Delhi District Court
State vs . Mazid Khan on 13 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS.ANKITA LAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Mazid Khan
FIR NO. 96/09
P.S. : Sarojini Nagar
U/S : 323/342/354/509 IPC
CASE ID: 02403R0111622009
THE JUDGMENT
1. Date of institution of case : 30.04.2009
2. Serial number of the case : 87/2
3. Date of commission of offence : 02.03.2009
4. Name of the complainant : Smt. Ruksana Sahin Khan
W/o Sh. M.S. Khan
R/o Flat No. 201, Tower No. 9,
Parsavnath Panorma,
Greater Noida, UP
5. Name of the accused & address : Mazid Khan S/o Sh. Anis Khan
R/o E171, Kidwai Nagar, ND
6. Offence complained of : U/s 323/342/354/509 IPC
7. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which judgment reserved : 26.07.2014.
9. The final judgment :Convicted u/s 323/342/354/509 IPC
10. The date of final judgment : 13.08.2014.
State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 1/13
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case, the accused has been sent to face trial for the offences punishable u/s 323/342/354/509 IPC. The allegations as per complaint are that complainant Ruksana Sahin Khan was the Joint Secretary in the Government of India and on 02.03.2009 her official car did not come in the morning and her husband gave his car bearing no. DL 4CAF 0629 to her for attending a meeting in R.K. Puram. The accused Mazid Khan was the driver of the said car. On the way to R.K. Puram, accused Mazid Khan misbehaved with the complainant and used abusive and indecent languages against her. When the complainant told him to stop the car, he did not stop the car and accelerated the car and was driving the same in rash and negligent manner. It is alleged that when the complainant was trying to board in another car, the accused did not allow her by catching her hand and caused injuries on her body and head with the car tools. Thereafter, she raised alarm and dialed 100 number and a PCR Van stopped the vehicle. The complainant got her statement recorded, which is Ex. PW 6/A and FIR in this case was registered. The accused was arrested after registration of FIR and site plan was also prepared at the instance of the complainant.
2. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court on 30.04.2009. Copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 2/13 compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. On 24.07.2009, prima facie case for offences punishable u/s 323/342/354/509 IPC was made out against the accused namely, Mazid Khan. The charge was accordingly framed and put to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined six witnesses in support of its case, out of which complainant (PW 6) is the public witness and remaining are official witnesses.
4. PW 1 HC Amrik Kaur is a formal witness who accompanied the complainant to Safdarjung Hospital for her medical examination and collected the MLC and handed over the same to the IO.
5. PW 2 is Ct. Dharmender who accompanied the IO during investigation and deposed that they went near Jain TV gate, in front of Sabarwal Spare Parts Shop, where they met complainant R.S. Khan, who lodged her complaint against her car driver regarding misbehaving. He deposed that he got the present FIR registered. He proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW 2/A and PW 2/B respectively.
6. PW 3 is ASI Satyabir Singh who was the duty officer and had proved the FIR as Ex. PW 3/A upon rukka Ex. /B.
7. PW 4 Sh. Hardeep Singh record clerk of Safdarjung Hospital had proved MLC of injured /complainant as Ex. PW 4/A prepared by Dr. M.S.Ali. State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 3/13
8. PW 5 ASI Surender Singh is the IO of the case. He deposed that on 02.03.2009 on receipt of a call vide DD no. 25A, he went to the spot of incident i.e in front of CNG, Sabarwal Spare Parts where he came to know that car bearing no. DL 4CAF 0629 has already been removed by the PCR Van. Thereafter, he came back to PS where complainant handed over a complaint to him and produced the driver Mazid Khan. He has further deposed that thereafter, complainant was medically examined and he had prepared rukka Ex. PW 5/A on the basis of which the present case was registered. He had further deposed that he had prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant as Ex. PW 5/B. He further deposed that he arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 2/A and conducted his personal search memo vide Ex. PW 2/B.
9. During cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he has stated that he received the DD no. 25 A at about 12.05 pm and that the spot of incident is situated in a market and is a thickly crowded place. He has also stated that before registration of FIR, the complainant was medically examined in Safdarjung Hospital and the complainant came back after medical examination at about 2.45/2.50 pm and thereafter, the FIR was registered. He has also stated that he, thereafter, did not call the complainant for investigation. He had also admitted that he had not tried to know about any other eye witness on the date of incident. He has State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 4/13 denied all the formal suggestions put by the counsel for the accused.
10. PW 6 is the complainant Smt. Ruksana Sahin Khan who reiterated the facts of her complaint. She identified her statement as Ex.PW 6/A. During cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she has stated that at about 10.30 AM, she boarded in the car on the date of incident. She has admitted that accused was not her driver. She has further admitted that the accused was the official driver of her husband. She has further stated that she has no knowledge about the fact that for how long the accused was driving the vehicle of her husband and had stated that she stays in U.S.A and had seen the accused prior to the incident date. She had denied that accused had taken her and her family to Noida at least 34 times prior to the date of incident. She had also denied that at the time of incident, she was not going to work as she had been suspended from her office. She had also stated that prior to the misbehaving of the accused, she had told him to drive slow as he was moving very fast and the accused took a turn from Bhikaji Cama Place after seeing the police vehicle which was coming from front and he did not allow her to come out. She had also stated that the accused started misbehaving with her near Sarojini Nagar. She had stated that accused used a jack to hit her. She has stated that she had not mentioned the fact that the accused had hit her with a jack in complaint Ex. PW 6A as she wrote the complaint in State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 5/13 a hurry. She had denied that as the accused was official driver of her husband and she was using him for her personal purposes, therefore, when the accused refused to oblige her, she has filed a false complaint against him.
11. Thereafter, PE was closed.
12. Entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 02.12.2013, which was denied by him. Accused Mazid Khan has stated that he was driving the car no. DL 4CAF 0620 on 02.03.2009 and he was taking PW 6 Ruksana Sahin Khan to R.K. Puram. He has also stated that complainant had instructed him to stop the car while on the way to R.K. Puram and he followed her instructions. Thereafter, on the instructions of husband of the complainant, he turned the car for dropping PW 6 back at home but she insisted to stop the car again but he did not stop upon which complainant pulled his collar and hit him. He stated that he had not hit the complainant. He has also stated that he had stopped the car much prior to the arrival of PCR Van.
13. Accused had examined one defence witness i.e DW 1 Sh. Suresh, who has deposed that he knew complainant as he was working as cook in the house of the complainant for the last 15 years. He has deposed that accused was driver of the husband of complainant for last one and a half year and he also used to work as a driver of complainant in taking her for State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 6/13 official and personal work. He has further stated that complainant is having high blood pressure problem and due to that reason she used to infuriate over minor issues. He further stated that husband of the complainant had also suggested her not to file the present case against the accused but she refused.
14. During cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he has stated that he come to know about the incident on the same day itself when complainant came back at the house and she was talking about the present incident with her husband on the same day.
15. Thereafter, DE was closed. Final arguments were heard.
16. Ld. APP for the State prayed for conviction of the accused stating that all the witnesses have corroborated each other in material particulars.
17. Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that the prosecution is unable to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He has argued that despite the fact that the incident took place on a public road, no public witness has been examined by the prosecution. He referred to the statement of IO ASI Surender Singh where in the cross examination, he admitted that he never tried to know regarding any eye witness on the spot of the incident. He further argued that there are also material contradictions in the prosecution story. He has submitted that from the record, it is clear that DD entry no. 25 A has been recorded at around 12.05 pm. However, State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 7/13 the FIR has been lodged at 2.50 pm and arrest of the accused had taken place at 4.00 pm. He submits that this delay in FIR has not been explained. He has also argued that MLC of the complainant has not been proved as the doctor who prepared the MLC could not be examined. Further, the witness i.e PW 4 who was examined for proving the said MLC had admitted in his cross examination that he had neither worked with Dr. M.S. Ali who had prepared the MLC nor he has seen him signing and writing the said document. Further, the said witness stated that the MLC was not prepared in his presence. Accordingly, counsel for the accused had argued that since there are material contradictions in the prosecution's story, accused is liable to get the benefit of doubt. He has further submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case as the complainant herself and her husband were holding influential positions as they were high ranking Govt. officers and the accused was their driver, and since accused had not paid heed to unreasonable requests made by them, therefore, they falsely implicated the accused in the present case. He has accordingly prayed for acquittal of the accused.
18. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.
19. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable u/s 323/342/354/509 IPC. Before proceeding with appreciation of evidence, I would like to discuss the provisions for which State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 8/13 the accused has been charged.
20.Section 323 of IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
Simple hurt has been defined under section 319 of IPC as under:
Hurt Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
21. Section 342 of IPC provides punishment for wrongful confinement.
Wrongful confinement has been defined under section 340 of IPC as under:
Wrongful confinement Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.
22.Section 509 IPC punishes the intentional utterance of such words which would insult the modesty of a woman.
Section 509 IPC: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a womanWhoever, 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.
23.Apart from the said provisions, section 354 of IPC penalizes the offence of using criminal force/assault upon a woman with an intention to outrage her modesty and the provision reads as under:
State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 9/13
Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty.
24. It is matter of record that prosecution has only examined one public witness i.e complainant herself. The testimony of the complainant is, however, consistent with the complaint given by her i.e Ex. PW 6/A. The complainant has also not been rebutted by the defence. In fact, certain suggestions were put to PW 6 complainant for testing her veracity. However, the said suggestions have not been further corroborated by the defence at the time of leading defence evidence. Moreover, the argument that the FIR has been lodged after an unreasonable delay is without any merits in view of the statement made by the IO that the FIR was lodged after medical examination of the complainant in Safdarjung Hospital. In cross examination of PW 5, he had specifically mentioned that the complainant came back after medical examination at about 2.45 2.50 pm. Further, the argument that the MLC has not been proved is also without any merits as the proof of MLC is not mandatory when there is other corroborating evidence showing that the accused had caused injuries to the complainant. Moreover, no evidence was also led by the defence to rebut or to disprove the MLC which has been filed on record. State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 10/13 The said MLC itself mentions an abrasion over the little finger of the left hand and pain in left lower arm of the complainant. As such, from the said MLC as well as from the testimony of the complainant, who had stated that accused had pulled her hand and caused injuries on her body, the simple hurt caused to the complainant stands proved. The complainant had also mentioned in her testimony that accused had hit her on the head by using a car tool whereas she had mentioned in her cross examination that accused used a jack to hit her. The said fact has, however, not been proved. No weapon has been seized nor there is any recovery. Even the MLC does not show any grievous injuries. Nevertheless, the ingredients of section 323 IPC are proved.
25. Further, as no public witness has been examined, this case is one of the peculiar cases where the sole testimony of the complainant is being relied upon for proving the prosecution case. As observed earlier, the testimony of the complainant has remained unrebutted. The complainant had alleged that when she was traveling in the car, which was being driven by the accused, she had asked the accused to stop the car but instead of stopping the car, he accelerated the same and drove in a rash and negligent manner. The said fact had in fact been admitted by accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C where he stated that he was driving the car and was taking the complainant to R.K. Puram on the day State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 11/13 of the incident. He also admitted that complainant had instructed him to stop the car while on the way to R.K. Puram, and he had followed her instructions. But, he spoke to the husband of the complainant and as per his instructions, he turned the car for dropping the complainant back at home. The complainant, however, insisted that he should stop the car but he did not stop after which he alleged that the complainant pulled his collar and had hit him. In view of the said statement, the fact that the car was being driven by the accused and that he had not stopped the same despite the directions given to him by the complainant stands corroborated. Therefore, ingredients of section 342 of IPC stand proved as accused had wrongfully confined the complainant in the car.
26. Complainant had alleged that accused had held her hand and misbehaved with her. She alleged that accused had used abusive language against her. The said fact has also not been rebutted by the defence. Moreover, from the cross examination of DW 1, who is even though a hearsay witness, it is evident that he had mentioned that he heard the husband of the complainant asking the complainant not to initiate any action against the accused as accused had apologized before him for his behaviour. The said part of the cross examination itself comes in support of the fact that some incident must have occurred and accused has in some manner misbehaved with the complainant for which State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 12/13 he went to the husband of the complainant for apology. Thus, the allegations of section 354/509 IPC also stand proved in view of the testimony of the complainant.
25. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and the defence has been unable to lead any cogent evidence to contradict the prosecution's story. The evidence led by defence is, in fact, itself fraught with discrepancies and the sole witness examined by the defence was merely a hearsay witness, whose testimony cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses have also remained unrebutted.
27. In view of the material available on record, as ingredients of all the alleged offences i.e Sections 323, 342, 354 and 509 of IPC have been proved, the accused is convicted for the said offences.
Pronounced in open court (ANKITA LAL )
on 13.08.2014 M.M01/Mahila Court/South District
New Delhi/13.08.2014.
State Vs. Mazid Khan . FIR No. 96/09 Page No. 13/13