Delhi District Court
State vs . Hridya Narain on 7 May, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHINDRA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
MAHILA COURT-02 (SOUTH WEST), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO:28/04
PS: PALAM AIRPORT
U/s: 354/509 IPC
STATE VS. HRIDYA NARAIN
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 25.08.2004
Name of the complainant : Smt. Kaveri
Name & address of the accused : 1. Accused Hridya Narain
S/o Lt. Nanu Ram
R/o 39 Palam Vihar Sector-6 Dwarka,
New Delhi.
2. Accused Karanjeet Singh Dhunna
S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh
R/o 12/12A II Floor, Tilak Nagar, New
Delhi.
Offence Complaint of : U/s 354/509 IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of announcing of order : 07.05.2013
BRIEF FACTS:-
1. Accused Hridya Narain and K.S. Dhunna were brought to face trial for offence punishable U/s 354/509 IPC on the complaint of Ms. Kaveri that accused persons misbehaved and harassed her while she was working as Officer in Stores Department, Indian Air Lines IGI Airport. The said complaint culminated into FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 1/16 2 present FIR and cognizance was taken against both the accused persons by my Ld. Predecessor. One of accused K.S. Dhunna expired during the course of the proceedings and case was abated against him vide order dated 27.02.2008.
2. The accused persons were summoned after taking cognizance and documents U/s 207 Cr.P.C were supplied to both the accused persons. Vide order dated 27.02.2008, notice was framed against the accused Hridya Narain for an offence U/s 354/509 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined 3 public witness and 3 formal witnesses in support of his case. On the other hand accused has examined himself as DW-4 U/s 315 Cr.P.C and also examined 3 other public witnesses.
4. Brief testimony of official witnesses:-
PW-1, HC Virender Singh is the Duty officer and proved registration of FIR Ex. PW1. He was not cross-examined by accused.
PW-5, SI Suresh Pal, is the first IO. He stated in his evidence that on 28.05.2008 the present FIR was given to him for investigation alongwith original tehrir. During investigation he had recorded the statements of witnesses but they did not support the allegations of the complainant. He was transferred on 11.07.2004 and handed over the case file to MHCR for further proceedings. He was not cross-examined by the accused.
FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 2/16 3 PW-6, SI Ikbal Singh, is the second IO. He has stated in his evidence that during the investigation he recorded the supplementary statement of complainant on 26.07.2004. He arrested the accused persons vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B and conducted their personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW6/C and Ex. PW6/D. He identified the accused Hridya Narain in the court. In his cross-examination by defence, he stated that during the investigation he has recorded the statements of other prosecution witnesses besides the complainant. No witness except Chote Lal stated anything adverse against the accused. He denied the suggestion that Chote Lal has not stated anything against Hridya Narain but made statement only against accused K.S. Dhunna.
5. Brief testimony of public witnesses:-
At the outset it is mentioned that I shall deal with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses which is pertaining to accused Hridya Narain only. The other accused K.S. Dhunna expired even before starting of trial and no useful purpose will be served by discussing the testimony regarding the deceased accused K.S. Dhunna.
PW-2, Ms. Kaveri, is the complainant. She stated in her evidence that she made a complaint against accused K.S. Dhunna in the year 2003 and also written several letters to General Secretary of SC&ST of Indian Airlines for taking action against the accused K.S. Dhunna but no action was taken against him. Instead of taking action against him, her General Manager, Store & Purchase transferred her to another section and when she objected, he shouted on her. Later on, SC&SCT Commission, Government of India, has called a meeting with FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 3/16 4 management of Indian Airlines in which decision was taken by management to transfer the complainant as well as deceased K.S. Dhunna in another section. Later on both were transferred in different sections. She had joined the new section R&D (GS) on 06.10.2003. Since she joined that section, the behaviour of accused Hridya Narain, Deputy Manager towards her was not well and his language was always abusive. In the second week of November, 2003, she and accused Hridya Narain were called by Senior Manager Mr. Ram Kumar in his cabin. The accused Hridya Narain used abusive and indecent language before her Senior Manager and he said "tu toh bigdi hui hai sudhregi nahi, tujhe toh main sudharoonga, tere toh naukri chali jati tu toh badtmtij kutia, haramjadi hai, Mr. K.S. Dhunna to maine hi sikhaya tha". The accused was supported by management as well as unions because he was from the union. She made complaint to SHO Palam Airport on 16.02.2004 but no action was taken. Then she also made complaint to Police Commissioner on 10.08.2004 for the incident of 16.02.2004 but no action was taken. In her testimony recorded in court on 02.02.2010, she deposed that she also made complaint to Police Commission on 10.08.2004 for incident of 16.07.2004, wherein, she disclosed that when she was alone in her section the accused threatened her and said "tu kya kar legi, teri to naukri main chudwa ke rahunga, tujhe akal nai hai, tu kutiya hai, badtameez, bhenchod hai". However, police did not take any action. On 13.11.2003, the accused also passed comment on her that "tu ek gandi ladki hai, tujhe har admi use kar sakta hai". Accused Hridya Narain always instigated the management and other staff members against her and he went to extent of instigating her own brothers against her. She also stated that she has taken voluntarily retirement from the job. She was also insulted by linking her name with the married and aged person Sh. Ram Kumar who was like her father. She also stated that incident on 13.11.2003 happened before Sh. Ram Kumar in his Cabin. She placed on record the FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 4/16 5 complaint dated 24.03.2003 Mark-A, Photo copy of complaint dated 24.11.2003 Mark-B, reminder given to Commissioner of Police on 10.08.2004 as Mark-C, complaint to head of department Police HQ ITO dated 25.02.2004 Mark-D, complaint made before the court of Sh. Ravinder Dudeja on 28.04.2004 as Ex. PW2/B and accompanying affidavit as Ex. PW2/C. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was compelled to leave the job and to take VRS on account of pressure of management and union. She stated that she did not give any complaint to the Ministry against the Association or Management. Thereafter, she was confronted with different complaints and litigations filed by her against different persons. She admitted that Mark -DA is photocopy of one publication by her against K.S. Dhunna. She stated that she does not know whether Mark-DB is application made by Kapil Kumar, Samsun, Vandana, Ram Niwas to MD (Store) for transferring her to another department on account of her habit for filing false and frivolous complainants against different persons and creating hostile environment in the department. She voluntarily stated that the accused Hridya Narain with Rajesh Kumar used to instigate the applicants against her. She admitted that Mark-DC1 is the copy of representation given by the unions as well as 92 other employees and management against her. She added that she has filed a case against them in Hon'ble High Court. She admitted that Mark-DD is the copy of Civil Suit filed against the worker of the union as well as management and officer by her seeking compensation for defamation. She stated that she does not know whether any committee as mentioned in Mark-DE was constituted for deciding complaint made by her against Shiv Kumar for indecent behaviour. She admitted that Mark-DE and Mark-DC are complaints given by her. She also admitted that accused belongs to SC Community and was the General Secretary of the SC/ST FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 5/16 6 Association of the department and she was also member of the said Association. She denied the suggestion that she is in habit of filing complaints against her mother and family members. She voluntarily that she filed one case against K.S. Dhunna and Hridya Narain before Sh. Ravinder Dudeja, ACMM, New Delhi under SC/ST Act seeking registration of FIR. She stated that she does not know whether the police has registered the FIR in that case or not. She admitted that she has filed a complaint in the police against the employee of Indian Airlines Store Department and also filed one case in Hon'ble High Court against 92 employees. She also admitted that she filed one case of domestic violence against her brothers and mother. She stated that she does not know whether she had filed 112 cases against various persons but stated that she has filed various cases around 3-4 in number. She denied the suggestion that 17 complaints are pending in police station Palam Airport filed by her and only in one complaint, the action was taken. She also denied the suggestion that she was sacked from job because of her behaviour and of being habitual in filing complaints against her co-employee U/s 354/509 IPC. She also stated that she does not know that the case against accused K.S. Dhunna and Hridya Narain was not registered SC/ST Act because accused Hridya Narain belonged to SC Community.
PW-3, Ram Kumar, was also working in a Stores and Purchase Department in Indian Airlines, IGI Airport. He stated that he was posted as Manager-Stores and Purchase Department, Indian Airlines, IGI Airport, where the complainant and accused Hridya Narain were also working with him in the same department. Both used to report him officially. Around in the year 2003, complainant came to him and told him that the accused misbehaved with her and used indecent words "tu to batamij hain. Tu to bigri hui hai, maine iliye tere ko apne section mein liya tha ki tu sudhar jayegi, tu bigri hi rahi". She also told him FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 6/16 7 that accused had told her "Roj tujhe letter milte, maine hi roka hai, nahi to teri naukari chali jayegi, tu apne aap ko kya samajhti hain". After this, he called the accused in his office and enquired the matter in the presence of complainant. The accused Hridya Narain used harsh words with the complainant in his presence and had attacked on her privacy and said "tu ek gandi ladki hain, tujhe her aadmi use kar sakta hain". He received a letter Mark S-1 from the complainant regarding incident. He also stated that the behaviour of the accused, being the General Secretary of SC/ST Association, was not good in office to any one. In his cross- examination, he stated that he was not appointed as Enquiry Officer and he called accused Haridya Narain in his office but voluntarily stated that he summoned him in his office being officer incharge of the whole section. He also stated that he reported the matter to General Manager but does not remember his name. He has no idea whether any departmental action has been taken on place regarding this incident. He knows the complainant Kaveri for last ten years. He stated that he does not know that complainant lodged one complaint even against her brother and mother. He denied the suggestion that he has affair with complainant and due to this reason he is deposing in her favour. He admitted that he is a member of SC/ST Association. He denied the suggestion that he is having an enmity with Haridya Narain as he was General Secretary, SC/ST Association.
PW-4, Chotelal, was also working in the same section as complainant. He stated that was working as a Peon in the department. He stated that in July, 2003 he has seen deceased K.S. Dhunna misbehaving with complainant as he was holding the hand of complainant and telling her to immediately dispatch the papers. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has never seen the accused Hridya Narain misbehaved with complainant.
FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 7/16 8
6. During Statement of accused Hridya Narain U/s 313 Cr.P.C, all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused and he stated in his defence that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as he was General Secretary in Indian Airlines SC&ST employee union. There was union rivalry between his group and Regional Secretary Sh. Mir Singh. On instance of Mir Singh, complainant has filed complaint against 95 employees and filed 5 criminal cases of same nature in police station against him and other 4 persons including deceased accused K.S. Dhunna. In view of her conduct she was transferred from department of Mr. K.S. Dhunna to his department since he was also SC.
7. DW-1, Kapil Kumar was also working in the same department as complainant. He stated that he was police witness and later on dropped at the request of Ld. APP for state. In the statement made to police during investigation he has stated that no incident between accused Hridya Narain and complainant took place in his presence. In his cross-examination, he stated that he knows the accused since 2000. He had worked with the accused for some time in same section. He was his boss. He admitted that he cannot say whether any incident on 24.03.2003 happened wherein the accused misbehaved with the complainant. He added that he does not remember that whether he was present in the office or not at that time. He stated that in June 2004 the accused Hridya Narain was his immediate boss. He denied the suggestion that he stated before police in favour of accused persons since he shared cordial relationship with accused persons or that he was under pressure of accused persons since accused Hridya Narain was his immediate boss.
8. DW-2, Satish Kumar Meena was a summoned witness and brought the personal report of complainant Kaveri. He stated that as per the report the FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 8/16 9 complainant has lodged several complaints against some staff and officials and few complaints were also lodged against her and placed on record the copy of the record as Mark-DW2/A and office record was returned to him after seeing the original.
In his cross-examination, he stated that presently he is posted as Deputy Manager (Personal) and brought the personal record of complainant. He stated that he has no personal knowledge about the present case and of the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused persons and deposing as per the record (personal file) of complainant. He admitted that Ex. DW2/A was not prepared by him and was prepared by General Manager. He admitted that only photocopy of the 3 complaints filed by the complainant are part of Ex. DW2/A and other complaints made by the complainant in the year 2004 which were mentioned in Ex. DW2/A are not placed on record. He denied the suggest that documents Ex.DW2/A is false record being forward by General Manager without going into authenticity of the allegations and the correctness of the description of the number/contents of the complaint as mentioned in the Ex. DW2/A. He voluntarily added that as per record Ex. DW2/A, 3 of the complaints dated 27.09.2004, 16.07.2007 and 23.07.2007 were found to be baseless. He stated that he has no idea whether any complaint case of defamation was filed by the complainant in the Hon'ble High Court against staff of the Department or not. He denied the suggestion that complainant was compelled to take voluntarily retirement due to harassment and indecent behaviour of accused Hridya Narian and K. S. Dhunna. He stated that it is correct that the complainant Kaveri has not filed any complaint against him.
9. DW-3, Rajesh Kumar was also working in the same department as complainant. He stated that he was summoned and he was a police witness and FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 9/16 10 was later dropped at the request of Ld. APP for state. He is not aware of any alleged incident happened between accused Hridya Narian and Kaveri. The complainant lodged about 92 complaints against various colleagues and official of the department including him. Most of these cases related to molestation and abusive language and all 92 people are facing trial in the regular court of law in view of those false cases. She also lodged a case against Kunwar Singh, Senior Manager as he stood as a surety in some case filed by the complainant. He was also implicated by her in false case because he stood as surety for co-accused K.S. Dhunna who later expired during the trial. The department took no action against any of 92 persons including him as complainant is habitual in making complaint against her colleagues and officers who come in her way. Accused Hridya Narain was General Secretary of SC/ST Association of Airlines and complainant also belongs to SC/ST category. She resigned from Air India.
In his cross-examination, he stated that from the past 5 years he is working as an Administration Officer at Store Department, Custom Section and working in Store Department from past 32 years at IGI Airport. He knows accused Hridya Narain from last 32 years but accused K.S. Dhunna never happened to be his immediate boss. He stated that he share formal relationship with accused Hridya Narain. He stated that no police case was registered against him on complaint made by the complainant. He voluntarily stated that they verbally inquired form him in front of his senior. He is not facing any trial before any court. He stated that he does not know any FIR number of the 92 cases which as per him have been filed by the complainant and relates to molestation and abusive language. He stated that complaint had filed one police case leveling allegation of molestation and abusive language against him. He admitted that the complainant has filed defamation case against 92 persons in High Court demanding compensation of Rs. 5 crores in relation to the documents signed by 92 persons FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 10/16 11 where all of them stated that the complainant is a habitual litigant and harass the employees and officers of department. She is habitual of making false complaints against the employees of the department and this has demoralized the employees of department. He stated that he cannot tell whether any incident of indecency by accused Hridya Narain happened or not. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing in favour of accused Hridya Narain since he had cordial relationship with him. He denied the suggestion that due to harassment and indecent behavior being meted out by the accused, the complainant is compelled to take voluntarily retirement.
10. Lastly accused examined himself U/s 315 Cr.P.C and stated that earlier the complainant was working with late accused K.S. Dhunna. The complainant made complaint against him. The complaint was considered by then CMD Ms. Sushma Chawla in view of her complaint the management was willing to transfer her but none of the department were ready to accept her. Since he was the General Secretary of SC/ST Association and the complainant is also SC, management transferred her under him. She used to file complaint under SC/ST Act against number of persons. There was no dispute between him and complainant but the dispute was between the then General Secretary and Regional Secretary Mr. Mir Singh. She filed the complaint against him on the instigation of Mir Singh to pressurize him. She has gone to High Court under SC/ST Act and her petition was rejected. He placed on record the report Ex. DW4/A received by him from RTI that complainant has approximately filed 8 complaints but during the course of the enquiry the allegations leveled by complainant could not be substantiated and complaints were filed by DCP/IGI Airport. He also placed on record 2 letters dated 16.07.2004, Ex. DW4/B and Ex. DW4/C, reprimanding the complainant for not properly discharging her duties and FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 11/16 12 her misconduct. He also placed on record a letter Ex. PW4/F written by landlord of complainant namely Kripa Shankar Gupta regarding her misconduct by detaining the tenanted premises without paying rent and constant threatening to him and his family for implicating them in false cases. He also placed on record the summoned issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to several persons in the defamation case filed by the complainant and lastly the circular issued by the complainant against other accused K.S. Dhunna as Mark-DW4/A. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the documents Mark-Ex. DW4/B and Ex. DW4/C are false and fabricated or were prepared to create false defence. He also denied the suggestion that Mark DW-4/F is false and fabricated and the same was prepared by him in collusion with Kripa Shankar Gupta to create false defence. He said he cannot say whether the writer of said document namely Sh. Kripa Shankar had filed any Civil petition against the complainant or not. He admitted that the document Mark DW4/F was filed after the filing of the present case. He admitted that complainant had filed defamation case in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against 92 persons but voluntarily added that the same has been closed. He has no documentary proof to support his statement that the petition of the complainant in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is closed. He admitted that document Ex. DW4/D under the seal of Administrative Officer, Registrar General was at the stage of calling the defendants to produce documents in their defence. He denied the suggestion that the petition of the complainant in defamation case has been admitted as it disclosed prima facie case against the defendants. He voluntarily added that he is not a party in that case. He denied the suggestion that he is also the defendant in the defamation case filed by the complainant before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He stated that he has not brought any documents to prove that he is not the party in the said petition before the Hon'ble High Court. He admitted that the complainant FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 12/16 13 had taken voluntarily retirement from the job. He denied the suggestion that he and other accused K.S. Dhunna harassed and insulted the complainant to such an extent that she has to take voluntarily retirement from the service.
11. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that accused is totally innocent. The complainant is a habitual litigant and prosecution has miserably failed to examine any independent public witness to corroborate the testimony of the complainant. In fact certain prosecution witnesses were dropped by the prosecution during the course of the trial and the same witnesses were examined by the defence, who had supported the defence. So, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
12. I have carefully considered the submissions and have perused the record.
13. I do not concur with the view of the Ld. APP that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of accused Hridya Narain beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Besides the complainant, no other prosecution witness has supported the case set out by the complainant against accused Hridya Narain except PW-3 Ram Kumar. PW-4, Chote Lal working in the same department has also not deposed against accused Hridya Narain and only stated about one incident when he had seen deceased K.S. Dhunna misbehaving with the complainant. He has FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 13/16 14 clearly stated in his cross-examination that he has not seen the accused Hridya Narain misbehaving with the complainant.
15. The complainant(PW2) has received only some support from the evidence of the PW-3. However, there are vital inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW-2 and PW3. The complainant in her evidence stated that in November, 2003, she and accused Hridya Narain were called by PW-3 in his cabin and before PW-3, the accused used abusive and indecent language and said ""tu toh bigdi hui hai sudhregi nahi, tujhe toh main sudharoonga, tere toh naukri chali jati tu toh badtmtij kutia, haramjadi hai, Mr. K.S. Dhunna to maine hi sikhaya tha". Contradicting the claim of the PW2, complainant, the PW-3 has stated that the complainant told him that the accused has misbehaved with her and used objectionable/indecent words and also threatened her. Thus, PW2, the complainant stated that the PW-3 was an eye witness to the abuses and threatening. On the other hand the testimony of PW-3 categorically shows that he was only a hearsay witness. Moreover, there is also variance in the abusive words as told by complainant(PW2) and PW3 in their evidence. The complainant PW-2 in her evidence stated that the accused used words "baatamij Kutia, haramjadi hai". However, the said words are conspicuously absent in the testimony of PW-3. In fact, the words told by PW-3 in his evidence do not show that the accused uttered any word derogatory to complainant or intruding her privacy. Further, whereas both PW-2 as well as PW-3 deposed that accused said to the complainant in the presence of PW-3 that "tu ek gandi ladki hai, tujhe har admi use kar sakta hai", the said words are missing in the contemporariness document i.e. the complaint made by the complainant on 24.11.2003 in respect of incident relating November, 2003. In view of the same, to my mind the evidence by PW-3 is not credible and does not inspire confidence. It cannot be relied on to support the prosecution.
FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 14/16 15
16. The police witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The police witness PW-5 as well as PW-6 have clearly stated in their statements that during the investigation no witness except Chote Lal, supported the allegations made by complainant. During the course of trial , the prosecution dropped many witnesses. The accused examined the same prosecution witnesses in their defence, who deposed in favour of the accused. This has dealt severe blow to the case of the prosecution.
17. Now there is only testimony of complainant to prove the case of the prosecution against accused Hridya Narain. It is settled law that in sexual offences cases, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to hold the accused person guilty provided the court finds it reliable, trustworthy and beyond suspicion. The defence in the present case has successfully established that the complainant was in habit of filing frivolous complaints against her co-employees. The Ex. DW4/A, the copy obtained by the accused from RTI clearly shows that the complainant made eight complaints regarding hardships undergone by her in office and outside office due to collaboration of employee, union and management but during enquiry, all the allegations leveled by complainant could not be substantiated. It is also borne out from the defence evidence that the complainant has also pending litigation with his brother, mother as well as landlord. Moreover, Ex. DW2/A prepared and forwarded by General Manager also shows that the complainant also made certain complaints against co-employees which were found to be baseless after inquiry. Mark-DC also reflects that 92 persons working in the same department as complainant, lodged complaint against the complainant to the senior officials of Indian Airlines where all of them stated that the complainant is a habitual litigant and harass her co- employees and officers of department by making false and frivolous complaints against them and this has demoralized the employees of FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 15/16 16 department. In view of the same, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant is unworthy of credit and testimony of the complainant, PW2 is not beyond pale of doubt. The sole testimony of the complainant is not sufficient to hold the accused guilt without any corroboration. The accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and is, accordingly, acquitted of charges under Section 354/509 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PRIYA MAHINDRA) ON 07th MAY, 2013 MM-2/MAHILACOURT/DWARKA NEW DELHI FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 16/16 17
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHINDRA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-2 MAHILA COURT (SOUTH WEST), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI Present: Ld. APP for State Accused in person with counsel.
Vide a separate judgment of the day accused stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 354/509 IPC.
The Counsel for the accused seeks some time to furnish bail bonds U/s 437 A Cr. P.C. The earlier bail bond shall remain effective and is not discharged till the bond U/s 437 A Cr. P.C is furnished. Be furnished. File be consigned to record room.
(PRIYA MAHINDRA)
MM-2/MAHILA COURT/DWARKA
NEW DELHI
FIR No. 28/04 State Vs. Hridya Narain 17/16