Delhi District Court
Sonu Rajora vs The State on 13 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-6, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 96/2019 (RBT 60/22)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sonu Rajora
S/o Sh. Bhajan Lal,
R/o H.No. 503, Block-I, Gali No.7,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
............Appellant
Versus
The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
..........Respondent
Instituted on : 13.03.2019
Reserved on : not reserved
Pronounced on : 13.07.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of Criminal Appeal U/s 374(3) Cr.P.C preferred on behalf of appellant Sonu Rajora against the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2019 and order on sentence dated 18.02.2019 passed by Ld. MM- 02, Mahila Court, Saket in case FIR No. 601/2016, PS Sangam Vihar whereby the appellant herein was convicted for the offence U/s 354D IPC and was sentenced accordingly.
CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 1 / 13 Digitally signedSUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA 2023.07.13 Date:
16:09:26 +0530
2. Briefly stated the facts as per record are as under:-
A call was made to police at 100 number which was recorded vide DD No. 74B dated 28.09.2016 at PS Sangam Vihar. On receiving the information about a quarrel, police officials went to the spot and the caller/complainant Ms. 'K' met them there. She had caught hold of the appellant. On the basis of her written complaint, an FIR No. 601/2016, U/s 354D IPC, PS Sangam Vihar was lodged against the appellant. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for the offence U/s 354D IPC was filed against the appellant on same day i.e., 28.09.2016. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence U/s 354D IPC before Ld. Magistrate on 07.02.2017.
Cognizance was taken by Ld. Magistrate on 09.02.2017. Appellant herein was summoned as an accused for 18.04.2017. He put his appearance on the said day and copy of charge-sheet was supplied to him U/s 207 Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence U/s 354D IPC was framed against him vide order dated 31.08.2017. Statement of appellant was also recorded U/s 294 Cr.P.C whereby he admitted the factum of registration of FIR and recording of statement of complainant U/s 164 Cr.P.C. The copy of FIR was accordingly marked as Ex. P1 (colly) and copy of statement of complainant U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was marked as Ex. P2 (colly). The corresponding witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses. The prosecution has examined following three witnesses in support of its case:-
2.1 PW-1 is Ct. Narender Kumar. He has accompanied the IO to the spot i.e. Durga Mandir, F Block, Sangam Vihar on receiving DD No. 74B dated 28.09.2016 PS Sangam Vihar. He has deposed about the steps taken by IO for registration of FIR as well as in investigating the matter thereafter. He has proved arrest memo of the appellant as Ex.PW1/A and his personal search memo as Ex.PW1/B. In his testimony, he had initially stated the date of the CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 2 / 13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.13 16:09:34 +0530 incident as 29.09.2016 whereupon leading question was put to him by Ld. APP with permission of the Court, wherein he stated that he cannot say as to whether he had visited the place of incident on 29.09.2016. He again stated that he had visited the place on 28.09.2016. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
2.2 PW-2 is Ms. "K". The entire prosecution case is based on her testimony, so same shall be discussed in detail later on.
2.3 PW-3 is the IO/SI Ravi Kumar. He deposed about the steps by him after reaching the spot after receipt of DD No. 74B on 28.09.2016. He proved the rukka prepared on the basis of complaint given by the complainant as Ex.PW3/A and the site plan prepared at her instance after registration of FIR as Ex.PW3/B. He also deposed about investigation done by him thereafter. He was duly cross-
examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel.
3. After the recording of testimony of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused/appellant Sonu Rajora U/s 313/281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 02.02.2019. In the said statement, he stated that he and the complainant were friends for around 4-5 years and that she used to call her whenever she needed any help. He also stated that she used to come to his office to meet and talk to him. He further stated that complainant started pressurizing him to marry her but he could not marry her because his parents would not allow him to do so. He was allegedly beaten up on 30-31.12.2015 or 2016 by 8 boys at the instance of the complainant. Those boys had also threatened to kill him. He also stated that he had already made a complaint in writing to PS Sangam Vihar two days before the alleged incident mentioning therein that the complainant and her friend were CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 3 / 13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.13
16:09:43
+0530
threatening him and were pressurizing him to marry her. The crux of his statement is that the allegations leveled against him by the complainant in the FIR was false and that due to his odd working hours, he had stopped talking and meeting her and that might be the reason for his false implication in present case.
4. Appellant was examined two witnesses in his defence. 4.1 DW-1 is Ms. Pooja. She deposed that she was residing in the same neighbourhood as that of the appellant for the past 8-10 years. She further deposed that the appellant was her friend and he had told her that the complainant was his girl friend. She also stated that she had seen the complainant and the appellant together 2-3 times in the same locality. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for State.
4.2 DW-2 is Mr. Mukesh Mehto. He deposed that he was residing in the same neighbourhood as that of the appellant since his birth. The appellant was stated to be his friend and he had told him that the complainant was his girl friend. The complainant and the appellant were having an affair in the year 2007-2008. The complainant was residing in the same locality as theirs. He had seen the complainant and the appellant together several times in the same locality. He was also duly cross examined by Ld. APP for State.
5. Thereafter, arguments were heard from both the sides by Ld. Magistrate and appellant herein was convicted for the offence U/s 354D IPC. Vide order dated 18.02.2019 the convict was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a term of 60 days alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/-. Said judgment alongwith order on sentence is being challenged in these proceedings.
CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 4 / 13
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.13
16:09:49
+0530
6. Arguments heard.
7. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for appellant that Ld. Trial Court has wrongly convicted him as material on record was not properly appreciated. It was argued that the complainant and the appellant were in a relationship which stands proved from the testimonies of defence witnesses examined by him. It was further submitted that the relationship ended and there was no contact between them since 26.01.2016. It was also submitted that earlier, the appellant was beaten by one Gaurav Tyagi who was a friend of the complainant and that it was the complainant who was pressurizing him to talk to her and to get married to her. It was submitted that the appellant had given a detailed complaint in writing in this regard to the police officials of PS Sangam Vihar on 27.09.2016 [Mark PW-2/D1(colly)]. It was further submitted that such complaint in itself is sufficient to show the falsity of the allegations leveled against him. It was further argued that the complainant had made a call to police about the jhagda and not about the alleged stalking being done by the appellant. It was further submitted that no independent public witness has been joined by the police. Also, the appellant was doing a job and incidentally he was residing in a gali next to the gali where the house of the complainant is situated. So, he was just going to his house after work and the route of the appellant to his house as well as the route being taken by the complainant was same. It has been submitted that no offence at all as alleged by the prosecution was committed by him. Prayer has been made for setting-aside the impugned judgment and for acquittal of the appellant.
8. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and material on record is sufficient for conviction of the CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 5 / 13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.13
16:09:59
+0530
appellant. It has been submitted that the grounds taken by Ld. Defence Counsel are of no consequence in view of the material on record. Prayer has been made for dismissal of appeal.
9. I have considered the submissions from the both the sides alongwith record.
10. The appellant herein has been convicted for the offence U/s 354D IPC vide judgment dated 16.02.2019 of Ld. Magistrate. Section 354D IPC provides as under:-
"354D. 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, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that-
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified. (2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 6 / 13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.13
16:10:07
+0530
be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."
11. Present case was registered on the basis of written complaint given by the complainant Ms. 'K'. She was examined as PW-2 before Ld. Trial Court. Her testimony being material for decision on this appeal is being reproduced below:-
"On 28.09.2016, I was going from my office to my house. Accused Sonu Rajora was following me and stopped at one place and started to speak something to me but I have not heard what he had spoken. He had followed me earlier. Accused used to drive the bike around my house without any reason. On 28.09.2016, when he started to speak like "tera number mein galat site par daal dunga, mein terko maar dunga". At about 07:30 PM, I caught hold him and made a call at 100 number. PCR official came to the spot. PCT took him to the police station and thereafter I alongwith my parents also went to the police station, where I gave complaint to the police station which is Exhibit PW-2/A bearing my signature at point A. Police arrested the accused and got my signature on arrest memo which is already Ex.PW-1/A bearing my signature at point B. On 06.10.2016, I had come to the court where I got recorded my statement U/s 164 Cr.PC before the Ld. Magistrate which is Mark X bearing my signature at point A. Accused is present in the court (correctly identified by the witness)."
12. Perusal of above shows that the complainant has categorically stated that the appellant used to follow her earlier and also used to drive a bike around her house without any reason. She further submitted that on fateful day on 28.09.2016, she was going from her office to her house, when appellant started CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 7 / 13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2023.07.13 16:10:15 +0530 following her and stopped at one place. After that, he said something which is was not clear to her however the words were like "tera number mein galat site par daal dunga, mein terko maar dunga". She caught hold of him and made a call to police at 100 number whereupon police officials came there and both the parties were taken to the police station. Parents of the complainant also went there as there were called by the appellant before making call to the police.
13. Perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant shows that several grounds being taken by the Defence Counsel before this Court in appeal were put to her in the form of questions and same were explained with absolute clarity. She was asked as to why she had informed to police at 100 number that there was a jhagda whereas no such allegation of jhagda was made in her complaint Ex.PW-2/A or statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. before Ld. Magistrate or in her testimony before the Court. Complainant clarified this aspect in following words:-
"The accused had been following me on the day of incident and then he passed some comment, which I do not remember today. I had then confronted him regarding his behaviour of regularly following me and passing comments, which he denied and then I had called my family member and the police. This would be termed as jhagda because the accused denied that he had done anything."
14. So, alleged discrepancy in the fact recorded by police in pursuance to call made at 100 number and the subsequent statements of the complainant stands fully explained by aforementioned answer of the complainant. In common parlance, whenever there is dispute of this nature between two persons, that is generally termed as jhagda only so the explanation is plausible and no fault can be found with the testimony of the complainant on this ground.
CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 8 / 13 Digitally signedSUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA 2023.07.13 Date:
16:10:22 +0530
15. One of the grounds taken by Ld. Defence Counsel is that they were in relationship before and that the appellant was being threatened by friend of the complainant after beating him once. Further, it is also the case of defence that the complainant used to pressurize him to talk to her. He had relied upon a complaint in writing allegedly addressed by the appellant to SHO, PS Sangam Vihar which is Mark PW-2/D1 (colly). Perusal of that document consisting of two pages shows that those are photocopies of same document with the only difference that one of the photocopy is only bearing a stamp probably of some PS (the stamp is not clear) whereas the other photocopy is bearing another stamp of PS Sangam Vihar apparently showing the receipt of said complaint vide DD No. 86B dated 15.10.2016 at 08:05 PM. Admittedly, no efforts were made on behalf of defence to prove the alleged fact that said complaint was given at PS Sangam Vihar on 27.09.2016. This fact alone is sufficient to discard that document because no explanation has come on record as to why the said document was not proved as per law. Mere placing on record the photocopy of a document without doing anything more is not sufficient to prove its contents. Even otherwise, there is nothing in the document to show that any such complaint was so made to PS Sangam Vihar on 27.09.2016. The photocopies are apparently bearing signatures of the appellant with date 27.09.2016, however, that in itself is not sufficient to even prima facie show that such a complaint could have been made on that date. It is also not clear as to why a stamp similar to the one dated 15.10.2016 was not put on the earlier photocopy of the complaint allegedly made by the appellant on 27.09.2016 in case same was so submitted in the PS on that day. The contents of those complaints were put to the complainant in her cross-examination and she was given a suggestion that she was harassing the appellant and for that reason, he was compelled to file the complaint in the PS which was denied by her. Interestingly, that document was CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 9 / 13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2023.07.13 16:10:34 +0530 not put to any of the two police officials examined by the prosecution as witnesses including to the IO/SI Ravi Kumar. In these facts, the defence of the appellant that he was falsely implicated in this case and that he has informed the police officials of such a possibility even before registration of FIR is not tenable as the appellant has miserably failed to prove this fact.
16. Another argument of defence is that the appellant and the complainant were in a relationship earlier and that the defence witnesses have deposed to that effect before Ld.Trial Court. Perusal of testimonies of DW-1 Ms. Pooja and DW-2 Mr. Mukesh Mehto shows that both of them have deposed about the complainant and appellant having been seen together by them several times in the same locality. They have not disclosed any date, month or year when the complainant and appellant were allegedly so seen together by them. DW-2 has stated that he was told by the appellant that the complainant was his girlfriend and that they were having an affair in the year 2007-2008 which is more than 8 years back from the date of alleged incidence. Their testimonies are in no way sufficient to show the existence of any relationship between them. The complainant was also put questions pertaining to this in her cross-examination. She was specifically put a suggestion that she has known the accused for past 4- 5 years and that she was pressurizing the accused to marry her which was denied by her. Similarly, the suggestions to the effect that she used to call the appellant at his work place and used to ask even his colleagues to make him speak to her, were also denied. Further, another suggestion to the effect that in order to pressurize him, she had got him beaten by Gaurav Tyagi was also denied. So, the evidence on record does not indicate the existence of any relationship between the parties. There are two photographs Mark PW3/D1 (colly) allegedly showing the appellant and the complainant together and same were put to the IO/SI Ravi Kumar in his cross-examination. He was asked to identify the complainant in the CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 10 / 13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.13
16:10:43
+0530
said photographs. He stated that there is some resemblance however, he was unable to say with surety that the lady in the photographs was the complainant. Interestingly, it has not come on record as to what is the source of those photographs. It has also not come on record as to why same were not so shown to the complainant during her cross-examination. These question marks alongwith the absence of any negative from which the photographs were developed or the certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act 1872 in case, same are printouts of images stored in an electronic device, cast a shadow on the authenticity of the same.
17. Even if, it is presumed for the sake of arguments that those photographs indicate the existence of relationship between the parties before the incidence in question, that does not mean that the appellant was at liberty to stalk the complainant when she was not interested in him. The existence of a relationship between a young boy and a young girl in past, has not been made an exception to the offence U/s 354D IPC. So, this defence is also of no help to the case of the appellant.
18. Another defence taken by the appellant is that the route of his house on return from his job and the route of the complainant to her house was same so it cannot be termed that he was following her. As mentioned earlier, the complainant has specifically stated in her initial complaint Ex.PW-2/A that the appellant was following her. It has also come on record that on fateful day, she had caught hold of appellant and made a call to police at 100 number. It is not believable that the appellant was simply going to his house after work and the complainant wrongly caught hold of him alleging that he was stalking her. A suggestion to this effect was put to her in her cross-examination which was specifically denied. She stated that she knew the appellant because she had seen CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 11 / 13 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2023.07.13 16:10:54 +0530 him several times roaming in the same block where she was residing. Appellant has attempted to show that present case was one of mistaken belief of stalking held by the complainant however, the material on record points otherwise.
19. Lastly, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that no independent person was joined in the investigation despite the spot being a crowded place. Admittedly, complainant 'K' is the only material witness examined by the prosecution to prove its case. However, it is to be noted that there is no law mandating that an offence can be proved only by the testimony of an independent public witness. Section 134 Indian Evidence Act is material here, which provides as under:-
"134. Number of witnesses- No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact."
20. So, it is clear from the above that it is the quality and not quantity of witnesses which is material for proving a case. The testimony of complainant has remained unshaken throughout her cross-examination. In these facts, absence of any independent public witness is of no consequence.
21. Considering the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant Sonu Rajora used to follow the complainant and was so following her on the fateful day to foster personal interaction despite clear indication of disinterest by her. Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 354D IPC stands proved against him and he has been rightly convicted for the same by Ld. Trial Court. The appeal stands dismissed as far as same pertains to his conviction.
CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 12 / 13
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.13
16:11:05
+0530
22. Order on Sentence shall be passed after compliance as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Karan Vs. State NCT of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 352/2020. Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.07.13 16:11:14 +0530 Announced in the open (Sunil Gupta) Court on 13th July, 2023 Additional Sessions Judge-06, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi CA No.96/2019 Sonu Rajora Vs. State Page 13 / 13