Delhi District Court
Fir No. 192/13 State vs . Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 1 Of 14 on 25 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG DASS, MM01, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
1.Case No :3603/2014
2.Unique I.D. No. :2034512/2016
3.Title of the case: :State v Saroj Verma & Ors.
FIR No. 192/13, PS Mehrauli
4.Date of institution : 22.06.2013
5.Date of reserving Judgment : 20.02.2018
6.Date of pronouncement : 25.09.2020
JUDGMENT :
(a)The date of commission Period Preceding on 06.03.2013, 07.03.2013 & 23.03.2013,
(a)The name of complainant Smt. Shakuntla Rawat, W/o Sh.
Rajinder Singh Rawat
(c) The name & address accused 1.Saroj Verma, W/o Sh. Ravinder Verma,
2.Monu @ Varun, S/o Sh.
Ravinder Verma,
3.Ravinder Verma, S/o Late Sh.
Lahri Ram Verma, All R/o House No. 199/3A, Ward No.2, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
(d)The offence complained of U/s 506/509/34 IPC & 461 DMC Act (e) The plea of the accused Not guilty (f)The final order3 Acquitted (g)The date of such order 25.09.2020 FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 1 of 14 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. In the present case, accused Saroj Verma, Ravinder Verma and Monu @ Varun were put to trial for offence U/Sec 506/509/34 IPC & 461 DMC Act on the allegations that during the period preceding 23.03.2013 at House No. 199/2, Mehrauli, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli all the accused persons being owner of the aforesaid property, were found carrying unauthorised construction in the shape of authorised balcony (chhajja) on each floor without sanctioning building plan from MCD. Further on 06.03.2013 at about 10:30pm and on 07.03.2013 at 7:00pm at the same place, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal intimidation by threatening complainant/Shakuntala Rawat and intending to insult her modesty uttered words in obscene language or gesture which were heard and seen by the complainant.
Initially a complaint was filed by complainant being complaint no. 593/2/13 titled Shakuntala Rawat Vs. Saroj Verma wherein ATR was called by the court and on 06.04.2013 directions for registration of FIR were given. On dated 03.02.2015 direction for tagging both complaint and charge sheet were given. The aforesaid charge sheet was filed before the court on 22.06.2013 and the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied on 03.12.2014.
2. After hearing the arguments, notice was framed against accused persons U/Sec 506/509/34 IPC & 461 DMC Act to which they pleaded "Not Guilty"
and instead claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 2 of 14 evidence.
3. During the course of the trial, prosecution has examined 7 witnesses to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused persons.
4. PW1 Shakuntla Rawat is the complainant herself who has deposed that she do not remember the date and time of the incident however it was the month of March. On that day, accused Saroj Verma, Ravinder Verma and Monu Verma were constructing the chajja on their house. When she asked them not to construct the same, accused Ravinder Verma told her to close the door and forced her to leave the place. Thereafter, on 02.04.2002, officials from MCD came on the spot and broke the chajja constructed on the fourth floor of the house of the accused. She deposed that on that day she was not at her house and they pelted stones into her house. Thereafter, accused Ravinder Verma threatened to kill her daughter and abused in filthy language. Thereafter she made a complaint to the police and MCD. She proved complaint dated 23.02.2013 as Ex. PW1/A and complaint dated 08.03.2013 as Ex. PW1/B. However police did not take any action. Thereafter, she came in the court. Thereafter on 14.10.2013, police officials came to her house and recorded her statement. Witness correctly identified the accused persons. She further deposed that on 02.04.2013 false FIR was got registered against her two sons.
Witness was duly cross examined.
5. PW2 HC Dharmender Singh deposed that on 08.04.2013 on the FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 3 of 14 directions of the court FIR No. 192/13 u/s 506/509 IPC & 461 DMC Act was registered. Thereafter investigation was handed over to him. He further deposed that on 12.04.2013 he met complainant and prepared site plan Ex. PW2/A at the instance of complainant and recorded her supplementary statement Ex. PW2/B. On 04.06.2013 accused Saroj Verma, Monu Verma @ Varun and Ravinder verma were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/C to Ex. PW2/E. Thereafter all the accused were released on police bail. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge sheet and filed it before the court and directions of reinvestigation was given by the Court. In compliance of orders given by the court, he recorded the statement of complainant, her daughter Sobha Rawat and her sons Devender and Ravinder. He also took permission u/s 195 Cr. P.C. from DC, SDMC as Ex. PW2/F, Thereafter he collected the documents pertaining to property and seized the photocopies of the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/G. He got verified the said documents from Sub Registrar, Mehrauli which were found genuine. Thereafter he filed supplementary charge sheet. He correctly identified all the accused persons in the court.
Witness was duly cross examined.
6. PW3 Lalit Goyal, Assistant Engineer who proved letter dated 30.12.2013 forwarded to SHO with referrence to letter bearing no. 4156/SHO Mehrauli dated 18.11.2013 as Ex. PW2/F. Witness was duly cross examined.
7. PW4 Sobha Rawat deposed that accused Monu Verma in drunken condition FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 4 of 14 abused her in filthy language and accused Ravinder Verma also abused her. On 02.04.2013 accused Ravinder Verma pointed out towards her and gave her threats for killing. Accused Monu Verma and Ravinder Verma tried to open her gate forcefully and were saying that they will kidnapped her from the house and also said that Iska wo hal karo ki ghar wale ise pahchan nahi paye. She further deposed that accused Saroj Verma commented her like Gharwali Chudhe Chamar. Witness correctly identified all the accused persons. IO recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Witness was duly cross examined .
8. PW5 Rajender Singh Rawat deposed that he is a retired Govt. Employee due to his health he could not recall each and ever fact. He further deposed that accused persons are his neighbours and their houses are at the opposite direction of his house. All the accused persons used to play music system in a loud volume for which he used to restrain them. When accused Ravinder Verma and Monu used to start their bike, the smoke through the exhaust pipe used to come at his house. He further deposed that despite his repeated request accused persons did not pay any heed to their request. Accused Saroj Verma used to abuse them in filthy language and say that "do kodi ke log, pata nahi kahan se aake bus gaye, chude chamar" torture them. He further deposed that on 02.04.2013 when he and his wife were not at home, accused Monu misbehaved with their daughter and said that "hum tujhko utha kar le jayenge" and all accused persons pelted stones on his house due to which his roof and washing machine were got damaged. Accused persons built builder flats at their house and when he requested them to not extend the chajja, on FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 5 of 14 this accused Ravinder Verma said "inke yahan deewar laga do or inhe yahan se bhagao". Accused persons used to threaten him by saying "bhagao inhe yahan se pata nahi kahan se aake bus gaye hain". Thereafter, on 02.04.2013, he along with his wife went to PS Mehrauli to make complaint against accused persons but a false FIR was lodged against his son. The witness correctly identified all the accused persons.
Witness was duly cross examined and discharged.
9. PW6 ASI Jai Bir Singh has proved copy of FIR as Ex. PWE6/A(OSR) and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW 6/B. Witness was duly cross examined and discharged.
10.PW7 Davender Rawat has deposed that accused Saroj Verma is his neighbour. He further deposed that his father is an asthmatic patient. Accused Saroj Verma used to play music at very high volume. When he request her to play it at low volume, accused Saroj Verma used to abuse him and his family member in filthy language. She used to threaten them with dire consequences and also used to make obscene gestures towards him. She along with her husband and son threatened his sister to kill her and they made a complaint in the police station. Accused Saroj Verma along with her family tried to forcefully enter into their house. At that point of time, he was not at home and got to know about this in evening. Accused Saroj Verma in conspiracy implicated him in two false cases and used to threaten him to implicate in a false case. The witness correctly identified the accused in the court.
FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 6 of 14Witness was duly cross examined and discharged.
11.Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed on 26.04.2017 and matter was fixed for Statement of Accused.
12.Separate Statement of Accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 07.09.2017 and all incriminating evidence were put to them. Accused persons submitted that they have been falsely implicated but do not want to lead defence evidence. DE was closed.
13. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have perused the record of the case.
14. Accused persons are facing allegations for commission of offences punishable U/s 506/509 IPC & 461 DMC Act.
15. Section 461 DMC Act reads :
(1) Whoever
(a) contravenes any provision of any of the sections, sub sections, clauses, provisos or other provisions of this Act mentioned in the first column of the Table in the Twelfth Schedule; or
(b) fails to comply with any order or direction lawfully given to him or any requisition lawfully made upon him under any of the said sections,subsections, clauses, provisos or other provisions, shall be punishable FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 7 of 14
(i) with fine which may extend to the amount, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to the period, specified in that behalf in the third column of the said Table or with both; and
(ii) in the case of a continuing contravention or failure, with an additional fine which may extend to the amount specified in the fourth column of that Table for every day during which such contravention or failure continues after conviction for the first such contravention or failure.
16. Section 506 IPC reads:
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grevious hurt, etc. And if the threat be to cause death or grevious hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may exend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
17. Section 509 IPC reads:
Whoever intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 8 of 14
18.In order to prove the offense U/S 506/509/34 IPC & 461 DMC Act against the accused persons, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubts that during the period preceding 23.03.2013 at House No. 199/2, Mehrauli, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli all the accused persons being owner of the aforesaid property, were found carrying unauthorised construction in the shape of unauthorised balcony (chhajja) on each floor without sanctioning building plan from MCD. Further on 06.03.2013 at about 10:30pm and on 07.03.2013 at 7:00pm on the same place, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal intimidation by threatening Shakuntala Rawat and intending to insult her modesty uttered words in obscene language or gesture which were heard and seen by the complainant.
19.Vide order dated 22.06.2013, directions were given by Ld. Predecessor of the court for further investigation highlighting lacunas in the charge sheet filed by the IO. In compliance thereof supplementary charge sheet was filed on 03.02.2014. Same was kept for consideration on 27.06.2014 when the case file was transferred to the designated court through the office of Ld. CMM, South whereafter directions for issuance of notice to accused persons were given on 19.07.2014 by Ld. Predecessor. Apparently, cognizance of the offence was taken on the said date and directions for issuance of court notice can be treated as directions for issuance of summons. On 03.12.2014 copy of charge sheet (supplementary) supplied to all the accused persons and trial ensued. On 23.04.2015 notice was framed against accused persons FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 9 of 14 when they claimed trial and matter was posted for prosecution evidence. During interregnum, directions were given on 04.09.2015 to the Ahlmad of the court of PS Mehrauli to produce the record of complaint case titled Shakuntla Vs. Saroj Verma. Same was complied on 03.12.2015. On 24.03.2017 PW Ravinder Rawat was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses after his demise.
20.PW1 Shakuntla Rawat in her examination in chief stated that she was not at home on the date of incident. During her cross examination she deposed that she do not remember the date of incident although it was morning time. The witness stated about the criminal cases against her sons under POCSO Act. She also stated that she had not made any complaint either to the police or MCD about construction of chajja at the house of Aakku adjacent to her house. Apparently, the offence has not occurred in her presence. As such testimony of this witness can not be relied upon.
21.PW2 HC Dharmender Singh deposed about taking permission under Section 195 Cr. P.C. from DC, SDMC Ex. PW2/F bearing The signature of AE, Building (SZ) at point A. Perusal of file shows that there is no complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. by DC, SDMC. In the absence of proper complaint U/s 195 Cr. P.C. offence under Section 461 DMC Act is not attracted. Although the documents collected by this witness of the property were found to be genuine after inquiry. The witness stated about not obtaining the signature of the complainant on the site plan. He further deposed that as per the report of the Registrar, the property comes in the FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 10 of 14 category of Lal dora. He further deposed that at the time of investigation no illegal construction were going on at the house of accused. He further deposed that FIR was registered against the sons of complainant namely Devender and Ravider Rawat for misbehaving the daughter of accused Saroj Verma.
22. PW3 Lalit Goyal during cross examination deposed that he had not brought any record regarding the complaint and that he had not visited the spot where unauthorised construction was carried out.
23.PW4 Shobha Rawat in her cross examination stated that police had recorded her statement on 23.04.2013. After being confronted with her previous statement given to the police, allegations were found missing under POCSO Act. This witness also stated about FIR No. 173/13 against her brother Devender Rawat and Ravinder Rawat. She also conceded about another FIR No. 740/13 under 354/506 IPC pending against her brother Devender Rawat however volunteered to say that charge sheet was filed only against accused Devender Rawat. The witness has made material improvements and emblishments in her statement and as such she cannot be relied upon.
24. PW5 Rajender Singh Rawat in his examination in chief stated that he do not recall each and every fact. The witness stated that on 02.04.2013 he was not at home when his daughter was at home and accused Monu misbehaved with her. During cross examination, witness was confronted with previous FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 11 of 14 statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. wherein allegations were found to be missing. In view of lack of knowledge specific improvements in previous statement to the police, the witness is rendered unreliable.
25.PW6 ASI Jai Bir Singh in his cross examination stated as to the absence of certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act with regard to the FIR registered.
26.PW7 Devender Rawat expressed his ignorance about the month and year of the incident. He also stated that at the relevant point of time he was not at home. During cross examination, he stated that police had not recorded his statement and did not make any inquiry from him. With this testimony the witness is wholly unreliable.
27.Perusal of supplementary charge sheet show that in compliance of order dated 22.06.2013 IO to the case has further investigated the matter and filed documents related to property obtained from Halka Patwari. IO has also stated that he had sent a written letter to DC, MCD for complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. Supplementary charge sheet is silent about any such complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. As per report of Tehsildar prepared by Halqua Patwari, Smt. Shakuntla Rawat was found in possession of property no 200/2, Ward No.2, Mehrauli and Smt. Saroj was found in possession of property no 199/2, Ward No.2, Mehrauli. There is also report from Sub Registrar annexed with the supplementary charge sheet to the effect that documents registration no. 25440 Book no.1 volume no. 3755 pages 181 FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 12 of 14 182 dated 28.06.1996 were not found registered in his office. The report relates to the documents i.e. GPA executed by Vijay Pal in the name of Smt. Shakuntal Rawat, W/o Sh. Rajinder Singh Rawat, R/o 1/29B, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Since the documents purported to be registered at the office of sub registrar (V) are found to be not registered as per report of sub registrar annexed with the supplementary charge sheet, let copy of judgment along with copy of supplementary chargesheet, along with its annexures, both the sides, be sent to Sub Registrar (V) for taking further appropriate action.
28.Perusal of complaint case no. 593/2/13 reflects that directions for registration of FIR on 06.04.2013 however subsequent order dated 16.12.2013 shows that the complaint was dismissed in default.
29.A cumulative reading of testimony of prosecution witnesses leaves no scope for doubt as to falsity of the allegations levelled against the accused persons.
30.The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused persons, the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused persons. Reference may also be made to the judgement titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC).
FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 13 of 1431.Hence, in the light of the above discussion the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, hence, the accused persons Saroj Verma, Monu @ Varun, and Ravinder Verma are acquitted from the charges u/s 506/509/34 IPC & 461 DMC Act as framed against them.
Announced in open Court (ANURAG DASS)
today on 25.09.2020 MM01/South/Saket Court
New Delhi
FIR No. 192/13 State Vs. Saroj Verma & Ors. Page 14 of 14