Delhi District Court
And Another vs . State Of Madhya Pradesh 2011(X) Ad (Sc) on 17 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA
COURT) -02 CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Sonam Singh
State v. Arun Kumar
FIR No. 186/14
Police Station : Sadar Bazar
Under Section: 354A/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
"IPC")
CIS No. 290957/16
Date of institution : 07.08.2015
Date of pronouncement: 17.04.2018
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 101/2/15
b) Date of commission of : 14.04.2014 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Ms. G. (In view of the decision dated 31.08.2016 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manoj v. State GNCT of Delhi, Crl Appeal no 647/2015, the name of the complainant is not being disclosed herein, as the case involves offence of a sexual nature. The complainant shall be referred to as "Ms. G".)
d) Name, parentage and : Arun Kumar address of the accused S/o Sh. Rajender Kumar R/o 10300, Gali No. 3, Motia Khan, Nabi Karim, Delhi State v. Arun Kumar FIR No. 186/14 PS Sadar Bazar Page 1 of 10
e) Offence complained of : Sections 354A/509 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Accused Arun Kuma convicted of the offence punishable under Section 354 A/509 IPC.
h) Date of final order : 17.04.2018 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, the accused Arun Kumar is being convicted of the offences alleged against him in this case for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is that on 14.04.2014 at 12.45 pm in Shop No. 119, Amarnath & Sons, Crockery Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Sadar Bazar, the accused Arun Kumar demanded sexual favours from the complainant Ms. G and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 354A IPC. Further, it is alleged that on the abovesaid date, time and place, accused Arun Kumar uttered insulting words to the complainant with intention to insult her modesty and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.
State v. Arun Kumar FIR No. 186/14 PS Sadar Bazar Page 2 of 10
3. The investigation was done by the IO HC Sanjay, who filed the police report under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 354A (2)/509 IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. On 07.08.2015, the learned predecessor of this court took cognizance upon the said police report. On 21.11.2015, the accused was supplied with the copies of police report and documents.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 17.05.2016, the learned predecessor of this court framed the charge against the accused Arun Kumar for the offences punishable under Section 354A/509 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
(i) Prosecution Witnesses In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution the prosecution in all has examined five witnesses, namely:
State v. Arun Kumar FIR No. 186/14 PS Sadar Bazar Page 3 of 10 Sr. Designation and Name Role in the present case No of the Witness
1. PW 1 Ms. G Complainant
2. PW 2 HC Bhagwan Dass Police official, who joined the investigation with the investigating officer.
3. PW 3 SI Deepak Kumar 1st investigating officer.
4. PW 4 ASI Vinesh Kumar Duty officer, who registered the FIR of the present case
5. PW 5 HC Sanjay Kumar Another Investigating officer
(ii) Documents on record:
The prosecution witnesses relied on the following documents:
Sr. Exhibits/ Nature of documents
No Marks
1. Ex.PW1/A Complaint
2. Ex.PW1/B Arrest memo of accused
3. Ex. PW1/C Personal search memo of accused
4. Ex.PW3/A Endorsement on the complaint
5. Ex. PW3/B Site plan
6. Ex. PW3/C Disclosure statement of the accused
7. Ex. PW4/A FIR
8. Ex. PW4/B Endorsement on the tehrir
9. Ex. PW4/C Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act.
State v. Arun Kumar
FIR No. 186/14 PS Sadar Bazar Page 4 of 10
Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 12.01.2018. The court will discuss the testimonies of the said witnesses later i.e. at the time of appreciation of evidence.
THE STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.PC./DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
7. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC"), examined on 08.03.2018, denied the entire evidence put to him. He stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant. Further, he stated that the complainant had come to the shop and was asking him to show certain articles and since, she was taking quite some time, he attended another customer, which got her angry. Further, he stated that the complainant also got angry with him, since he refused to exchange articles, which she had brought on her own which were not bought from his shop but were bought from another shop.
8. The Court heard the final arguments on 28.03.2018.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
9. I have heard the submissions of Sh. Vikas, Ld. APP for the State as well as that of Sh. C.P. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge- sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
State v. Arun Kumar FIR No. 186/14 PS Sadar Bazar Page 5 of 10
10. In order to decide the present case, it is important to discuss the provisions. Section 354A(i) IPC punishes sexual harassment and specifically punishes the act when a man makes a demand or request for sexual favour. Section 509 IPC prescribes punishment for uttering any insulting words to a woman with intention to outrage the modesty of said woman.
11. Let us now appreciate the evidence available on record in the light of aforesaid legal provisions. It is seen that the complainant in her complaint which is Ex.PW1/A, she had categorically stated that on 14.04.2014 at around 12:45 pm, at Amar Nath and Sons Crockery Market, shop no.119, Sadar Bazar, the accused had demanded a kiss from the complainant. She had narrated the incident in detail in the said complaint, wherein, she specifically alleged that the accused was a salesman in the said shop, who told her the price of geometry box and water bottle to be Rs. 110 and when she asked him to give the said articles for Rs. 100, he demanded a kiss from the complainant, in exchange of which he was ready to give the said articles free of cost. The prosecutrix reiterated her exact version in the statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also pertinent to note that the victim, PW1 deposed in the court on the exact same lines as that of her complaint. Further, her testimony withheld the test of cross-examination and no contradictions could be culled out from her testimony.
State v. Arun Kumar FIR No. 186/14 PS Sadar Bazar Page 6 of 10 Whether the act of the accused amounts to a demand or request for sexual favour from the complainant punishable under Section 354A (2) IPC
12. Now let us consider if the alleged act of the accused amounts to a demand or request for sexual favour from the complainant. The fact that the accused demanded for a kiss from the complainant, on account of which he was willing to give the geometry box and water bottle free of cost, does amount to a demand or request for a sexual favour. The fact that he asked for a kiss in exchange of giving the articles free of cost is demanding or asking for sexual favour.
Whether the words spoken by the accused to the complainant amount to an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC
13. The complainant had unambiguously testified in the court that the accused had asked for a kiss. The said words uttered by the accused to the complainant undoubtedly are offending to the modesty of any woman and meet the ingredients of offence pun- ishable under Section 509 IPC.
The presence and identity of the accused:
14. The prosecution was required to prove that the accused was present on the spot. In every criminal trial, the identity of the accused must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
State v. Arun Kumar FIR No. 186/14 PS Sadar Bazar Page 7 of 10 The victim/complainant PW1 has correctly identified the accused in the present case.
Categorical deposition of the Complainant/PW1 and the consistent testimonies of all prosecution witnesses:
15. With regard to the alleged act, the complainant/PW1 has clearly and categorically deposed about the incident. During her evidence, she has narrated the entire incident and proved her complaint, which is Ex. PW1/A. Although no other eye witnesses have appeared before the court to strengthen the case of prose- cution but only because of this reason the version of complainant cannot be discarded, if otherwise she proves herself to be a reli- able witness . It is also held by the Hon'ble apex court in Mahesh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2011(X) AD (SC) 225 that it is not the quantity of witnesses which is important but the court has to see quality of witness. Specifically in the said judgment, it was held that "...There is no requirement in the law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be ex- amined to prove something. The evidence has to be weighed and not to be counted."Further, it is also important to appreciate that the Ld. counsel for the accused could not extract anything sub- stantial through the cross-examination of PWs to disprove the charge framed against the accused. They have stood the test of cross examination as no contradiction can be seen in their depo- sitions.
State v. Arun Kumar FIR No. 186/14 PS Sadar Bazar Page 8 of 10 Immediate registration of the FIR
16. The FIR was registered in the present case very promptly i.e. on the very same day on the complaint of the prosecutrix. The accused was apprehended immediately after the incident, which makes the version of the prosecution believable.
Defence of the accused regarding the complainant being disgruntled with the accused could not be established:
17. The defence of the accused was that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated as the complainant got angry with him, since he started to entertain another customer and ignored her. Secondly, his other defence is that the complainant had brought certain articles to be exchanged but which were bought from another shop and on the refusal of the accused to exchange them in his shop, she got upset. However, the victim has categori- cally denied the suggestion put by Ld.counsel for the accused that she started to quarrel with the accused, on his refusal to re- place the articles bought from another shop. It is pertinent to note that the suggestion regarding the complainant/victim getting upset over the fact that there was another customer was not even put to her in her cross-examination. Furthermore, the accused failed to show any evidence to suggest any enmity between the accused and PW-1 to implicate him in a fabricated case. There was no reason for the PW1/ victim to depose falsely. Further, the possibil- ity of false implication of the accused is also ruled out considering State v. Arun Kumar FIR No. 186/14 PS Sadar Bazar Page 9 of 10 the matter was immediately reported to the police. No evidence was brought on record by the accused to prove his defence. He could have brought the shopkeeper, who was his employer as a witness to prove his defence but the same was not done.
CONCLUSION
18. In view of the cogent and convincing testimony of the prosecutrix, duly corroborated by the testimony of other prosecution witnesses and the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 354A(2) and 509 IPC. The accused Arun is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354A (2) and 509 IPC.
19. Copy be supplied to the accused free of cost.
20. List for arguments on sentence on 02.05.2018.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 17.04.2018.
SONAM Digitally signed by SONAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2018.04.18 10:02:55 +0530 (SONAM SINGH) Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 17.04.2018 State v. Arun Kumar FIR No. 186/14 PS Sadar Bazar Page 10 of 10