Delhi District Court
State vs Ochenna Loveday on 16 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-08, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURT, NEW
DELHI
STATE VS. UCHENNA LOVEDAY
FIR NO: 366/2019
P. S Uttam Nagar
U/s 509 IPC & 14 Foreigners Act
Crc No.15146/2019
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 04.09.2019
Name of the complainant : Ms. "L" (Name of the complainant
has been withheld to protect her
identity)
Date of Commission of offence : 22.06.2019
Name of the accused : UCHENNA LOVEDAY
S/o Sh. Ononuju.
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 09.10.2024
Final Order : Convicted
Date of orders : 16.10.2024
Name of APP : Sh. Abhi Gupta
0
Digitally signed
by ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16
17:37:14 +0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1.Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused Uchenna Loveday S/o Ononuju for having committed the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC & 14 of Foreigners Act.
2.Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint filed by Ms. "L". The complainant used to reside in Om Vihar, Phase V, Gali No. 2, Uttam Nagar. The accused was the neighbour of the complainant who used to reside on rent in the neighbourhood of the complainant. On 22.06.2019, when the complainant was present at her house, the accused started making vulgar gestures towards the complainant. He had also lowered his underwear and shown his private parts to the complainant. The complainant informed about the behaviour of the accused to her friends and also to the landlord of the accused. Thereafter, the accused started running away from the spot, however, he was apprehended by other neighbours of the locality. After the apprehension of the accused, information of the incident was given to the police who reached at the spot.
3.The present FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the complainant. During the course of the investigation, the statement of the complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C was also recorded. Further, it was also 1 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 17:37:20 +0530 found out that the accused was residing in India without having a valid visa.
4.After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by PS Uttam Nagar and a charge sheet was filed against the accused. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused vide order dated 20.09.2019 for the offences punishable u/s 509 IPC and 14 Foreigners Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5.During the pendency of the trial, the accused was declared absconder by this Court vide order dated 02.01.2024. Thereafter, he was apprehended by the police. After his apprehension, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC. Thereafter, he had pleaded guilty for the additional charge framed for the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC. Consequently, he was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC vide order dated 27.09.2024.
6.In order to prove the guilt of accused Uchenna Loveday, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:
• Ms. L, the complainant and victim, deposed as PW-1; • Sh. Manish, deposed as PW-2;
• Ms. Zahida Khatoon, deposed as PW-3;2
Digitally signed by ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 17:37:27 +0530 • Sh. Shibbu, deposed as PW-4;
• Sh. Manoj Kumar, deposed as PW-5;
• ASI Naresh Kumar, deposed as PW-6;
• HC Umesh, deposed as PW-7; and • SI Kulbir, deposed as PW-8.
5.PW-1 is the complainant of the present case. She is the star witness of the prosecution. During her examination-in-chief, she deposed that she was residing at A1-31A, Om Vihar, Phase V, Gali No. 2, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. She was working in Axis Bank as Deputy Manager. On 22.06.2019, at about 4 PM, the accused started doing dirty things. He rolled down his underwear and started showing his genital towards her. At the time of the incident, the accused was living in rented accommodation. She further stated that she informed the landlord of the accused about the incident.
Thereafter, the accused suddenly tried to run away from the spot but he was apprehended by some neighbours. Thereafter, she called at 100 number and police came at the spot and took the accused to the police station. She further stated that she along with her family members went to the police station and she gave her complaint Ex. PW-1/A to the SHO on the next day. During the course of the investigation, IO Kulbir had 3 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 17:37:32 +0530 prepared site plan at her instance. On 19.07.2019, her statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. She correctly identified the accused in the Court.
6.PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During the cross-examination, she deposed that at the time of the incident, she was working at Noida, Sector 128. Axis Bank as a Deputy Manager from 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM. However, on the date of the incident, she was on leave. She also stated that she had informed to her boss about her leave telephonically. She further stated that the accused used to the live in the property of Zahida Khatoon in the adjacent house. She also stated that she did not have any dispute with Zahida Khatoon before this case. She further stated that she was present in the balcony of the second floor of her house. She called at 100 number from her mobile phone. She denied the suggestion that there was dispute between her and Zahida Khatoon. She further denied the suggestion that she dislikes South African/Nigerian citizen because of their skin colour. She also denied the suggestion that she had filed the present case to pressurise the accused to vacate his house.
7.PW-2 Manish deposed that at the time of the incident, he used to work as driver in MCD. He did not remember the exact date of the incident. However, after refreshing his memory he stated that the date of the 4 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 17:37:38 +0530 incident was 22.06.2019. On that day, he was standing outside his house when he suddenly heard some noise. He saw that some of his neighbours were running behind one Nigerian i.e. the accused. He along with some other neighbours caught hold of the accused. Thereafter, the complainant also reached at the spot. In the meanwhile, police came at the spot and took the accused to the police station. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
8.PW-2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. During the cross-examination, he deposed that he was working with MCD as driver since 2017. At the time of the incident, he was posted at Ward No. 21, Subhash Nagar and his working hours were from 6 AM to 3 PM. He further stated that prior to this incident, he did not know the name of the accused. After the registration of the FIR, he came to know about the name of the accused. He also stated that he along with 10-15 neighbours apprehended the accused. He did not remember their name. He denied the suggestion that the accused was beaten up by the public persons. He denied the suggestion that he disliked South African/Nigerian citizens due to the skin colour. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
5 Digitally signed by ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16
17:37:43 +0530
9.PW-3 Zahida Khatoon was the landlord of the house where the accused used to reside on rent at the time of the incident. During the examination- in-chief, he depose that he used to reside at H. No. 31B, Gali No. 2, Om Vihar, Phase V, Uttam Nagar. She further stated that she used to give the rooms of her house on rent. She had given her room on rent to the accused who assured her that he would submit the relevant documents after some time. She further stated that the accused resided at her house for around 1 week and thereafter, he vacated the same. She correctly identified the accused in the Court. PW-3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused. She admitted that the accused did not submit any document with her. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
10.PW-4 deposed that in the year 2019, he was residing at H. No. A1/13, Gali No. 2, near Peer Baba Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi as a tenant. He further stated that he is a carpenter by profession. On 22.06.2019, in the evening, he was present in the street which was situated in front of his house. In the meantime, the complainant who was also his neighbour called him to her house. Thereafter, he along with the complainant went to the roof of her house and found that the accused was making vulgar gestures towards the complainant i.e. he was lowering down his 6 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:10:21 +0530 underwear and was showing his private parts towards the complainant. Thereafter, they raised alarm and the public persons caught hold off the accused and also beaten him. Thereafter, PCR van arrived at the spot and took the accused to the police station. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
11.PW-4 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused. During the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was present in the street on 22.06.2019. He also denied the suggestion that he did not see the accused making vulgar gestures towards the complainant. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to implicate the accused in the present case.
12.PW-5 Manoj deposed that he did not remember the exact date of the incident. It happened around 9-10 PM. He further deposed that at the time of the incident, he was standing outside his gali. At that time, he got a call from his friend Manish who was also residing in the same locality who informed him that the accused was sexually harassing his friend by making vulgar gestures. Thereafter, he immediately went to the spot. However, the accused managed to flee away from the spot. He further stated that he along with other neighbours raised alarm and started chasing the accused. He was apprehended near 40 foot road by them 7 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.16 18:10:30 +0530 with the assistance of other friend Raju. Thereafter, they informed the police about the incident. He had correctly identified the accused in the Court.
13.PW-5 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused. During the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not present in the street on the day of the incident. He admitted that he did not personally see the accused sexually harassing the complainant. He was informed about the same by his friend Dharmu @ Manish. He also stated that the complainant was not his real sister. She was her muhboli sister who got married to his friend Dharmu. He admitted that he did not apprehend the accused himself. The accused was apprehended by other friend namely Raju when they were chasing him. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicate the accused in the present case at the instance of his friends Dharmu and Laxmi Rana. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
14.PW-6 ASI Naresh Kumar deposed that in the intervening night of 22-23.06.2019, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as Head Constable. On that day, he was on emergency duty along with SI Kulbir. On that day, SI Kulbir received DD No. 158A dated 22.06.2019, and, thereafter, he along with SI Kulbir reached at the spot where they came to know that the 8 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:10:36 +0530 complainant and the accused were already taken to the police station by the PCR. Thereafter, he along with SI Kilbir went to the police station where the complainant told that the public persons had given beatings to the accused. Thereafter, he was sent to the hospital along with the accused by SI Kulbir for his medical treatment. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
15.PW-6 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused. He admitted that he did not make any arrival entry at the police station. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot along with the IO. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
16.PW-7 HC Umesh deposed that on 23.06.2019, he had joined the investigation along with the IO. IO and arrested and personally searched the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-7/A and search memo Ex. PW-7/B. He further stated that the accused was produced before the Court from where he was sent to Rohini Jail. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
17.PW-7 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused. During the cross-examination, he admitted that he was carrying mobile phone with audio and videography feature at the time of the investigation as well as 9 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.16 18:10:42 +0530 arrest proceedings, however, no audio and videography was done by him at the time of the investigation proceedings as well as arrest proceedings. He further admitted that there was no duty register on record showing his duty at the concerned police station on the date of the arrest. He also admitted that the reasons of arrest were kept blank in the arrest memo Ex. PW-7/A. He did not remember as to whether he had made DD entry before leaving the police station for producing the accused before the Court. He denied the suggestion that he had never participated into the proceedings of the present case. He also denied the suggestion that he had signed on the blank paper which were later converted by the IO into the documents of the present case. He further denied the suggestion that he was a planted witness at the instance of the IO and he was deposing falsely.
18.PW-8 SI Kulbir was the investigating officer of the present case. He deposed that in the intervening night of 22-23.06.2019, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS Uttam Nagar. On that day, he was on night emergency duty. He received DD number 158 dated 22.06.2019 from the duty officer and thereafter, he along with HC Naresh reached the spot where they came to know that the complainant and the accused had already been taken to the police station by the PCR van. Thereafter, he 10 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:10:47 +0530 along with Naresh went to the police station where the complainant told him that public persons had given beating to the accused. Thereafter, he sent HC Naresh to the hospital along with the accused for medical treatment. HC Naresh got medical treatment of the accused in DDU Hospital and his medical examination was prepared. Thereafter, he handover ME to him. Thereafter, he contacted the complainant and in the morning she gave her written complaint Ex. PW-1/A on the basis of which he got the FIR registered. He arrested and personally searched the accused. In the personal search of the accused, one passport of the accused was found. Thereafter, the accused was asked to produce his VISA, however, he failed to produce the same. Thereafter, IO recorded the disclosure of the accused. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the concerned court and he was sent to the judicial custody as per the order of the court. During the course of investigation, the intimation of the arrest of the accused were sent to the concerned embassy and FRRO Department. He correctly identified the accused present in the court. He also stated that he has got recorded the statement of the complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C. He also prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. He he also recorded the statement of the owner of the premises where the accused was residing. After completing the 11 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.16 18:10:54 +0530 investigation, which he had filed the chargesheet before the concerned court.
19.PW-8 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC for the accused. During the cross-examination, he admitted that he was carrying mobile phone with audio and videography feature at the time of the investigation, however, no audio and videography was done by him. He also admitted that at the time of the investigation as well as arrest proceedings, public persons were present who were asked to join the investigation, however, they left citing their personal reasons. Due to the paucity of time, no written notice could be served upon the public persons and their names could also not been recorded. PW-8 further admitted that there is no duty register on record showing his duty at the concerned police station on the concerned date. He did not remember whether he had made DD entry when he left the police station for producing the accused before the concerned court. He stated that the accused was taken to the concerned court in a government vehicle, however, he did not remember the registration number. He denied the suggestion that the entire proceedings were conducted while sitting at the police station. He also denied the suggestion that he never participated in the proceedings of the present case. He also denied the suggestion that he obtained the signature of the 12 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:10:59 +0530 witnesses on blank papers which were later converted by him into the documents of the present case. He denied the suggestion that all the witnesses were planted by him. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
20.The accused had also admitted certain documents i.e. registration of the FIR, DD No. 158A dated 22.06.2019 and statement of the complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex. X-1 to X-3, u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Hence, formal proof of these documents was dispensed with.
21.After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, PE was closed on 27.09.2024. Thereafter, statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") on 27.09.2024 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him which he denied and took a defence that he was falsely implicated in the present case. However, he admitted that he did not have valid VISA to remain in India. He did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
22.Thereafter, the final arguments were heard. Ld. APP urged that all the prosecution witnesses have completely supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant and other eye-witnesses of the incident 13 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.10.16 18:11:05 +0530 including the public persons have completely supported the case of the prosecution. The accused was found residing in India without having a valid passport and visa. The said accused could not even produce his passport/visa when he was apprehended by the police.
23.Ld. LAC for the accused, on the other hand, argued that all the witnesses were planted witnesses who had falsely implicated the accused on the basis of his nationality. No investigation was conducted from the officials of Bureau of Immigration.
24.I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
25.It should be noted that the accused has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC and 14 Foreigners Act. For the sake of the convenience, I shall be deciding the culpability of the accused for each offences separately.
CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE u/s 509 IPC
26.Section 509 IPC provides for the obsence or vulgar words or gestures made with intention to insult the modesty of a woman. It reads as under:
"Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound, or 14 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:11:12 +0530 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 three years, or with fine, or with both."
27.Utterance of any word or making of any sound or gesture by a person, intending to insult the modesty of a woman, attracts the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC, if such act was made intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture shall be seen by such woman.
28.There is distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of insulting the modesty of a woman. In order to attract Section 509 IPC, merely insulting a woman is not sufficient. Insult to the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. The crux of the offence is the intention to insult the modesty of a woman.
29.The word "gesture" is not defined under the IPC. The meaning of the word "gesture" as per Concise Oxford Dictionary, eighth edition is, "a significant movement of a limb or the body; the use of such movements esp. to convey feeling or as a rhetorical device; an act to evoke a 15 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:11:18 +0530 response or convey intention". As per Collins Cobuild 'English Dictionary for advanced learners' third edition, "gesture" is "something that you say or do in order to express your attitude or intentions, often something that you know will not have much effect". As per Law Lexicon' the word "gesture" means "a posture or movement of the body; an action expressive of the sentiment or passion of intended to show inclination or disposition." These definition of "gesture" was relied upon by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of M.M. Haries vs State Of Kerala 2005 CRI. L. J. 3314.
30.In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimonies of the complainant PW-1 and other eye-witness PW-4. Both these witnesses have completely supported the case of the prosecution. PW-1, the complainant, in her testimony had given a detailed account of the incident. She had categorically deposed that on 22.06.2019 at around 4 PM, the accused was making obscene gestures towards her by rolling down his underwear and showing his private parts. PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and no material contradictions could be seen in her testimony. Thus, I find the testimony of the complainant safe to be relied upon.
16 Digitally signed by
ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:11:24 +0530
31.Moreover, the testimony of the complainant PW-1 given in the Court could also be corroborated from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. X-3. In her said testimony, the complainant and also given a detailed account of the incident. She had clearly stated that the accused who was his neighbour had rolled down his underwear and shown his private parts to her. She had also stated that she had narrated the incident to her neighbour Shibu.
32.The testimony of the complainant could also be corroborated from the testimony of PW-4 Shibu. He had also stated that on 22.06.2019 in the evening, when he was present in the street of her house, the complainant called him to her house. Thereafter, he along with the complainant went to the roof of the complainant when he found that the accused was making vulgar gestures towards the complainant i.e. he was lowering down his underwear and showing his private parts. He and the complainant raised alarm and the accused was caught hold by the public. PW-4 was also duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and no material contradiction could be seen in his testimony.
33.Therefore, the perusal of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 would clear show that at the time of the incident, the accused had lowered his underwear and was showing his private parts towards the complainant. 17 Digitally signed by ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16
18:11:31 +0530
Since, no material contradictions have found in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4, there is no ground to doubt their reliability.
34.The act of lowering the underwear by the accused and showing his private parts to the complainant would clearly amount to outraging the modesty of the complainant who is a woman. These gestures were made by the accused with the intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant.
35.The fact that the accused has made these gestures to the complainant could also be corroborated from his subsequent conduct. When the complainant PW-1 and PW-4 raised alarm, the accused started running away from the spot. This subsequent conduct of the accused would be very relevant in the present case. He was subsequently chased and apprehended by the public persons. Some of the public persons who had chased the accused were also examined by the prosecution. These witnesses PW-2 Manish and PW-5 Manoj Kumar had also supported the case of the prosecution.
36.When the incriminating materials were put up before the accused at the stage of recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, he simply denied the same and stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. The 18 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:11:37 +0530 accused had chosen the mode of evasive denial. Moreover, the accused did not provide any explanation as to why he was running at the time of the incident. He also did not lead any defence evidence.
37.Therefore, in view of the above, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused in the present case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC. CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE u/s 14 FOREIGNERS ACT
38.Section 14 of the Foreigners Act interalia deals with the offence of residing in India beyond the period for which visa was issued i.e. overstaying in India or residing in India without a valid visa. It reads as under:
"14. Penalty for contravention of provisions of the Act, etc.-- Whoever--
(a) remains in any area in India for a period exceeding the period for which the visa was issued to him;
(b) does any act in violation of the conditions of the valid visa issued to him for his entry and stay in India or any part thereunder;
19 Digitally signed by
ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:11:43 +0530
(c) contravenes the provisions of this Act or of any order made thereunder or any direction given in pursuance of this Act or such order for which no specific punishment is provided under this Act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine; and if he has entered into a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound thereby shall pay the penalty thereof or show cause to the satisfaction of the convicting court why such penalty should not be paid by him.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression "visa" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it under the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 made under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 (34 of 1920).]"
39.In order to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, the prosecution is required to establish the following ingredients:
• The accused was a "foreigner" and not an Indian citizen; and • The accused exceeded his stay in India beyond the period for which visa was issued to him i.e. the accused was found residing in India without a valid visa.
40.In order to establish the first ingredient that the accused was a foreign national, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC, testimony of PW-2 and the police officials. The complainant in her testimony had stated that the accused 20 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:11:48 +0530 was a Nigerian. Similar statement was made by PW-2. Moreover, the passport of the accused was also found by the IO PW-8 during his personal search. Copy of the said passport is Ex. PW-8/A. Perusal of the said passport would clearly show that the accused is a national of Nigeria.
41.Moreover, as per the provision enshrined u/s 9 of the Foreigners Act and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, the burden of proof, is on alleged foreigner to show that he is not a foreigner. In the instant case, the factum of foreign nationality of the accused was never disputed by him during the course of the trial. He did not claim that he was an Indian national. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused did not dispute the said fact.
42.Further, in order to establish the second ingredient that the accused was residing in India without a valid visa, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW-3 & the IO PW-8. PW-3 was the landlord of the accused who had admitted the accused in her property as tenant. She had stated that in the year 2019, she had inducted the accused as tenant in one room of her house. She also stated that the accused did not submit any document to her. Further, the IO PW-8 had also stated that during the course of the investigation, the accused did not produce his visa. 21 Digitally signed by
ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.16 18:11:55 +0530 Moreover, the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had admitted that he was residing in India without having a valid visa. It is a settled proposition of law that statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC can be taken into consideration by the court to complete the chain of events and to corroborate the other evidences available on record. Thus, this admission of the accused that he was residing in India without having a valid visa would corroborate the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
43.Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was residing in India without having visa on the day of the incident i.e. 22.06.2019.
44.Hence, the accused Uchenna Loveday s/o Ononuju stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC and 14 Foreigners Act. Let copy of this judgment be given to the accused free of cost. Digitally signed by ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
Announced in the open court KUMAR Date:
On 16.10.2024 2024.10.16
18:12:01 +0530
(Animesh Kumar)
JMFC-08, South West
It is certified that this judgment contains 22 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Animesh Kumar) JMFC-08, South West, Dwarka/16.10.2024 22