutrix is that the respondent was in a dominating position and gave her threat to get her ousted from her job which made her submit to his advances for sexual intercourse. On perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the case we find no reason to accept this plea of the prosecutrix. She was of 29 years of age and a divorcee having a child of 10 years. There is nothing on the file to show that a Block Education Officer was either her appointing authority or had any power to remove her from the job. It is the prosecutrix who accepted his request for arranging conveyance for her going to the school of her posting, which in no manner was the part of the job of the respondent. It is she who had been taking undue benefit of his obligations by marking her presence for whole of the week in the school by going there only once in a week i.e. only on Saturday.
The association of the prosecutrix with respondent continued for a very long period of seven years. During this period a number of instances which have come on file show that the prosecutrix was maintaining her relations including the sexual relations with the respondent of her own free will. She got her daughter admitted in a Spring Daisy Convent School, Tauru, Gurgaon in April, 2007 and her admission was DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.27 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014 -9- sponsored by the respondent who also gave an undertaking Ex.DW1/B to pay the school fee and other expenses of the child. As per the school official who appeared as DW-1, the school fee of the daughter of the prosecutrix was paid by the respondent.
The prosecutrix has stated that the respondent had been taking her every week to 'Shama Restaurant', Gurgaon during the period of seven years and had sexual intercourse with her but she never complained to the Manager or any other staff of the restaurant. She had also accompanied the respondent at various hotels in Gurgaon and around including the Tourist Bunglow at Sohana. During this period of seven years, the respondent indulged in sexual acts with the prosecutrix even in the office. He had been visiting her place of residence. She had gone by air with the respondent to Bombay and Shirdi in the year 2010. The prosecutrix had stated that during her visit to Bombay and Shirdi in the year 2010 and stay in the hotel with him, on her refusal to have sex with the respondent, she was given beatings in the hotel at Bombay which made her unconscious and she was taken to the doctor. If it was so, she had got an occasion to come out against the respondent and complain against him. Instead, she shifted to the house taken on rent by him in May, 2011 where the respondent had visited her and had food 2-3 times. She also accompanied the respondent one or two times from this house to her school. She was in constant touch with the respondent and was conversing with him on phone daily.
The prosecutrix got employment as regular teacher on 10.9.2008. Her appointing authority was Direction Education Department, Haryana, Chandigarh. The respondent was neither her appointing authority nor transferring authority and there is no evidence that during the entire DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.27 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014 -10- period of seven years she remained in association with him, the respondent remained posted as Block Education Officer at the place where she was posted. She has also been accepting monetary obligations from the respondents and it is proved on file that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was transferred from the account of the respondent to the account of the prosecutrix on two occasion in July and October, 2010.
The entire evidence discussed above when read with the conduct of the prosecutrix suggests in unequivocal terms that the prosecutrix was maintaining her relations with the respondent of her own free volition. It was after seven years of this relationship, when relations became strained that she filed the complaint in the court which resulted in the registration of the FIR in this case.
Much stress has been given on the fact that service book of the prosecutrix was with the respondent and it was a tool used by the respondent to keep the prosecutrix under check. The Investigating Officer ASI Bijender Singh PW-12 has stated that the accused had produced the service book of the prosecutrix from her house (it appears that word 'her' has been used in place of 'his' due to clerical mistake) and at that time EHC Lalit had accompanied the respondent. EHC Lalit Kumar while appearing as PW-6 has stated that he had gone to the house of the respondent to fetch a register or book containing some writing. The respondent from his house brought some register and handed over the same to HC Narender Singh and ASI Bijender Singh. He had moved an application to SHO Police Station City Gurgaon to this effect wherein he has stated that he followed the respondent to his house and remained outside the house when the respondent went inside and brought some papers which he handed over to DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.10.27 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-548-DB of 2014 -11- ASI Bijender Singh and HC Narender Singh. No service book was ever taken into possession while preparing recovery memo in this case. The prosecution has produced copy of DDR No.25 dated 18.6.2012 which make reference of production of some DDR calling of appellant and respondent to police station on 9.6.2012 but, no DDR of 9.6.2012 was produced. EHC Lalit has not supported the prosecution version that it was the respondent who produced the service book of the prosecutrix. The recording of the DDR No. 25 Ex.PW13/A, in the absence of the parties after filing of the complaint and a day before the registration of the FIR in this case, as such has no relevance.
The trial court has looked into all aspects of the case and has elaborately discussed the entire evidence on file before reaching the conclusion that the relationship of the prosecutrix with respondent was consensual and she had failed to prove that the respondent has misused his position to pressurize her to make her give consent for sex.
As a sequel of discussion above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
(Rajive Bhalla) (Surinder Gupta)
Judge Judge
September 23, 2014
deepak
DEEPAK KUMAR
2014.10.27 13:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document