Delhi District Court
Dimple Fouzdar vs State on 19 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS: DELHI
CA No. 50/2019
CNR : DLSE-01000519-2019
Ms. DIMPLE FOUZDAR
D/o Shri GOPAL KRISHAN FOUZDAR
R/o C-25, PAMPOSH ENCLAVE,
FIRST FLOOR, NEW DELHI
....... Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)
....... Respondent
Date of Institution : 19.01.2019
Order reserved on : 19.07.2024
Order delivered on : 19.07.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal u/s. 372 Cr.PC filed by the appellant/ complainant assails the judgment dated 09.10.2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") in FIR bearing no. 227/2018, PS Greater Kailash passed by Ld. MM-02 (Mahila Court), South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under section 354D IPC.
Digitally signed by GEETANJALIGEETANJALI Date: 2024.07.19 22:12:37 +0530 CA No. 50/2019 Dimple Fouzdar Vs. State PAGE NO. 1 OF 8
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that a complaint was made by complainant on 07.07.2016 alleging that the accused, who used to be her driver, was continuously following her since the time he left the job despite clear indication by her of her disinterest. 2.1. On the said complaint FIR no. 227/2016 under section 354D IPC was registered. Upon conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Pradeep Basak. Vide order dated 15.03.2017 charge u/s. 354D IPC was framed against accused. During the trial eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution and after hearing final arguments by the Trial court, the accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 354D IPC. Aggrieved by said judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
3. The impugned judgment has been challenged on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court has committed serious error in appreciating all the facts and the law involved in the case; that the Ld. Trial Court has based the acquittal on its conjunctures and surmises without there being any basis for the same; that the order of the Ld. Trial Court is illegal, haste against the basic provisions of law and is without application of judicial mind; that the Ld. Trial Court was in haste to pass the impugned order and did not consider the statement of star witness i.e. complainant and the other witnesses who have proved the facts that accused used to harass the complainant by continuously following her; that judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court suffers from many other illegalities and infirmities. In view of the same, it has been prayed that the impugned judgment passed by Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:2024.07.19 22:12:45 +0530
CA No. 50/2019 Dimple Fouzdar Vs. State PAGE NO. 2 OF 8 Ld. MM be set aside.
4. Notice of the present appeal was issued to the respondent. However, no reply was filed on their behalf.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for appellant as well as Ld. Addl.
PP for the State/ respondent and perused the trial court record as well as the order of acquittal dated 09.10.2018.
6. The charge u/s. 354D IPC was framed in the present case on the basis of the complaint made by complainant. For the purpose of convenience the relevant provisions of law are reproduced below:-
Section 354D IPC Stalking:
"(1) Any man who -
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, e-
mail or any other form of electronic communication". 6.1. The points requiring proof u/s 354D IPC are:-
(i) The man should follow a woman.
(ii) He should contact or attempt to contact her.
(iii) The purpose should be personal interaction repeatedly and,
(iv) There should be a clear indication of disinterest by that woman.
6.2. Section 354 IPC makes penal the assault or use of criminal force on a women to outrage her modesty. It states that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage her modesty, [shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.07.19 22:12:53 +0530CA No. 50/2019 Dimple Fouzdar Vs. State PAGE NO. 3 OF 8 may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine]. 6.3. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC are:
(a) That the assault must be on a woman;
(b) That the accused must have used criminal force on her;
(c) That the criminal force must have been used on the
woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty. 6.4. Modesty is defined as the quality of being modest; and in relation to a woman, "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this section is an attribute associated with female human beings as class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is like to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object.
6.5. In order to prove the allegations the Prosecution examined its star witness i.e. complainant as PW-1 and she has deposed that " she had filed two cases against the accused; that she filed one complaint at the PS on 11.04.2016 and one on 07.07.2016; that the accused is her ex-driver; that on 10.04.2016 accused threatened to kill her and he stalked her whenever he came out of his house; that he had filed a complaint on incident on 11.04.2016 and again on 07.07.2016 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
CA No. 50/2019 Dimple Fouzdar Vs. State PAGE NO. 4 OF 8 2024.07.19 22:13:10 +0530 accused alongwith three other persons was found roaming outside her house around 10:00 PM; that she was feeling extremely threatened and disturbed as he was watching her regular movement; that accused did not stop to stalk her despite of clear indication of her disinterest even she had made earlier complaint in the police station against him; that accused used to call her main Rumpa and also her other driver Raja Singh from his mobile number."
6.6. Going by the above-said testimony, the complainant has alleged that accused used to stop her whenever she came out of her house and at one instance, he was found roaming outside her house around 10:00 PM alongwith three other persons. She has further deposed that accused stalk to stop her despite her clear indication of disinterest. This is all what she has to say about the charge which has been framed against the accused. Re-looking the ingredients required u/s 354D, they are that a man should follow a woman and he should contact and attempt to contact her. Though complainant has deposed that accused was following her but she has nowhere uttered that he ever tried to contact or attempt to contact her. She has not uttered a single word that accused ever contacted or attempted to contact her hence the deposition is lacking of this ingredient. The other two ingredients are the purpose of the stalking should be personal interaction repeatedly and there should be a clear indication of disinterest by that woman. Regarding the said ingredients, complainant again has not uttered a single word that accused ever tried to personally interact with her despite her clear indication of disinterest. She has nowhere deposed that the accused was trying to personally interact her nor the said allegation is either found in her Digitally signed by GEETANJALI CA No. 50/2019 Dimple Fouzdar Vs. State GEETANJALI Date:
2024.07.19 PAGE NO. 5 OF 8 22:13:21 +0530 statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. or her first complaint made to the Police. Moreover when there is no allegation that accused ever contacted or attempted to contact the complainant where comes the question that accused ever tried to personally interact with her. The Prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients required u/s 354D IPC.
7. Apart from the complainant, Prosecution examined three more witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused out of whom PW-2 Sh. Dinesh Rai failed to identify the accused. He has refused to follow the version of the Prosecution that accused was the one who came at the house of the complainant on the intervening night of 07/08.07.2016. PW-4 Sh. Raja Singh, though has deposed that he had seen accused Pradeep alongwith two more persons in front of kothi bearing no. R-145, G. K. I, New Delhi on 07.07.2016 at around 10:00 PM but he has also not deposed that accused ever tried to build personal interaction with the complainant. He has nowhere deposed that accused ever contacted or attempted to contact her or ever tried to build personal interaction with her. The end result of the discussion is that the Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused that he was following the complainant with intention to outrage her modesty. The term "modesty" so defined as above is the quality of being modest; and in relation to a woman, "womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". The essence of woman's modesty is her sex and the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. There is no denying the fact that accused came to the house of the complainant but nowhere that coming can be said to be called with intention to outrage her modesty. The surrounding circumstance will play a key Digitally CA No. 50/2019 Dimple Fouzdar Vs. State PAGE NO. 6 OF 8 signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.07.19 22:13:31 +0530 role in assessing the intention of the accused and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the accused came at the house of complainant alongwith some other persons with intention to satisfy his carnal desires. Henceforth the complainant is found to be lacking u/s. 354D IPC.
7.1. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that " in the present matter, PW-1 is the complainant and the victim in the present matter; that she is the star witness of the prosecution since it was the complainant who allegedly saw the accused loitering outside her house; that however it was also required to constitute an offence of stalking that the conduct of the accused was such and the same was with the intention to annoy or harass the complainant because of which complainant felt alarmed or distressed about her safety or the safety of another person; that in the present matter, PW2 was declared hostile as he did not support the story of prosecution and did not even identify the accused in the court; that he further stated that he did not see the accused outside the house of the complainant in the night of 08.07.2016 though he was working as a security guard in the house of complainant; that further PW3 and PW4 who were also employed with the complainant have categorically stated that they did not know the registration number of the scooter on which the accused came outside the house of the complainant alongwith 3-4 more persons;
that it is also stated by PW1, PW3 and PW4 that they only saw the accused outside the house of the complainant but none of the witnesses had stated that the accused had even tried to contact or foster personal interaction with the complainant; that none of the witnesses had stated that he on previous occasions also tried to Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
CA No. 50/2019 Dimple Fouzdar Vs. State PAGE NO. 7 OF 8 2024.07.19 22:13:39 +0530 interact or foster personal interaction with the complainant ". 7.2. The Ld. Trial Court has further rightly held that "further, as regards the allegations of stalking, the same does not find mention in her complaint or in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC as she has vaguely stated that the accused had been seen standing outside her house which shall be visible in the CCTV footage of the area........ "
7.3. The Ld. Trial Court has further rightly held that "Further the complainant has not mentioned any date, time or place of any previous occasions on which the accused had followed her on attempted to foster personal interaction with her".
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and overall facts and circumstance of the case, I came to the conclusion that I find no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgment and appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. The judgment dated 09.10.2018 stands confirmed.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial court alongwith trial court record. File of the present appeal be consigned to record room.
Typed to the direct dictation and
announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
on this 19th day of July, 2024 GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI
Date:
2024.07.19
22:12:23
+0530
(Geetanjali)
Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-03
South East District, Saket Courts
New Delhi/19.07.2024
CA No. 50/2019 Dimple Fouzdar Vs. State PAGE NO. 8 OF 8