Delhi District Court
State vs . Kishan Kumar on 18 October, 2014
In The Court of Ms. Vandana, MM, Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Kishan Kumar
FIR No. 379/11
U/s 354/509 IPC
PS Uttam Nagar
JUDGMENT
S. No. of the case : 20/2/12
Date of Commission of offence : 30.08.2011
Name of the Complainant : Rinku Devi
Name of the accused person : Kishan Kumar S/o Sh. Kedar Prasad Verma,
R/o Plot No.80, Sainik Vihar, Phase III,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Offence Complained of : 354/509 IPC
Plea of accused persons : Plead not guilty.
Date of order : 18.10.2014
Final order : Acquitted.
Brief Facts of the Case
1. The complainant has stated that on 30.08.2011 she had came for shopping at Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar. She found the accused (already known to her), following her on bike when she was going back in Gramin Sewa. She got down at about 8.30 pm at Jain Road, Bhagwati Garden, Near Water Plant from Gramin Sewa. At that point of time accused came near to her and misbehaved with State Vs. Kishan Kumar Page No. 1/8 her. She caught her hand, pulled her kurta as a result its sleeve got torn and also hit her breast. When she cried for help, person from public got gathered and he ran away after abusing her in filthy language.
Framing of Charge
2. After supplying documents to the accused, charge for the commission of offence punishable U/s 354/509 IPC was framed against accused Kishan Kumar to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses.
PW1 Smt. Rinku Devi is the complainant in this case who deposed that the accused Kishan Kumar was friend of her husband and she knew the accused for about 1112 years before the date of incident. She further deposed that accused used to come to her place before the date of incident even in the absence of her husband as well. He had kept evil eyes on her. Because of this act, an FIR no. 22/11 dated 15.1.11, P.S. Uttam Nagar u/s 376/341/323/506/34 IPC was also registered against the accused.
She deposed that on 30.08.2011 at about 8:30 PM she had gone to Arya Samaj Road Uttam Nagar for purpose of shopping and when she was coming back to her house through Gramin Seva she saw that accused following her by his motor cycle.
State Vs. Kishan Kumar Page No. 2/8
When she saw him she got down at Dwarka More and took another Gramin Seva for house. When she reached near Jal Board at Uttam Nagar, Mohan Garden and got down from the Gramin Seva and was standing near it, accused came near her and pulled her left hand and also pulled her wearing suit. Due to this the left sleeve of her suit got torn. Accused also hit her on her breast by his hand and he also gave nail injuries on her breast. Thereafter, she raised hue and cry and public got gathered on the spot. Public started apprehending the accused and one person from the public gave slaps to the accused. Accused then kicked her on her stomach because of which she fell down and he ran away from the spot after giving abuses to the complainant. Some body from the public made a call at 100 number. Police came to the spot and recorded her statement as Ex. PW1/A. On 26.08.2011 also she had made complaints to SHO P.S. Uttam Nagar.
On the date of incident, complainant made a call to her husband from the mobile of some public person. Her husband came to the spot and then police took her to the P.S. She alleged that though she was having lot of pain and was requesting police to take her for medical examination but police did not do so. Thereafter, police took the complainant along with her husband to the house of the accused and arrested the accused. Police seized the suit of complainant.
PW2 HC Surender Singh, is the duty officer who proved the FIR of the present case vide Ex. PW2/A and also proved the DD entry as Ex. PW2/B. PW3 Ct. Surender Kumar, on receipt of DD no. 44A reached at the spot but complainant did not lodge any complaint as she wanted to take opinion from State Vs. Kishan Kumar Page No. 3/8 her family members first. On the next day, complainant came to PS and gave her statement and on the basis of statement the FIR was got registered. DO HC Surender Kumar handed over the copy of FIR to him for the IO. Thereafter, he along with IO went to the house of accused and IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D. PW4 HC Ratan Lal, who is the MHC (M). On 31.08.2011 IO SI Shrawan Kumar deposited one sealed pullanda and copy of the same entry is Ex. PW4/A. PW5 SI Shravan Kumar, IO of the present case. He received DD no. 44A, but complainant stated that after getting opinion from her family members she will give her statement. On the next date, complainant came to PS and he recorded the statement of complainant and prepared the rukka and prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E and seized the suit of the complainant vide Ex. PW1/C. Afterwards PE was closed.
Statement of accused
4. The accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr. PC wherein all the incriminating evidence on record along with documents were put to him to which his stand was of general denial. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. State Vs. Kishan Kumar Page No. 4/8
5. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The record has also been perused carefully.
Appreciation of Evidence & Law
6. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S 354 of IPC, the prosecution was required to prove:
(i) That the person assaulted was a female;
(ii) That the accused assaulted or used criminal force against her;
(iii) That they intended thereby to outrage her modesty; or
(iv) That they knew it to be likely that they would thereby outrage her modesty.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the testimony of the witnesses and perused the entire material on record carefully.
8. The incident is of dated 30.08.2011 but in the compliant interalia the complainant has stated that first she will talk to her family members then she will give her statement and accordingly, complaint was filed on 31.08.2011. Certainly it raises the doubt as the delay in filing the complaint is not reasonable rather it brings the statement of the complainant under the clouds of suspicion.
9. Further, at the time of filing of complaint i.e Ex. PW1/A she stated that on the date of incident accused kicked her on her stomach because of which she fell down. However contradictory to above, on being cross examined she State Vs. Kishan Kumar Page No. 5/8 stated that accused pulled her outside from inside the Gramin Sewa and co passengers did not help her. When accused pulled her outside then she fell down and as a result, she sustained injuries on her chest, hand and stomach. Surprisingly, there is no mention of any injuries in the complaint which was filed on the next very day of the alleged incident. PW3 has also deposed that complainant was not injured at that time.
10. Dealing with material contradictions further, the complainant has alleged that on the date of incident she was not got medically examined by IO, however she has not mentioned about any injury in her complaint. Moreover, she did not stated anything regarding taking treatment from any other hospital or by any doctor on her own for the alleged injury.
11. The complainant deposed that on the date of incident, she made a call to her husband from the mobile of some public person. Her husband came to the spot and then police took them to PS and accused was arrested on the same date. Her torn kurta was also seized.
12. Contradictory to above, in the compliant i.e Ex. PW1/A dated 31.08.2011 complainant did not mention any single word qua the presence of her husband. Furthermore, the arrest memo Ex. PW1/D, personal search memo Ex. PW1/E and seizure memo Ex. PW1/C all the documents are of dated 31.08.2011 State Vs. Kishan Kumar Page No. 6/8 which falsify the version of complainant that all the investigation was done on the date of incident. However, the complaint Ex. PW1/A was itself filed on 31.08.2011 wherein complainant has herself stated that she deliberately did not file any complaint on the date of incident.
13. PW3 has stated that nothing was seized from the complainant on the date of incident which is again contradictory to the statement of complainant. Further complainant denied preparing of site plan at her instance.
14. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 509 of IPC, the prosecution was required to prove: (1) That the victim was a female.
(2) That the accused uttered or made gestures with an intention to outrage the modesty of woman.
(3) That those words/gestures were heard/seen by the woman.
15. So far as offence u/s 509 IPC is concerned, in the complaint as well as while deposing before the Court, complainant only stated that "upshabd" was told by accused but she could not utter even a single word as to what was told to her which attracts section u/s 509 IPC. To prove the guilt u/s 509 IPC words must be uttered with the intention of outraging the modesty of the complainant. She has nowhere stated that the word which was used were against her dignity or modesty. State Vs. Kishan Kumar Page No. 7/8 Merely using the word "upshabd" is not sufficient enough for proving the accused offence u/s 509 IPC.
16. Further it was deposed by the complainant that several persons from the public gathered on the spot and one person from the public gave slap to the accused but interestingly no public person was made a witness in this case.
CONCLUSION
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has successfully proved a case against accused for the commission of offence punishable U/s 354/509 IPC. Consequently, accused is hereby convicted for the offence U/s 354/509 IPC.
18. File be consigned to RR.
Announced and dictated in the (Vandana)
open Court today i.e. on 18.10.2014 MM, Mahila Court,
Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi
State Vs. Kishan Kumar Page No. 8/8