Delhi District Court
State vs Giri Raj Sharma Ors on 7 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Giri Raj Sharma Ors
FIR No. : 1233/2014
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 323/506/509/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 2036030/2016
B. Date of Commission of offence 12.11.2014
C. Date of FIR 12.11.2014
D. Date of charge-sheet 23.09.2015
E. Name of the complainant Amira Devi
F. Name of the accused persons, their 1) Giri Raj Sharma S/o LateMoti Lal Sharma,
parentage and residence R/o H.No. K-23, Green Park Extn., Delhi
2) Manju W/o Sh. Vimal Singh R/o H.No. C-
131, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi
G. Offence complained of or proved 323/506/509/34 IPC
H. Date of framing of charges 06.06.2017
I. Date of commencement of evidence 23.08.2017
J. Plea of the accused Not guilty
K. Date on which judgment is reserved 27.09.2023
L. Final Order Acquitted
M. Date of Judgment 07.11.2023
State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.1 of 13
Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of the prosecution arises out of complaint dated 16.11.2014 of the complainant Amira Devi that on the said date at about 07.15 am when she was doing Ramayana Path in the temple accused Giri Raj came suddenly and caught hold of her hairs and started dragging her. Accused Manju Chauhan started abusing her. The child in her lap fell down. Her daughter saved her and thereafter complaint was made to PS Hauz Khas. On the basis of complaint FIR was registered in the case. During investigation statement u/s 161 CrPC of witnesses was recorded. Statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused persons. Cognizance of the same was taken.
Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 06.06.2017 charge was framed against accused Giri Raj for the offence u/s 506/509/34 IPC & 323 IPC and against accused Manju u/s 506/509/34 IPC to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined four witnesses. PW1 Amira Devi, PW2 is Naveen Kumar, PW3 is Bharti and PW4 is Insp. Arvind.
State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.2 of 13
4. PW1 Amira Devi had deposed in her testimony that on 16.11.2014 she was performing worship and reading Ramayana and Path and was also having 6 month child in her lap. She had further deposed that at about 07.30- 08.00 am accused Giri Raj Sharma alongwith co-accused Manju Chauhan came from behind. She had further deposed that accused Giri Raj threw the child from the lap and started pulling her behind by hold hairs. She had further deposed that both accused persons started abusing her and due to the said act she fell down. She had further deposed that her daughter came and rescued her. She had further deposed that her daughter made a 100 number call. She had further deposed that both accused persons were asked to leave the premise by the police official. She had further deposed that her daughter wrote a complaint Ex.PW1/A. Accused persons were correctly identified by the witness.
5. PW2 Naveen Kumar had deposed in his testimony that on 16.11.2014 at about 07.30-07.45 am accused Giri Raj Sharma alongwith co- accused Manju entered the temple. He had further deposed that while he was preparing the tea he heard some noise from inside the temple. He had further deposed that wife of pujari Amira Devi was chasing both the accused persons out of the temple and she was also screaming "mere admi ko band krva diya". He had further deposed that both accused persons came out of the temple. He had further deposed that daughter of Amira Devi called at 100 number He had further deposed that accused persons were outside the temple while police State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.3 of 13 reached at the temple and thereafter complainant left the temple.
6. PW3 Bharti deposed in her testimony that on 16.11.2014 at about 07.30 to 08.00 am she was inside her room and she heard voice of screaming of her mother and after hearing the same, she came out of her room in temple as temple is near to her room. She had further deposed that when she reached, accused persons were holding the hairs of her mother and they were pulling her mother with her hairs. She had further deposed that at that time her mother was holding her infant child and he fell down from her lap and he got injured and was bleeding at that time. She had further deposed that she held her son and made him sit properly and thereafter she pushed accused Giri Raj Sharma and co-accused Manju and saved her mother from both the accused persons. She had further deposed that clothes of her mother were not proper therefore she made them wear properly. She had further deposed that accused Giri Raj Sharma and co-accused Manju were abusing by saying, "Randi Vaisya bhaag ja yahan se nahi toh jaan se mar dungi, dusron ke ghar jati hai" and accused Manju was holding brick/inth in her hand and she had thrown the same on them, however they were somehow saved. She had further deposed that accused persons had threatened them to vacate the premises immediately otherwise accused will kill her and her mother. She had further deposed that accused have assaulted her mother intentionally. She had further deposed that they somehow saved themselves from accused Giri Raj Sharma and co-accused Manju and bolted the gate of house from inside and she made a call to police on State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.4 of 13 100 number. She had further deposed that Police reached after 10-15 minutes. She had further deposed that medical was not conducted as they were not in a state to go to hospital. She had further deposed that her son was treated at home by her. She had further deposed that when police visited their house, she informed the police regarding the incident and they must have recorded whatever she informed them. Accused persons were correctly identified by the witness.
7. PW4 Insp. Arvind deposed in his testimony that on 16.11.2014 he received DD no. 23B regarding quarrel at H.No 131C/1A, Yusuf Sarai. He had further deposed that the DD no. 23B is Ex.PW4/A and thereafter he went to the spot where he met with the complainant and her daughter. He had further deposed that the complainant gave a written complaint to him and on the basis of the same, he prepared rukka Ex.PW4/B. He had further deposed that on the basis of the rukka, the present FIR was lodged and thereafter he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Ex.PW4/C. He had further deposed that thereafter he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He had further deposed that after that the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of complainant was recorded. He had further deposed that during the investigation accused Giri Raj and co-accused Manju were given notices u/s 41ACr.P.C. and bound down them to join investigation and the notices are Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E. He had further deposed that he also prepared the conviction slip Ex.PW4/F. He had further deposed that after completion of the investigation, he prepared the State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.5 of 13 charge-sheet and submitted before the Court. Accused Giri Raj Sharma and co- accused Manju were correctly identified by the witness.
Statement of accused
9. The examination of accused persons u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they stated that the present case has been filed by the complainant to falsely implicate them as they had given evidence in case FIR NO. 1206/2014 against the complainant and in the said case the husband and son of the complainant had gone to custody for 20-25 days.
10. Accused examined Sashi Bhushan as DW1 and Rohit Singh as DW2 in the case. They deposed that on 16.11.2014 at about 07.30-08.00 am nothing as alleged in the complaint in the present case happened. The present case has been filed by complainant as a counter case to the case already filed by Manju Singh against Pandit Prishan Mohan Jha and Sashi Jha to seek revenge. That Pandit Prishan Jha and Sashi Jha had to go in police custody because of the case filed by Manju Singh. Pandit Prishan Jha is the husband of the complainant and is a priest at the temple.
11. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
12. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution had proved State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.6 of 13 its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are sufficient material against the accused persons that they had threatened the complainant and had abused her. There are sufficient material on record to show that accused Giri Raj Sharma had also insulted the modesty of the complainant. There is no contradiction in the testimony of any witnesses. Thus, the case is fit for conviction.
13. It is argued on behalf of accused Giri Raj Sharma that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Husband of the complainant i.e. Parsan Mohan Jha was removed from the post as Head Pujari as he was trying to illegally grab the land of the temple. Accused Giri Raj Sharma was later appointed as Head pujari in the same temple and due to the same reason he had implicated the accused in the present case. This is a cross FIR lodged after the four days of the FIR lodged against Parsan Mohan Jha. Complainant did not get any medical examination done and she also refused to get the MLC done. During cross-examination PW2 Naveen was also screaming "mere admi ko bandh karva diya" which clearly indicates his malafide intention.
14. It is argued on behalf of accused Manju Devi that she did not utter any abuses to the complainant. She is falsely implicated in the case as the complainant had previously lodged FIR against the complainant.
15. Section 509 IPC provides punishment for "words, gesture or act intending to insult the modesty of a woman". The section read as-
State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.7 of 13
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, 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 three years, and also with fine.
16. The question of what constitutes an insult to female modesty requires no description. It is common knowledge that any words, spoken or song, picture or figure exhibited which suggests lewd thoughts is immoral and insulting to female modesty, unless the woman is a consenting party to it. The fact that the indecent act was done unobserved by all except the woman is, of course, no excuse for the offence because it is intended to punish such very acts. Nor does the fact that there were several women present, some of whom did not mind, matter.
17. It is the case of prosecution that accused Giri Raj Sharma and Manju gave verbal abuses to complainant and also threatened of her of dire consequences if she does not leave the temple. Further accused Giri Raj had also caught hold of her hair and grabbed her in the temple. PW1 Complainant had reiterated her complaint dt. 16.11.2014 in her testimony and had deposed that on 16.11.2014 while she was performing worship and reading Ramayana Path, accused Giri Raj Sharma and Manju Chauhan came from behind. Accused State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.8 of 13 Giri Raj threw her child from her lap and started pulling her by holding her hairs. She had also deposed that accused persons started abusing her. In her cross-examination she had denied the suggestion that the present case has been filed as counter-blast to criminal case filed against her husband. She had also stated that she does not know whether any complaint was made against her husband regarding removal as Pujari due to the bad intention and illegal accusation of temple land. She further admitted that she did not get her medical examination/treatment. She also admitted that police had asked her to come for the medical examination but she refused to seeing the situation at hand. She further admitted that she did not have any visible injuries.
18. It is clear from the testimony of the complainant that no MLC was deliberately got conducted by the complainant in the present case. She has herself admitted that no visible injuries were there on her body due to the incident. If the accused Giri Raj had dragged the complainant by pulling her hairs, she must have sustained some injuries. There is no reason on record why complainant did not go for medical examination despite insistence by the IO. The failure to get the MLC conducted immediately after the incident raises a serious doubt on the version of the complainant. Further this is a material contradiction in the testimony of complainant which creates a doubt on veracity of the witness.
19. It is also pertinent to mention that PW2 independent witness State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.9 of 13 Naveen Kumar had denied any scuffle taking place between the complainant and accused in her presence. He had also denied that accused Manju uttered any word in his presence. His testimony shows that complainant Amira Devi was in fact chasing and screaming at accused persons over the temple issue that, "mere aadmi ko bandh karva diya". There is no reason to disbelieve Naveen Kumar and he also does not appear to be interested witness.
20. In her cross-examination PW3 Bharti had admitted that she knew both accused persons by name prior to incident. She also stated that she got to know the name of accused persons through her mother. She stated that she cannot tell the distance of temple from her house in measurements. She also stated that there is only one gate in the temple. She further admitted that her house is situated behind the temple. She denied the suggestion that the things which took place in the temple are not visible from her residence. She also stated in her cross-examination that there was no public person at the time of incident as it was morning time. She also stated that her father was not at home at the time of incident. The testimony of Bharti shows that she was aware about the name of accused persons even prior to the incident. It may be possible that probably on the account of previous enmity she is deposing against the accused persons. According to her, her father was not present at the house and therefore he did not come to rescue complainant. Though, she is alleging that no public persons were present in the temple as it was morning time but generally public persons come to visit temple in the morning hours. IO did not try to interrogate State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.10 of 13 any public person present in the locality. If the house of complainant was behind the temple, it means that some more persons must be residing nearby the temple. If the witness Bharti can hear the noise of screaming why other persons residing in the same locality could not hear the voice and could not come to rescue complainant. There is no reason on record why no other person apart from complainant's daughter came to rescue complainant. Though, PW3 Bharti had corroborated the testimony of complainant but she appears to be interested witness as she is the daughter of complainant. The testimony of Bharti does not appear free from bias.
21. PW4 IO Insp. Arvind stated in his cross-examination that he did not get any investigation conducted with regard to child in lap of complainant as to whether he sustained any injury by falling or otherwise. He also admitted that when he reached the spot complainant was not carrying any child in her hand. According to the complainant PW1 Amira Devi she was carrying the child in her lap at the time of alleged offence and the accused threw the child from the lap. If the child who was 6 month old, was forcefully thrown from the lap of complainant, it is possible that the child must have sustained injury. No MLC was got conducted of 6 month old child. Further, the child was not present at the time IO came to the spot. This also shake the trustworthiness of the testimony of PW1 Amira Devi and PW3 Bharti.
22. The defence of the accused persons is that the present case has State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.11 of 13 been filed by the complainant as counter case already filed by Manju Singh against Pandit Prashna Jha and Sashi Jha to seek revenge. Pandit Prashna Jha was the husband of the complainant and was priest at the temple. Accused persons had examined DW1 Sashi Bhushan and DW2 Rohit Singh in this regard. In her cross-examination PW1 Amira Devi had admitted that there police complaints filed against each other in PS Hauz Khas. The accused Giri Raj had stated in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he had given evidence in case FIR No. 1206/14 against the complainant and in the said case complainant's husband and her son had gone to custody for 20-25 days. Since the complainant had admitted that there were prior complaints filed against each other, probably for the said reason she must be falsely deposing against the accused persons merely to implicate them.
23. It is well settled that in a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Any contradiction or iota of proof in favour of accused can completely dismantle the case of prosecution. In the present case there are no cogent material available on record to suggest that accused Giri Raj and Manju Devi had insulted the modesty of complainant by uttering indecent and outrageous words to her. Further there also is no cogent material against accused persons had intimidated the complainant by extending threats of dire consequences to her. There is also nothing on record to show that accused Giri Raj had hit the complainant and dragged her by pulling her hairs. There appears many contradictions in the State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.12 of 13 testimony of complainant and even in the testimony of PW3 Bharti which had shaken the entire prosecution version.
Conclusion & Decision
24. In view of material inconsistencies in the prosecution version as discussed above, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Giri Raj is acquitted for the offence under section 506/509/34 IPC & 323 IPC and accused Manju Devi is acquitted of offence u/s 506/509/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 07.11.2023 MM-06, SOUTH/SAKET DELHI State Vs. Giri Raj Sharma Ors FIR No. : 1233/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 323/506/509/34 IPC Page no.13 of 13