Delhi District Court
Fir No.729/2014, Ps Oia State vs . Santosh Kumar Mehto 1 Of 11 on 10 October, 2018
In The Court of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan: Metropolitan
Magistrate02 (Mahila Court), SouthEast, Saket Courts:New Delhi
State v. Santosh Kumar Mehto
FIR No.729/2014
U/s: 354/509 IPC
P.S OIA
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution : 17.03.2015
Criminal Case No. : 91192/2016
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet
Name & address of the accused : Santosh Kumar Mehto
S/o Sh. Vishnu Dev Mehto
R/o Village Khikhri Patti,
PS Bishpi, Post Kheri Banka,
District Madhubani, Bihar.
Offence complained of : U/s 354/354A/509 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 354/509 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
Date of arguments : 10.10.2018
Date of announcing of order : 10.10.2018
FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 1 of 11
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has stated in her complaint that on 29.09.2014 at around 7.00 PM when she was working at DSIDC shed, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi as a labour, at that time, one person namely Santosh made indecent gestures towards her. She ignored him but later he came towards the complainant and held her hand and complainant freed herself. Thereafter, she went to her employer and reported the matter who made a call at 100 number and accused had meanwhile, run away from the spot.
2. Pursuant to this complaint dated 29.09.2014 against accused, FIR was registered on the same day and the matter was investigated. Chargesheet was filed on 17.03.2015. Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused. Vide order dated 20.07.2015 charge was framed against accused for the offence U/s 354/509 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly matter was listed for prosecution evidence. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined five (5) witnesses during trial: PW1 complainant (victim) deposed that in the month of September, 2014 she was working in a company in Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseII. She FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 2 of 11 was working in tube company as a helper. At around 7 PM, on the date of incident, accused started making obscene gestures towards her and using his thumb and first finger of his hand and was inserting his index finger of another hand and pushing the same in and out from the thumb of other hand and was repeatedly uttering her name. Thereafter, she stopped looking at the accused, but accused came near her and held her hand and she freed her hand and informed the incident to the owner. Thereafter, her owner made a call at 100 number and police reached the spot. Police came and recorded her statement which was Ex.PW1/A. The site plan was prepared at her instance vide Ex.PW1/B. On the same day, her statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW1/C. During crossexamination PW1 deposed that It was correct that at the time of incident, she had not seen the accused Santosh due to electricity disconnection. She did not remember the exact date of incident. It was correct that accused Santosh had not made obscene gestures towards her on the day of incident and had not misbehaved with her by holding her hand. It was correct that the accused had not called her by her name, neither stalked her. It is correct that accused Santosh was not present at the spot.
Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State as she was resiling from her earlier statement and witness deposed that her statement given in her examination in chief was not true and also stated that she had given the name of accused Santosh under misunderstanding as there was no enough light to identify the actual culprit who had misbehaved with FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 3 of 11 her. It was correct that the day of incident was 29.09.2014. It was wrong to suggest that she had settled the matter with accused outside the Court and she was deliberately not telling truth regarding the true fact which was already deposed in her examination in chief and she was deliberately not identifying the accused and deliberately denying his presence and his conduct of misbehaving with her, on the day of incident, as she have been won over by him.
PW2 ASI Arvind Kumar Tyagi deposed that on 29.09.2014, he was posted as HC at PS OIA. On that day, upon receipt of DD No. 24A regarding eve teasing at company DSIDC said number 29 SchemeI, Okhla PhaseII, he alongwith Ct. Deepak went to the spot around 07:30 PM where complainant met them and he recorded her statement which was already Ex.PW1/A. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, he prepared rukka Ex. PW2/A and sent it through Ct. Deepak for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Deepak came back with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed it over to him. He prepared site plan at instance of complainant which was Ex. PW1/B. He tried to search accused Santosh Kumar Mehto but no clue was found. He examine the owner of the company namely Divesh Sehgal and recorded his statement U/sec 161 Cr. P. C. Statement U/sec 164 Cr. P. C. of complainant was recorded and copy of the same was collected and attached with the file. On 16.01.2015, accused Santosh Kumar Mehto was formally arrested at PS vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B and he was released on bail as he has already obtained anticipatory bail. He interrogated accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW2/C. He recorded a statement of FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 4 of 11 witnesses. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared and filed before the court.
During crossexamination PW2 deposed that he received information regarding DD No.24A around 07:15 PM. Other employees were found present at the spot when he reached there. He asked from other employee of the company regarding the incident and they stated that they were engaged in their work and they did not see the incident. Caller of 100 number was owner of the company Mr. Divesh Sehgal. He remained at the spot for around two hours. It was correct that he recorded the supplementary statement of complainant after registration of FIR. It was wrong to suggest that he did not investigate the matter and all work was done while sitting in the PS on paper. It was wrong to suggest that he never recorded statements of complainant and owner of company.
PW3 Devesh Saigal (owner of the company) deposed that on 29.09.2014, at about 7.00 PM, he was sitting in his office at Shed No. 29/30, DSIDC, Computer Complex, OIA, PhaseII, New Delhi20, one lady (complainant) came to his office in a very panic condition and was weeping at that time, when she entered the office and narrated to him that one coworker namely Santosh Kumar had misbehaved with her and made indecent gestures towards her. So, he then asked her what she wanted him to do, whether he should call the police on her behalf or she would do herself. She had already made the call to 100 number, and then after 510 minutes PCR came. But the accused person upon seeing the PCR fled away from there. Then, police FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 5 of 11 questioned the women and took her to the OIA police station, in the Women Cell.
During crossexamination PW3 deposed that he was computer engineer. When complainant entered into his room, she was alone but one lady was standing outside his room and he called her to come inside and to console the complainant. He had not called accused Santosh. He did not remember how many employees were working in his office at that time. He did not remember exactly where police recorded his statement. But police might have recorded his statement either in his office or outside his factory. Police remained in his office for 2025 minutes. Police had enquired 4 to 5 persons in his presence, but he did not remember whether police recorded their statement or not. Police visited his office many times with respect to this incident after 29.09.2014. He did not remember whether after 29.09.2014, police had recorded his statement. He did not visit police station ever in this case. No document was prepared in the present case in his presence. He have no knowledge whether police had enquired from other co workers or not. He did not remember whether salary was due to accused at that time or not. It was wrong to suggest that he had got lodged false FIR against accused at the instance of complainant as salary was due to accused. He used to pay the salary to accused on 07 th of each month and also advances was paid to everyone on 21st day of each month. He had not brought the record regarding the advance payment to accused.
FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 6 of 11 PW4 HC Deepak deposed that on 29.09.2014, he was posted as Ct. at PS OIA. On that day, he was on emergency duty along with IO Arvind Kumar Tyagi. His duty hours were from 8.00AM to 8.00 PM. IO Arvind Kumar Tyagi received a call regarding misbehavior at 2930, DSIDC Shed, OIAII, New Delhi. Thereafter, he along with IO went to spot where complainant, Devesh Saigal and staff met them. IO recorded statement of complainant and enquired from Devesh Saigal. IO also informed the SHO about the incident.
During crossexamination PW4 deposed that they reached at the office of Devesh Saigal at about 08.00 PM. He did not remember from which place they went to the office of Devesh Saigal. At the time of their arrival, they entered at the office of Devesh Saigal at about 08.00 PM where complainant, Devesh Saigal and other staff members were sitting. There were 10 to 15 persons present. He did not remember how many person's statement were recorded by IO there. He did not remember how much time they remained there. He did not remember whether they have gone to police station alone or someone else was with them.
PW5 Constable Ravinder Pal deposed that on 18.10.2014, he was posted as Ct. at P S OIA. On that day, he along with IO Arvind Kumar Tyagi, went to 2930, DSIDC Shed, OIAII, New Delhi, where IO enquired from Devesh Saigal and staff members. Thereafter, they went to Harkesh Nagar in search of accused, but, accused was not found there and they came back to police station and IO recorded his statement.
FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 7 of 11 During crossexamination PW5 deposed that he did not remember the names of the persons who were enquired by the IO. He did not remember at which time they reached at the office of Devesh Saigal. It was wrong to suggest that they did not visit the office and no enquiry was conducted on that day.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
5. Final arguments were advanced.
6. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. APP for the State that in the present matter the guilt of the accused have been proved. It is further argued that the complainant have clearly deposed the manner in which the accused misbehaved with her by making indecent gestures towards her and by using abusive and filthy language towards the complainant and therefore the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged.
7. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for accused that in the present matter the accused has been falsely implicated since the complainant being the coemployee and the same had been filed against the accused at the behest of the employer of the accused. It has been argued that the accused has been falsely implicated by the owner of the factory since he demanded his salary which was due for a period of two FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 8 of 11 months. It has also been argued that the complainant has been declared hostile by the prosecution and she did not support the story of prosecution and is not a reliable witness and her testimony be discarded. It has also been argued that none of the other labourers or employees of the factory have been examined by the prosecution who were present at the time of incident which is admitted by IO being PW2 and also by PW3. Both the aforesaid witnesses admitted that there were other employees working in the factory at the time of incident but none had seen the incident and therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted.
Court Observations:
8. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel. I am of the considered view that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
9. In the present matter, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and among the same PW1 is the complainant and remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal in nature.
9. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 354/509 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that the accused assaulted or used criminal force against the complainant with the intention to outrage her modesty or the aforesaid act was committed with the intention to sexually harass the complainant by making physical advances or sexual overtures towards the FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 9 of 11 complainant and had also used indecent or filthy language towards the complainant.
10. In the present matter, PW1 is the complainant and the victim in the present matter. She is the star witness of the prosecution since it was the complainant who allegedly had seen the accused while committing the aforesaid act towards her. However, the complainant during her cross examination did not corroborate with her testimony recorded before the court or with her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC. Further during the cross examination, the complainant even refused to identify the accused and stated that the act of sexual harassment towards her was not committed by the accused but by some other person. She did not support the story of prosecution and was declared hostile. PW3 being the public witness admitted that he had not witnessed the incident and the same was narrated to him by the complainant and therefore, was of hearsay nature. Further, since the complainant herself did not support her testimony recorded before the court, she was not a reliable witness. Further, the story of the complainant cannot be believed as she herself has admitted during her crossexamination that she was not knowing the accused prior to the date of incident.
11. Therefore, there was nothing to lend support to the testimony of PW1 apart from bald averments made in the complaint and her testimony before the court and the documents relied upon by the prosecution, it can be safely concluded that the guilt of the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 10 of 11
12. In view of the above discussion and considering the material, available on record, the guilt of the accused Santosh Kumar Mehto is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused is acquitted for the offences U/s 354/509 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 10.10.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate02
(Mahila Court)/SED/Saket
Digitally
signed by New Delhi.
SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2018.10.11
15:55:51
+0530
FIR No.729/2014, PS OIA State Vs. Santosh Kumar Mehto 11 of 11