Delhi District Court
State vs . Ashok Kumar on 2 February, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER KUMAR, MM07,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. ASHOK KUMAR
FIR No. 672/97
PS: PASCHIM VIHAR
U/S: 452/354 IPC
Sr. no. of the case : 227/2/97
Date of commission of offence : 29.07.1997
Date of institution of the case : 04.09.1997
Name of the complainant : Smt. Asha Bhaskar
Name of accused and address : Ashok Kumar S/o Sh.
Kishan Dutt, R/o D118,
Relief Camp, Peeragrahi,
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 452/354 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 02.02.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.07.1997, at about 01:00 PM, at D126, Relief Camp, Peeragarhi, Delhi, accused was FIR No.672/97, PS Paschim Vihar Page 1/6 2 committed house trespass having made preparation to assault the complainant Smt. Asha Bhaskar used criminal force against her and also assaulted her with intends to outrage her modesty. Investigation was carried out.
2. The accused was charge sheeted for the offence U/s 452/354 IPC as prima facie case was found to be made out against the accused. Accordingly, charge was framed against the accused. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution got examined only four witnesses in support of its case, which are as follows:
(1) PW1 is Asha Bhaskar, the complainant herself. (2) PW2 is W/HC Anita, the duty officer.
(3) PW3 is HC Virender, who took the rukka to the PS for registration of the case.
(4) PW4 is ASI Gurdeep Singh, the IO of the case.
4. Statement of accused U/S 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him. Accused stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the FIR No.672/97, PS Paschim Vihar Page 2/6 3 present case.
5. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilty of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is also a settled proposition that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution case in a criminal trial throughout the course of the trial rests entirely and entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reason doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
6. As per prosecution story, the accused has committed house trespass after having made preparation to assault the complainant Smt. Asha Bhaskar by using criminal force against her and also assaulted her with intend to outrage her modesty. On the basis of the same, a prima facie case was found to be made out against the accused and charges were framed.
It is the contention of the accused that he is innocent and he has FIR No.672/97, PS Paschim Vihar Page 3/6 4 been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. As per story of the prosecution, Smt. Asha Bhaskar (PW1) is the complainant/ sole witness of the incident in question. It was deposed by her that on 29.07.1997, while she was present in her house at about 01:00 PM, her neighbour i.e. accused came to her house and handed over Rs.500/ to her. It was further deposed by the witness that when she asked about the money, it was told by the accused to her that after taking Rs.500/ she may spent a night with him. It was further deposed by the witness that on listening this she refused to accused and on this, the accused caught her hand and try to molestate her. It was further deposed by the witness that she pushed him (the accused) the gate. It was also deposed by the witness that after coming of her husband in late night, she went to PS and lodged an FIR.
While under examination in chief the complainant (PW1) has correctly identified the accused present in the court on the day of her examination i.e. 19.04.1999.
The witness was cross examined and nothing material came out of her cross examination in support of the defence taken by the accused. There is no suggestion given by the accused to the complainant (PW1) regarding the presence of the accused in the house of the complainant. FIR No.672/97, PS Paschim Vihar Page 4/6 5 Furthermore, there is no suggestion given to the complainant (PW1) regarding handing over of Rs.500/ to the complainant.
8. PW2 W/HC Anita is the duty officer to prove the registration of the case FIR i.e. FIR no.672/97.
9. PW4 ASI Gurdeep Singh is the IO of the case. The witness has deposed that on 30.07.1997, he alongwith Ct. Virender Kumar were on petrolling duty and the complainant met him and gave her statement. It was further deposed that he recorded the statement of the complainant and thereafter tehrir was prepared and got the case registered by sending Ct. Virender Singh to PS. It was further deposed by the witness that he prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant and the accused was also arrested after his personal search Ex. PW3/A and also get the statements of the witnesses recorded. The accused was correctly identified by the witness present in the court on the day of his examination i.e. 15.03.2004.
It is the defence taken by the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused himself got examined as DW1 in support of the defence taken by him. No one from the neighbourer nor any family member has been examined by the accused in his defence.
FIR No.672/97, PS Paschim Vihar Page 5/6 6
Accordingly, nothing material came out from the evidence lead by him. In the absence of the cogent evidence regarding his implication are not tenable.
All the PWs are fully supported the story of the prosecution. On the basis of material available on record, the prosecution has clearly proved that it was the accused who has committed house trespass after making preparation to assault the complainant and also has outraged her modesty. Accordingly, the accused is held guilty for the offence U/s 354/452 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER KUMAR)
COURT ON 02.02.2012 MM07(WEST)/DELHI
FIR No.672/97, PS Paschim Vihar Page 6/6