Delhi District Court
State vs . Mishri Lal Mehto on 23 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AAKASH SHARMA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-08, WEST DISTRICT, ROOM NO. 30, TIS HAZARI,
DELHI.
FIR No. : 511/18
U/s : 509 IPC
P.S. : Ranhola
State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto
JUDGMENT:
a) CNR No. : DLWT02-004993-2019
b) Sl. No. of the Case : 2756/19
c) Name & address of the : Neetu Srivastava
Complainant. W/o Sh. Sushil Kumar,
R/o R3/A3/37-C,
Near Shiv Mandir, Balaji Chowk,
Mohan Garden, Ranhola,
New Delhi.
d) Name & address of : Mishri Lal Mehto,
Accused S/o Sh. Sukhdev Mehto,
R/o H.No. R3/A2/131-B,
Block R3/A2, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
e) Date of Commission of : 09.08.2018
offence
f) Offence complained off : u/S 509 IPC.
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Final Order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 23.05.2023
j) State Represented by : Sh. Salil Maheshwari, Ld.
Substitute APP.
FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 1/16
Digitally signed by
AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23
16:42:59 +0530
k) Accused Represented by : Ms. Neha Jain, Ld. LAC
Date of Institution : 29.03.2019
Final arguments heard on : 23.05.2023
Judgment Pronounced on : 23.05.2023
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: -
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 09.08.2018 at about 08:15 AM, near Shiv Mandir, R3 A3- Block, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Ranhola, accused with the intention to insult the modesty of the complainant namely Neetu Srivastava uttered / made some statements i.e. "apne aadmi ko chhodkar mere sath reh le" to outrage her modesty and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.
2. After investigation, challan for offence 509 IPC was filed. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC was framed against the accused on 29.08.2019, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 2/16 Digitally signed by
AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23
16:43:20 +0530
4. Accused Mishri Lal Mehto u/S 294 Cr.P.C. had admitted FIR No. 511/18, Certificate u/S 65-B Indian Evidence Act, DD No. 11-A dated 09.08.2018 and Statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. A1-A4 respectively.
5. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined three witnesses i.e. PW-1 Ms. Neetu Srivastava, PW-2 Ct. Sandeep and PW-3 ASI Bajrang Singh.
6. PW-1 Ms. Neetu Srivastava W/o Sh. Sushil Kumar, R/o R3- A3/37-C, Mohan Garden, Balaji Chowk, Near Shiv Mandir, Delhi, is the complainant / witness in the present case, who deposed that there was a case already pending between accused and her husband at Tis Hazari Court. On 09.08.2018, at about 08:00 AM, she was going to drop by daughter to her school, accused was sitting on a side on the way. She dropped her daughter to the school and was coming back to the house from the same route, she requested the accused to compromise the case pending between him and her husband. The accused denied and he said that he would not compromise the matter and would get her husband punished. She again requested him for compromise. Again the accused denied to accept the said request. The accused said to her "apne husband ko chhodkar mere sath reh le". She FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 3/16 AAKASH Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:43:29 +0530 gave a slap to the accused and made a call on 100 number. Police came and recorded her statement which was then Ex.PW1/A. Her statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Ld. MM at Tis Hazari Court.
At that stage, attested copy of the statement of the witness u/S 164 Cr.P.C. which was already on judicial file was shown to the witness and witness admits the same. The said statement was then Ex.PW1/A. The accused had abused her by giving her abuses of "maa-behan" and he had also held her hand and twisted the same. He could identify the accused, if shown to her. Identity of the accused had not been disputed by Ld. Counsel for accused.
In her cross-examination, witness deposed that the accused had already filed one case against her husband. The distance of school from my house is of about half an hour. She reached school at 08:30 AM in the morning. She left school at about 08:32 AM. It was correct that she herself approached the accused to compromise the case filed by him against her husband. It was correct that accused refused to compromise the said case. It was wrong to suggest that accused was not sitting on the side on the way. She went to the school and come back on foot. It was wrong to suggest that the accused had not said to her that "apne husband ko chhodkar mere sath reh le". It was wrong to FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 4/16 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:43:54 +0530 suggest that no such statement was said by the accused and the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case.
Police recorded her statement at PS. It was wrong to suggest that the accused had neither abused nor held her hand or twisted the same at any point of time. It was wrong to suggest that she had falsely implicated the accused in the present case in order to pressurize him to withdraw his case against her husband. It was wrong to suggest that she was deposing falsely at the instance of her husband.
7. PW-2 Ct. Sandeep, PIS No. 28081387, 1 st batallion DAP, Delhi, is the witness in the present case, who deposed that on 09.08.2018, he was posted at PS Ranhola. He was on the emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. On receiving the information vide DD no. 11-A Dt. 09.08.2018, at about 8.15AM, he alongwith ASI Bajrang Singh went to R3,A3 Shiv Mandir, Mohan Garden,Uttam Nagar. At the spot they met the complainant (PW1) and after enquiry by the IO she told about the incident happened with her and gave her written complaint already Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter IO prepared the Tehrir marked as mark A and sent him to the PS for registration of the FIR. He went to the PS for the registration of same and got registered the same and returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and asal Tehrir to FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 5/16 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:43:40 +0530 the IO. Thereafter IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant marked as Mark B. Thereafter, IO tried to search the accused but he could not find him. IO recorded his statement. On next day i.e. 10.08.2018 they again went to R3, A3/37C, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar where complainant PW1 joined them in the investigation and they went to R3, A2/131B, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. At R3,A2/131B the complainant indicated towards the accused stating that he misbehaved with her. On interrogation with the accused person by the IO he told that one case was already going between the accused and the husband of the complainant and in the rage of anger, he said to complainant apne husband ko chhodkar mere sath shadi kar lo. Again said apne husband ko chhodkar mere sath reh le. IO arrested the accused and personally searched him vide memos Exhibited as Ex.PW2/A & Ex.PW2/B both bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, IO released the accused on Police bail marked as Mark C. I & IO came to the PS and IO recorded his statement . Accused was present in the Court and correctly identified by the witness.
In his cross-examination, witness deposed that it was correct that no other person except the complainant met them at the spot. IO handed the Tehrir/Rukka at about 8.40-8.45 AM. He reached police station in 7-8 minutes and returned back after registration of FIR at FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 6/16 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:44:09 +0530 9.20 - 9.25 AM. He did not remember the time of preparing the site plan. He alongwith IO reached the house of complainant on 10.8.2018 at around 4 PM. It was correct that his statement was recorded at PS. IO arrested the accused at 6PM. It was correct that complainant had told the IO about one previous case was pending between the accused person and husband of complainant. It was wrong to suggest that all the proceedings conducted by the IO were done while sitting in the PS. It was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW-3 ASI Bajrang Singh, PIS No. 28931384, PS Mundka, Delhi, is the witness in the present case, who deposed that on 09.08.2018, he was posted at PS Ranhola as ASI. On that day he was on emergency duty, one PCR call vide DD No. 11-A was marked to him for inquiry. The complainant of the present case gave him a written complaint which was already Ex.PW1/A. He made a rukka and the same was Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Ex.PW3/B. He got recorded the statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim Ex.PW1/A. After due inquiry, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex.PW2/A. He conducted personal search of the accused vide memo already Ex.PW2/B. The accused was released on bail. He recorded the statement of witnesses FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 7/16 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:44:18 +0530 u/S 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Hon'ble Court. Accused was present in the Court that day and correctly identified by the witness.
In his cross-examination, witness / IO deposed that he was not able to remember the contents of said DD Number 11-A. The copy of the same was not there on judicial record. He had not asked any independent public person to join the investigation. He could not find any eye witness to the incident in question except the complainant. It was correct that there was no CCTV footage incident in question. It was correct that there was already a litigation going on between accused and the complainant. It was correct that some talks of settlement were going on between the complainant and accused. It was wrong to suggest that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case as such he could not get any eye witness nor any CCTV footage. It was wrong to suggest that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of complainant because of already going on litigation. It was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely.
9. Statement of accused Mishri Lal Mehto u/S 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused denied the allegations and stated that FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 8/16 AAKASH Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:44:26 +0530 husband of complainant Neetu had borrowed money from accused and when accused had asked the husband of complainant to settle it by returning the debt and he had hurt him in 2014 with blade qua which accused had given a complaint in the PS. Sushil Kumar @Kanhaiya was the husband of Neetu and they wanted accused to settle this case and when accused refused to do so, this false case was lodged against him at the instance of complainant Neetu with the help of police officials. Complainant Neetu is so much younger to him and she is like his daughter and how could he use such words to her when he has three children. Accused stated he never uttered these words to Neetu I engaged in man handed (sic). Accused stated that Neetu is in the habit of lodging false complaints against other residents of the locality also at PS Ranhola. Accused claimed to have been falsely implicated and did not wish to lead DE.
10. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 9/16 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:44:35 +0530 defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, as a cumulative effect of the following reasons, accused Mishri Lal Mehto is entitled to be acquitted for the charge by reasons of reasonable doubts in the prosecution story.
12. Section 509 IPC states 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. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 10/16 Digitally signed
AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:44:45 +0530
13. To infer the innocence of the accused, firstly, it is seen that PW-1 in her written complaint to SHO i.e. Ex.PW1/A had disclosed that there was a case already pending between accused and her husband at Tis Hazari Court. However, it is significant to note that in her statement recorded u/S 164 Cr.P.C. PW-1 did not disclose to the Ld. MM that there was a case pending between her husband and the accused, rather evasive language is used i.e. "maine kaha ki samjhauta kar lete hain ladai jhagre mein kya rakha hai." On the other hand during her deposition, PW-1 narrated that there was a case already pending between accused and her husband at Tis Hazari Court and after coming back from dropping her daughter at school, she requested the accused to compromise the case pending between him and her husband. The accused denied and he said that he would not compromise the matter and would get her husband punished. She again requested him for compromise. Again the accused denied to accept the said request. The accused said to her "apne husband ko chhodkar mere sath reh le". She gave a slap to the accused and made a call on 100 number. Police came and recorded her statement which was then Ex.PW1/A. Her statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Ld. MM at Tis Hazari Court. The accused abused her by giving her abuses of "maa-behan" and he also held her hand and twisted the FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 11/16 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:44:54 +0530 same. It appears that complainant / PW-1 at the behest of her husband was again and again telling the accused to settle the case and compromise the matter which the accused was denying that he would not compromise the matter and would get her husband punished. In this regard, in his statement recorded u/S 313 Cr.P.C. accused stated that husband of complainant had borrowed money from him and when he had asked him to settle it by returning the debt, he had hurt him in 2014 with blade qua which he had filed a complaint in the PS. Thereafter, Sushil Kumar @Kanhaiya i.e. husband of complainant / PW- 1 and PW-1 wanted him to settle that case which he refused. Due to this refusal, this false case was lodged against the accused. From the record, it transpires that complainant herself approached the accused in order to persuade and request the accused to settle the case pending between husband of PW-1 / complainant and the accused. Ld. LAC for the accused urged that the present case has been filed motivatedly to intimidate and bludgeon the earlier case lodged by the accused against the husband of PW-1 qua hurt committed by using blade upon the accused by the husband of PW-1. That the Court ought not to believe PW-1 as her evidence is shaky due to material improvements and material contradictions in her testimony. Whereas, in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement i.e. Ex.PW1/A, PW-1 had written that FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 12/16 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:45:04 +0530 accused told her "tu apne aadmi ko chhodkar mere sath reh le fir meine unke ek thappad maara." On the other hand during her deposition as PW-1, PW-1 improve her testimony that accused also abused her by giving her maa-behan abuses and also held her hand and twisted the same, whereas these facts are not mentioned in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that this is a motivated false case lodged at the behest of the husband of PW-1 in order to save him from punishment by pressurizing the accused so that he does not give evidence against husband of PW-1.
14. Previous litigation between the parties i.e. husband of PW-1 and the accused is not disputed. It is also not disputed that accused had filed a previous complaint earlier in time against the husband of PW-1 qua which PW-1 wanted accused to settle the dispute and compromise the matter. In this regard, this Court cannot help but ponder the statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused had stated that husband of PW-1 had hurt him with blade when he asked him to settle the debts owed by him. Accused also stated that he never uttered the words "apne husband ko chhodkar mere sath reh le" nor gave "maa-behan"
abuses. Accused stated that PW-1 was so much younger than him and like a daughter so how could he use such words when he himself has FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 13/16 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:45:15 +0530 three children and that he never those words nor manhandled her.
Accused also stated that PW-1 is in the habit of lodging false complaints against other residents of the locality also at PS Ranhola.
15. In the considered opinion of this Court, version of PW-1 is untenable and cannot be acted upon as it appears to be completely baseless and by no stretch of imagination acceptable as PW-1 has materially improved her earlier statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.PW1/A during her statement before the Ld. MM u/S 164 Cr.P.C. as well as while deposing in the Court during her examination-in-chief by including allegations of maa-behan abuses given by accused as well as the allegations of accused holding her hand and twisting the same which are not mentioned in the earliest complaint i.e. Ex.PW1/A given on the day of incident to the SHO PS Ranhola in written form by complainant / PW-1 herself. It would be unsafe to convict the accused as already there was previous enmity between husband of PW-1 and the accused, hence when the only independent witness examined by the prosecution is PW-1 herself, who is an interested witness expecting to gain for her husband by filing the present case. There is no corroborative evidence to accept the version of the complainant which is itself riddled with material improvements. FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 14/16 Digitally signed by AAKASH
AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.05.23 16:45:24 +0530
16. In Rai Sandeep Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) CRL Appeal No. 2486/2009 decided on 07.08.2012, it has been held that " in our considered opinion, the sterling witness should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should therefore be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness should be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room to any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the person involved, as well the sequence of it."
17. It is the cardinal principle of criminal law that an accused is FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 15/16 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.23 16:45:33 +0530 presumed to be innocent and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt unless otherwise provided so by any statute. This general burden never shifts. In view of this Court, testimony of PW-1 carries blemishes which cannot be accepted as true and there cannot be a casual, routine and automatic acceptance of such a testimony as the same may result in unwarranted conviction of the person charged in such a case where there is previous litigation and when PW1 herself sought out the accused in order to persuade or bully him into compromising the previous litigation between her husband and the accused and on his refusal, culminating into this litigation.
18. In view of my discussion here in above, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Mishri Lal Mehto is hereby acquitted of the charged offence u/S 509 Digitally signed IPC. by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.05.23 16:45:45 +0530 Dictated & Announced (Aakash Sharma) in Open Court MM-08/West/Delhi On the 23rd day of May, 2023 23.05.2023 FIR No. 511/18 PS: Ranhola State Vs. Mishri Lal Mehto Page No. 16/16