Delhi District Court
State vs . Akram Ahmad on 4 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. NITI PHUTELA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03
(MAHILA COURT) SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Akram Ahmad
FIR No. 336/16
U/S 354/354A IPC
PS S.J Enclave
DETAILS OF THE CASE
a) CrC No. of the case : 2039587/2016
b) Date of commission of offence : 17.04.2016
c) Date of institution of the case : 16.11.2016
d) Name of the complainant : Ms. "S" (name withheld due
to confidentiality).
e) Name, Parentage & Address : Akram Ahmad
of the accused S/o Lt. Sh. Kharati Shah
R/o H. No. 2853/32,
Tuglakabad Extn,
New Delhi.
f) Offence complained of : U/S 354/354 A IPC
g) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 04.05.2018 (pre lunch session)
i) Date of judgment : 04.05.2018 (post lunch session)
j) Final Order : Acquittal
FIR No. 336/14 State Vs. Akram Ahmad 1 / 4
JUDGMENT
1. It is a case of the prosecution that on 16.04.2016 at 11.00 PM complainant was at My Bar Grill, Hauz Khas Village along with her four female friends. She felt a hand brushing her inner high. She saw one person, who was passing from there but she ignored him. When she was returning from the bar, where her friends were standing, she felt a hand harshly groping her vagina, she immediately reacted upon the same and punched him. As per her, accused not only touched her indecently, but also punched her back. The bouncers in the club assisted her. She later on came to know regarding the name of accused. Police was called. In this background, the complainant lodged a complaint at PS Safdarjung Enclave and on the basis of which present case was got registered.
2. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed in the court. The copies of chargesheet and annexed documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of the chargesheet and annexed documents, primafacie case was made out. Charge for the offences punishable under section 354 IPC in alternative charge 354A(1)(i) IPC was framed against accused vide order dated 13.07.2017, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. At the stage of trial, prosecution was given opportunity to lead its evidence.
PW complainant i.e. Ms. "S" was summoned by the present court but despite various efforts she remained unserved even through DCP concerned. Hence, she was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dt.28.03.2018.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined only one witness. The gist of FIR No. 336/14 State Vs. Akram Ahmad 2 / 4 his testimony is as follows:
PW1 Sh Tanuj Rana: He deposed that on 17.04.2016, he was posted as a Manager in My Bar Grill, Hauz Khas Village, Safdarjung. On that day he was on duty from 3.00 PM to 2.00 AM. He stated that on that day, at around 01.00 am, complainant informed him that accused Akram Ahmad misbehaved with the complainant. Thereafter, he called the beat officer. Police came at the spot and accused was arrested. His statement was recorded by the police. The said witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel and was discharged.
6. Statement of the accused under section 294 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he admitted the factum of registration of FIR, the copy which is Ex.P1 and factum of recording statement of the complainant u/s 164 CrPC, which is Ex.P2 The formal proof of the said documents was dispensed with and witnesses related to the said documents were dropped from list of witnesses. PW Happy Singh was also dropped at the request of Ld APP for the State, being not a material witness. PW IO/SI Ajay Kumar was dropped by the present court despite objection of Ld APP for the State, as it would have been mere sheer wastage of time. PE was closed.
7. As nothing incriminating came on record against the accused, hence recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
8. Final arguments addressed. Heard. Record perused.
9. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution because it is on the evidence of prosecution and its strength that the fate of this case depends. As it is mentioned above that the complainant herself who had the first hand information regarding the present case and was in the best position FIR No. 336/14 State Vs. Akram Ahmad 3 / 4 to explain the chain of events which took place in her presence failed to appear, therefore, the case against the accused is not proved. Moreover, the other public witness i.e. PW 1 also of no help to the prosecution as he was hearsay witness.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is needless to say that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Therefore, accused Akarm Ahmad is acquitted for the offence under section 354 IPC in alternative charge 354A(1)(i) IPC for which he was charged.
Digitally signed by
11. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. NITI NITI PHUTELA PHUTELA Date:
2018.05.05 14:40:15 +0530 Announced in the open Court (NITI PHUTELA) dated 04.05.2018 MM03, Mahila Court, South Distict, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 336/14 State Vs. Akram Ahmad 4 / 4