Delhi District Court
Ameen vs The State on 31 October, 2017
In the court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain,
Additional Sessions Judge02, South District.
Saket Court, New Delhi
Criminal Appeal No. 11/17
In the matter of
Ameen
S/o Sh Aziz Khan
R/o H.No. 536, Gali No. 10,
Sangam Vihar
New Delhi .... Appellant/Accused
Versus
The State
(Govt. Of NCT, Delhi) .... Respondent
FIR No. 142/2013
PS Neb Sarai
U/s 354D(1)(i)/506 II IPC
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present appeal appellant Ameen has challenged the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2016 convicting the appellant for commission of offence u/s 354D(1)(i)/506(ii) IPC and impugned order on sentence dated 23.01.2017 whereby the appellant is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month and a fine of Rs.3000/ for commission of offence U/s 354(1)(i) IPC and in default of payment of fine SI of 15 days, and for commission of offence u/s 506 IPC Simple imprisonment of one month and both sentences to run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 19.04.2013, PW1 Rinky made a complaint to ASI Lala Ram alleging therein that accused resides in CA No. 11/17, Ameen Vs. State (Page 1/6) Dated: 31.10.2017 the back side street of her house and harassing her for last two years. She also alleged in the said complaint that the accused had also harassed her previously and made due apology before one NGO Jagori and thereafter again for last 4 months he is harassing her and used to follow her. She further alleged, she told him number of times not to follow but he did not pay any heed to her request and also threatened her to kill and to rape her, and sometimes after taking liquor he used to knock the doors and started abusing. Pursuant to this complaint, present FIR was registered. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
3. Vide order dated 13.08.2014, charges u/s 354(1)(i)/506(ii) IPC were framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution for substantiating its case examined 4 witnesses. PW1 Rinky stated that she shifted to the present house in the year 2010 and accused used to visit her friend's house in neighbourhood and since then he started harassing her. She further deposed that accused followed her and used to pass in front of her house 4050 times in a day and also used to stare her. Accused after sometime also called her on her mobile and told her that he wanted to have friendship with her. She further stated that she made a complaint to NGO Jagori and handed over her mobile to said NGo, thereafter the NGO personal of Jagori went to his house to convince him not to harass on which he apologised, however thereafter, when the NGO person left then he came in street infront of her house in drunken condition and started abusing her loudly, and threatened her if she would not accept his friendship, then he would not let her live in society, thereafter she called 100 number, however accused left from the spot then again on the next day he started coming in front CA No. 11/17, Ameen Vs. State (Page 2/6) Dated: 31.10.2017 of her house in drunken condition and created ruckus. She also stated she complaint to NGO then accused again apologised. She also stated that this incident is of 2010 and for about 23 years accused did not harass or follow her however, from December 2012 to January 2013 before lodging of this FIR, accused again started following her and harassing her, and whenever she used to lock her house for going to office at Malviya Nagar, he followed her in street. She also stated that on the way accused forcibly catch hold of her hand and abuses her, and further threatened her that if she would not marry he would not let her marry with other person. She further stated that when she had marriage talks with a boy in the locality, he approached them and told that he himself has affair with her and therefore the marriage proposal was aborted. She further stated that she again approached NGO Jagori, and filed the complaint. In crossexamination, she was confronted with her statement Ex.PW1/A over the visit of accused in neighbourhood and the fact that accused passes in front of her house 4050 times in a day, and over the fact that when the NGO personal left, the accused came in drunken condition and abused her. She also could not state about the specific months and dates, and denied suggestion that accused did not follow her or harassed her. PW3 Sunita stated she works in NGO Jagori and the complainant given a written complaint in the month of 2010, as complainant wanted to settle the matter amicably, therefore accused was counseled and accused undertook that he would not to follow, harass or molest the complainant in future and gave a written apology. Later in year 2013 complainant had again approached and told that the accused continuing the acts of following, molesting and harassing her. Thereafter, she advised complainant to lodge FIR. In crossexamination stated that she do CA No. 11/17, Ameen Vs. State (Page 3/6) Dated: 31.10.2017 not remember the exact date of month when the complainant approached her, however it was in the June or July 2010. Further stated that she do not remember when police fist came in her office and denied suggestion that no such complaint was made. PW2 ASI Lala Ram IO stated that complainant had handed over her complaint, then he prepared rukka and FIR was registered, then he seized the earlier complaint dated 22.06.2010 and also one apology letter of accused. Thereafter arrested the accused. In cross examination denied suggestion that there is no such sanstha in the name of Jagori. PW4 Ct. Udai Bhan accompanied the IO during the investigation.
5. Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C denied all the incriminating circumstances and took the plea that he used to call the complainant and the complainant also used to call him, and when a boy Ramesh was urinating in front of complainant house and when he stopped him, then there was a fight and due to this fact mother of the complainant thought that if something happened to him, then complainant would be implicated. In defence evidence examined one Dhirender Mishra (DW1) who is neighbour of both and deposed that upon fight between Ramesh and accused over the issue of urination, police took both of them to PS and matter was compromised, and complainant in order to save herself implicated the accused.
6. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the testimony of PW1 is vague on the factum of the incident as she unable to give any date and time of harassment or molestation. Ld. Counsel submits that the accused was having three small children and his wife already died and he could not indulge in such activity. Ld. Counsel further submits that PW3 the official of NGO also could not tell the time and date of incident. Ld. Counsel submits that the complaint Ex.PW1/A do not CA No. 11/17, Ameen Vs. State (Page 4/6) Dated: 31.10.2017 bear the signatures of the complainant and the accused not committed any offence and falsely implicated in the present case.
7. Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand submitted that the testimony of PW1 and PW3 remain unimpeached and fully credible. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Trial court. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the accused persistently harassed the complainant, therefore no leniency could be accorded to accused on the ground having three minor daughters. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the trial court itself has taken the lenient view while passing the order on sentence.
8. Heard. Record perused.
9. The complainant PW1 categorically stated in her testimony that the accused was harassing her since 2010, and at that time she had made complaint to the NGO Jagori and thereafter accused apologised. Her statement is corroborated through complaint mark A given to the NGO Jagori and apology mark B. The mark B bears the signatures of the accused. Accused did not dispute his signature during crossexamination. Complainant in her deposition in detail given the manner how she was harassed by the accused in the year 2010 and thereafter in the year 2012/13. she also stated that because of his harassment and interference, her marriage was aborted. It is also deposed by PW1 that on the way to her office accused forcibly caught hold of her hand and made abuses. Ld. Counsel argued that there are number of improvements in the testimony of the complainant and these facts were not stated by the complaint in her complaint Ex. PW1/A. Ex.PW1/A is the complaint given by complainant to the IO for registration of FIR regarding the fact that accused was harassing her and also threatening her. The complaint is not required to be a detailed statement of the CA No. 11/17, Ameen Vs. State (Page 5/6) Dated: 31.10.2017 complainant. The FIR is not required to be the encyclopedia of entire incident. The testimony of the complainant appears credible on the aspect of continuous harassment and threatening given to her. Her statement is duly corroborated by the statement of PW3 Sunita who is an independent witness.
10. The defence of the accused on the face of it do not appear credible and appears to have no connection with the present incident. Furthermore, the said defence is not put to PW1 in her crossexamination. Hence, the defence as pleaded by the accused could not be relied upon.
11. The trial court passed detailed and reasoned judgment, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that accused has three small daughters and his wife also got expired, therefore lenient view may kindly be taken, however perusal of order on sentence itself suggest that the trial court has already taken a very lenient view despite the fact that allegations are quite serious and harassment continued for a long period of time, therefore I do not find any ground to take any further leniency. Hence, no ground also made out to interfere in the order on sentence also. Accordingly, present appeal stands dismissed. Accused/appellant is directed to surrender before the trial court within 7 days. TCR alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back to trial court. File be consigned to record room. Copy of this judgment be given to accused dasti.
Announced in the open Court (AJAY KUMAR JAIN)
On 31th October, 2017 ASJ02 (South)
Saket Courts / New Delhi
CA No. 11/17, Ameen Vs. State (Page 6/6) Dated: 31.10.2017