Delhi District Court
Fir No. 291/2016 State vs . Santosh Kumar Singh;Ps G.K.I 1 Of 21 on 25 April, 2019
In The Court Of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan: Metropolitan
Magistrate02 (Mahila Court), SouthEast, Saket Courts:New Delhi
State v. Santosh Kumar Singh
FIR No. 291/2016
U/s: 354/354C/323/451/509 IPC
P.S: G.K.I
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution : 10.02.2017
Criminal Case No. : 857/2017
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet
Name & address of the accused : Santosh Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Surender Singh
R/o H.No.H61, II Floor, Zamrudpur,
G.K.I, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 323/354/354B/354C/452/509 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 354/354C/323/451/509 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
Date of arguments : 23.04.2019
Date of announcing of order : 25.04.2019
FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 1 of 21
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.11.2016 there was a quarrel between the children of the complainant and the children of her neighbourer namely Gudia. Thereafter, complainant came back to her home and went to take bath. At around 10.30 AM, accused Santosh who was the brother in law of her neighbourer Gudia came to the house of the complainant and kicked the door of the bathroom of the complainant and pushed the same. At that time, the daughter of complainant tried to stop the accused but he did not stop and pushed the door of the complainant. The latch of the bathroom door was broken and accused saw the complainant in a naked condition. Thereafter, accused abused the complainant and hit the complainant by fist blows. Complainant did not get herself medically examined.
2. Pursuant to this complaint dated 14.11.2016, FIR was registered on the same day and accused was summoned. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under section 354/354C/323/451/509 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined eight (08) witnesses during trial: FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 2 of 21 PW1 (complainant) deposed that on 14.11.2016 there were hot arguments between her and her neighbour on the issue of quarrel between children at around 10.00am. Thereafter, she had gone to her bathroom for taking bath at about 10.30am, suddenly accused Santosh kicked on the main door of her house and was abusing her at that time saying that 'randi darwaja kholo' and came inside after breaking the latches of the door and entered her house. Her daughter tried to stop him saying that she was inside the bathroom but accused did not stop, he pushed the door of her bathroom which was half opened with the help of his kick and at that time she was naked and he saw her in that condition. Her daughter had taken him out by saying that 'uncle bahar niklo'. Thereafter, she put on her clothes and came out in front of her house. Accused again started to abuse her and hit her on her shoulder with his fist blow. She went to police station for making complaint and police recorded her complaint which was Ex.PW1/A. The latches/kundi of the main door was broken when accused kicked on the door to enter her house. Police accompanied her to the spot from police station and she had shown him place of incident and the police official took photographs of broken latches of main door. She was taken to hospital where her medical examination was conducted. Thereafter, her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Ld. MM and the same was Ex.PW1/B During crossexamination PW1 deposed that she was living in rented premises of one room consisting of kitchen and one washroom and the same was on the second floor. She did not know the name of owner of the FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 3 of 21 house. However, the person from whom they had taken the house on rent, his name was Rakesh. Accused also resides on the second floor of the same building. On the second floor, there were three tenants and she did not know the name of the third tenant. She was residing in the said premises for past three years and had been residing in the premises for approximately 2 ½ years prior to the date of incident. The building on which she was residing consists of six floors. All the floors were occupied by tenants. She did not have a rent agreement of her tenancy. She was on talking terms with the children of accused who was living in front of her house, however she did not know their names. She used to take care of the children of accused and treat them as her children and wanted the son of the accused to come to her house, upon which the wife of the brother of the accused objected and did not allow the child to come to her house and started quarreling. On the date of incident, the wife of the brother of the accused entered into a quarrel with her because of incident of children. The quarrel occurred only due to behaviour and objection of the wife of the brother of accused. The incident occurred around 10.00am. During the quarrel, no neighbour came but they were listening the quarrel. She could not tell the name of the persons who were there at that time. She did not make a call at no.100 after the quarrel. She had mentioned the time of incident in her complaint that the incident had occurred at 10.00am. Witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A where the time of quarrel at 10.00 am was not mentioned. Accused and his younger brother's wife Gudiya were residing in the same flat. She had mentioned in her complaint Ex.PW1/A regarding the fact of accused breaking the latch of the main door of the house.
FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 4 of 21 She had mentioned in her complaint that the door of the bathroom was not properly shut and the same was partially opened. She had not mentioned in her complaint that the latch of the door of the bathroom was properly bolted and the same was opened by the accused due to which the latch of the bathroom door was broken. Witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A where the aforesaid fact was so mentioned. After the incident they had raised alarm and shouted for help. No public person or neighbour came to their help. Even after this incident, she had not called police at 100 number. She narrated the incident to her mother on phone and also to one of her relatives and also to the landlord Rakesh before going to the police station. She had met Rakesh downstairs while going to PS. She did not narrate the incident to any other person of the locality or her neighbourhood before going to PS. She again stated that she did not narrate the incident to Rakesh however he had seen her while going to PS and crying at that time. Accused had given her fist blows on her right shoulder 34 times on the same shoulder, due to which there were bruises (bluish on her right shoulder). She could not tell the exact time when she reached the PS. She had requested her relative namely Dilraj to write her complaint when she went to PS as he had accompanied her there. He had written the same in the PS. Her relative Dilraj stays at Hauz Khas. It was correct that she got her complaint written through Dilraj since she could not read or write Hindi. Dilraj does not work with her at the same place where she works. She could not tell the exact time of writing the complaint. She did not know as to when the accused was arrested. She did not know if accused had visited police station. She did not know if FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 5 of 21 her FIR was registered immediately. She was given the copy of FIR next day from the IO Simarjeet on her way. She could not tell the exact time of the same. Police did not visit her place in her presence but had come in her absence when her daughter was present at home. She had shown all the injuries on her body to doctor. She did not remember the time when she reached her house on 14.11.2016 after lodging of FIR and her medical examination. After registration of FIR, police official came to her house once but she could not tell the date. After registration of FIR, none of her statement was recorded by police in the present case. She had got written in her complaint Ex.PW1/A that "accused Santosh kicked on the main door of her house and he was abusing her at that time by saying that 'randi darwaza khol' and came inside after breaking the latches of the door and entered her house". Witness was confronted with Ex.PW1/A wherein it was not so recorded. She got recorded in her complaint Ex.PW1/A that when she was taking bath in her bathroom, the gate of bathroom was half opened and was not bolted from inside. Witness was confronted with Ex.PW1/A wherein it was not so recorded. She got recorded in her complaint Ex.PW1/A that "I put on my clothes and came out in front of my house. Accused again started to abuse me and hit me on my shoulder with fist blow". Witness was confronted with Ex.PW1/A wherein it was not so recorded. She could not tell the complete address of her relative Dilraj. She did not want to explain the relation between her and Dilraj. She made a telephone call to Dilraj and he directly came at PS. Her mother had come to her house on her call and thereafter, she alongwith her mother went to police station. Her mother resides at a distance of 1015 FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 6 of 21 minutes walking, from her house. First, she informed about the incident to police officials at police station and thereafter to Dilraj. Witness denied the suggestions put to her.
PW2 Sita Ram (eye witness) deposed that he did not remember the exact date, month and year but on the day of incident, he was coming back to his house at around 1:00 PM, when he reached at ground floor of his building, he heard commotion from third floor of his building. He reached there and saw that accused Santosh and complainant were quarreling with each other. Thereafter, he went to his flat situated at 6 th floor of the building. He did not intervene in aforesaid quarrel. He did not know anything more about the case.
Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State and deposed that it was wrong to suggest that on 14.11.2016 at around 10:0011:00 am, he was present in his house and checking the motor situated at ground floor, meanwhile accused Santosh came there from stairs and informed him about the quarrel occurred between him and complainant Marry Bala and Gudiya who were residing in front of his flat and at that time accused was very angry who came there to meet with caretaker of building Sh. Prem Prakash but he was not present there, thereafter, Santosh went to stair up and one Rinky was also going behind. Thereafter, he heard noise from upper floor of building. He went there and saw that accused Santosh was knocking and kicking the door of Marry Bala stating that as to why she had beaten his son and quarreled with his Bhabhi and at the time of kicking door by accused Santosh, latches/Kundi of the door was broken from inside.
FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 7 of 21 After which complainant Marry Bala came out. Accused started to quarrel and abuse her. Witness was confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW2/A from pointA1 to A2 wherein it was so recorded.
Opportunity to crossexamine the witness was granted to accused but he did not ask anything from the witness.
PW3 Smt. Namrita Singh @ Rinky (eye witness) deposed that on 14.11.2016 at around 10:0011:00 AM there was quarrel between bhabhi of accused Santosh Kumar Singh namely Gudiya and complainant Marry Bala and after hearing commotion, accused Santosh came there or he might be called by Gudiya. She also accompanied accused Santosh from behind by stairs of ground floor to second floor where complainant was residing. Accused Santosh Kumar started to knock main door of the complainant and complainant came out. Thereafter, both of them started abusing each other. During that period, complainant slept accused Santosh after which he came down and went away. At that time, accused Santosh called at 100 number. Nothing more had happened in her presence.
Thereafter, witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State and deposed that it was wrong to suggest that while accused Santosh went to second floor where complainant was residing, he started to kick the door of complainant forcefully and he was asking the complainant as to why he had beaten his son and quarreled with his bhabhi and at that time he was very angry. Witness was confronted with statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC of witness FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 8 of 21 Ex.PW3/A from pointA1 to A2 wherein it was so recorded. Witness denied all the suggestions put to her.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW3 deposed that it was correct that there was some quarrel between children of complainant and accused prior to the present incident and for which accused was falsely implicated by the complainant in present case.
PW4 Ms. Moumita Bala (daughter of complainant) deposed that in the year 2016, she alongwith her mother was residing at H.No. H61, Zamrudpur, G.KI, New Delhi. On 14.11.2016 at around 10:0010:10 AM, there were some altercation between her mother (complainant) and Gudiya aunty. Thereafter, her mother was going to take bath and at that time, she was cooking breakfast and latches of the main door of her house was bolted. At around 10:30 AM, accused Santosh being jeth of Gudiya aunty started kicking the main door of their house and broken the latches of the door and entered into her house. At that time, her mother (complainant) was taken bath in the bathroom of the house. Accused entered into her house, she told him to return back saying that her mother was taking bath in the bathroom. But accused did not return back and kicked the door of the bathroom due to which door of the bathroom opened and accused had seen her mother in naked condition as she was taking bath inside the bathroom. She pushed accused Santosh Kumar away from the house saying uncle jao jao. After wearing clothes, her mother went out the house to ask the accused as to why he had done such manner. Upon asking the same, accused started beating and FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 9 of 21 abusing her mother (complainant). She got scared and started weeping and at that time, they did not call to the police. However, her mother went to PS to make a complaint against the accused. She was inquired by the police official regarding the present case.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW4 deposed that her mother left the house to police station at around 11.0011.30 AM for making complaint against the accused. None of their relative had come to their house before her mother left for PS. Police had made inquiry from her at police station once. Police accompanied to her house on the day of incident for obtaining photographs of the broken latches and place of incident but she could not tell the time. At that time, her mother was at PS and police officials were making inquiry from her. Thereafter, she alongwith the said police official went back to police station. She did not know if police official had come to her house after the day of incident. She had signed her statement recorded by police. She did not remember where she had signed the said statement. She told the police in her statement that accused had kicked the main gate of her house and broke open the latches of the house which was bolted and entered into her house. She had not stated in her statement u/s 161 CrPC that the accused broke the latch of the bathroom gate by kicking it. Witness was confronted with statement u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW4/D1 wherein it was so recorded. Witness denied all the suggestions put to her.
PW5 Const. Narender Kumar deposed that on 14.11.2016, he was posted at PS G.KI. On that day, he joined the investigation with IO ASI FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 10 of 21 Simarjeet Kaur and went to H.No. H61, Zamrudpur, G.KI, New Delhi, where IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and took photographs of the door of main door and bathroom door of the house. Latches of the main door were found broken and latches of the bathroom door was intact. Thereafter, they alongwith complainant went to the residence of accused Santosh and 2nd floor of the same building where complainant was residing in the same building. Accused Santosh Kumar Singh was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. IO interrogated accused Santosh Kumar Singh and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW5/C. Accused was sent for his medical examination through him and after which, he was sent to lock up. IO recorded his statement.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW5 deposed that at the time of preparing the site plan, complainant, her daughter and her mother were present there. He did not remember who had signed the site plan. Witness denied all suggestions put to him.
PW6 SI Simarjeet Kaur (IO) deposed that on 14.11.2016, she was posted as PSI at PS G.K. On that day, complainant Mary Bala came at PS and she gave a written complaint Ex.PW1/A. After seeing the complaint, cognizable offence was revealed. She made endorsement vide rukka Ex.PW6/A and got it registered as FIR after discussing with concerned SHO. After registration of FIR, original rukka and copy of FIR were handed over to her and further investigation of the present case was marked to her.
FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 11 of 21 Thereafter, she alongwith complainant went to the spot i.e residence of the complainant and prepared site plan at the instance of complainant's daughter. She took photographs of main door and door of the bathroom from her mobile phone which was Ex.P1. She had given certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which was Ex.PW6/C. The latches of main door was found broken. Medical examination of complainant got conducted from AIIMS hospital and her MLC was collected and attached with the file. She inquired from the nearby residents and daughter of the complainant and recorded their statement u/s 161 CrPC. During the course of investigation, statement u/s 164 CrPC of the complainant got recorded and collected the same and attached with the file. On the same day of registration of FIR, accused Santosh Kumar Singh was arrested at his residence in presence of one beat constable Narender vide memo Ex.PW5/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/B. She interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW5/C. She recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. On 30.11.2016, employer of accused namely Sanjay Kumar Suman had given photocopy of his attendance sheet for the month of November 2016, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/D. Photocopy of attendance sheet was mark A. She made inquiry from the employer who told her that accused had left his job on the day of incident that is on 14.11.2016 around 09:00 AM. After completion of investigation, she prepared the chargesheet and filed before the Court.
During cross examination on behalf of accused, PW6 deposed that she did not have any personal knowledge as to whether accused had also FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 12 of 21 made a call at 100 number regarding the present incident or not. She did not remember the exact time when complainant came to PS but it might be 10:00 10:15 AM. It was correct that the complainant did not write the complaint in her presence. She did not make inquiry from the complainant whether she knew read or write and as to who had written the said complaint. However, complainant had signed the said written complaint in her presence. During the course of investigation, she visited the spot a number of times. However, she did not remember the exact number of visit. She did not make inquiry from the landlord of the complainant. She did not take any rent agreement from the complainant or her landlord. Accused was arrested on the same day of the registration of FIR in presence of beat Const. Narender. At that time, complainant came back from the hospital after her medical examination to her residence. It was correct that complainant was not made witness at the time of arrest of accused. She clicked the photographs from her mobile phone of Samsung A8. She did not remember the mobile number. She recorded statement of the witnesses or nearby residents at their house. She did not remember the date of recording of their statement. It was correct that concerned doctor who conducted examination of complainant had not made witness. It was correct that FIR number was also not mentioned in the MLC. Witness denied all suggestions put to her.
PW7 Ratan Singh (Medical Record Technician) deposed that he had been working as Medical Record Technician in AIIMS Trauma Centre since 2014. He was authorized to identify the signature of Dr. P. Srikanth vide authority letter dt. 27.03.2019, which was Ex.PW7/A. Dr. P. Srikanth FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 13 of 21 who had prepared MLC of injured Mary Bala bearing no. 595244/16 has left the hospital and his present whereabout was not known to him and his department. He could identify the signature of Dr. P. Srikanth as he had seen him signing during the course of his duty in the hospital. Thereafter, MLC of injured Mary Bala bearing no. 595244/16 dt. 14.11.2016 prepared by Dr. P. Srikanth, attached with judicial file was shown to the witness, which he correctly identified at point A, Ex.PW7/B. During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW7 deposed that he did not have any personal knowledge in respect to the present matter. The aforesaid doctor was employed in the hospital from 01.07.2016 to 31.12.2016. The concerned doctor had not signed any document in his presence.
PW8 Dr. Arun (Sr. Resident Doctor) deposed that he had been summoned to explain the MLC No.595244/16 dated 14.11.2016 which was Ex.PW7/B. As per the aforesaid MLC, nature of injury was simple in nature. It was soft tissue injury.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW8 deposed that as per the simple injury, it only defines that the same does not fall in the category of injury of grievous nature. The MLC does not mention regarding any bruises or abrasion however, it was a blunt injury.
FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 14 of 21 Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 294 CrPC and copy of FIR was Ex.A1, rukka was Ex.A2 and proceedings under section 164 CrPC was Ex.PW1/B.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
5. Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
6. Final arguments were advanced.
7. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. APP for the State that in the present matter the guilt of the accused has been proved. It is further argued that the complainant and other witnesses have clearly deposed the manner in which the accused misbehaved with the complainant and therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged. It is further argued that in the present matter, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed against him and minor contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses are not fatal and therefore the same cannot be treated as contradictions and accused is liable to be convicted.
8. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for accused that in the present matter the accused has been falsely implicated since the complainant and the other witnesses that is her daughter examined FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 15 of 21 by the prosecution are interested witnesses and have falsely implicated the accused with ulterior motives. It is also argued that in the present matter the complainant and the other witnesses, as well as the accused are known to each other since as they have been living in the same vicinity. It is also argued that on the alleged date of incident, it was the complainant who had picked up a quarrel with the sister in law of the accused and when accused went to the house of the complainant to know about the matter, she quarreled with him and thereafter, falsely implicated him.
9. Further, the allegations against the accused for tresspass into the property of the complainant are also not made out since the complainant has failed to mention any specific details, since the complainant has deposed contradictory and has failed to even clarify whether the accused entered the house of the complainant and had broke open the main gate of the house or the gate of the bathroom of the house of complainant. The aforesaid fact is stated contradictory by the complainant in her complaint and during her testimony before the court and has been narrated differently by PW4 being the daughter of the complainant. Further, PW3 and PW4 who are allegedly the eye witnesses in the present matter have not corroborated the story of the complainant and stated that no such incident occurred and have been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW4 is the interested witness and therefore, is not a reliable witness. The allegations of the complainant pertaining to beatings and abuses and any such incident are also not substantiated since she has failed to place on record any medical record to show that she had suffered injuries since the MLC exhibited PW7/B does not mention about any visible FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 16 of 21 injury and the same is prepared after a delay of several hours, that is when the alleged incident had taken place at around 10.00 AM in the morning. It is further argued that the present complaint is false and fabricated as the complainant did not even make a call at 100 number and infact, waited at home and made a call to her mother and her another acquaintance, instead of making a call at 100 number. Further, the present complaint is an after thought which she filed after consulting her family members. It is further argued that the alleged broken latch was never seized by the IO and even the photographs annexed by the IO allegedly taken from her mobile phone Ex.P 1 are also not authentic since the same does not mention regarding the alleged place where the incident took place. It is further argued that the MLC does not mention regarding the name of the police official, details of the present matter in which the complainant was examined and the MLC has not been proved as the doctor who examined the complainant was never examined or appeared in the witness box. It is further argued that the offences for which the accused has been charged, also does not stand proved as the ingredients do not stand substantiated by any cogent evidence. It is further argued that there is no corroboration in the testimony of the witnesses and the statement of the complainant. It is also argued that the complaint is vague and the allegations are fanciful and do not inspire confidence.
10. It is further argued on behalf of accused that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the intention to falsely implicate the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that there are several contradictions in the testimony of the complainant herself and upon reading FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 17 of 21 the complaint, the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 164 CrPC and her testimony before the court, it is amply clear that the complainant is inconsistent in her stands which is due to the fact that no such incident had ever taken place.
Court Observation:
11. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:
In the present matter, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses among which PW1 was the complainant and the victim in the present matter, PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses and PW4 is the eye witness and the daughter of complainant and the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal in nature. In the present matter, the star witness of the prosecution is the complainant, who is also the victim in the present matter. However, if we carefully peruse her complaint Ex.PW1/A, her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC and her testimony before the court, there are glaring contradictions and no corroboration. Further, there is vast improvement in the testimony of the complainant and the complainant has failed to even narrate the manner in which the incident occurred. Further, during her crossexamination, complainant has contradicted her own statements and have been confronted on several aspects. Further, PW2 and PW3 have contradicted in respect to the fact as to the manner of commission of offence and have been declared hostile and infact, supported the accused. Further the MLC of the complainant does not show any injury suffered by FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 18 of 21 her. Further, PW2 and PW3 deposed that when they reached the spot upon hearing the commotion, accused had not manhandled the complainant or pushed her down or had seen her in naked condition but have deposed that no such incident occurred and and in fact, it was the complainant who had started abuses the accused when he tried to inquire about the matter. However, PW1 during her crossexamination has stated that she did not know the name of her neighbourers or the name of her landlord. Further that after the incident, she had raised alarm but no public person or neighbourer had come for her help and further she had not made a call to the police on 100 number at the time of incident or subsequently. She further admitted that her complaint Ex.PW1/A was not written by her as she does not know read or write and the same was written through her friend namely Dilraj. Aforesaid witness Dilraj was never examined by the prosecution. Further, the allegation of the complainant that when the accused opened the door, she was in naked condition is not corroborated by other public witnesses. Further, medical examination of the complainant conducted vide Ex.PW7/B also mentions that there were no external injury on the aforesaid persons and therefore, there was no evidence on record available so as to ascertain if there was any incident of criminal force or assault upon the complainant which was with the intention to outrage her modesty.
12. In the present matter, accused has been charged for the offence u/s 354/354C/323/451/509 IPC, however, none of the ingredients of the aforesaid offences have been proved by the prosecution against the accused.
FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 19 of 21
13. In the present fact and circumstances, accused cannot be held liable for causing any injury to the complainant as neither the complainant has stated in her examination in chief that a criminal force was used against her.
14. The improvement in the version of PW1 is crucial as Ex. PW1/A is a hand written complaint admittedly prepared by her, after the incident and with the assistance of her friend and in the presence of her mother and there is no justification or plausible ground as to why the complainant was unable to narrate the incident explicitly or elaborate upon the details particularly when the same has been written on the same day. The very fact that the complainant did not mention about the aforesaid fact and the medical examination also does not substantiate the allegations of criminal assault and even the alleged fact that complainant was in a naked condition is not substantiated by PW2 and PW3 and itself shows that the complainant had not suffered any injury upon the alleged assault upon her by the accused and that the accused had with the intention to watch the complainant in a private act with the intention to capture her image in the aforesaid act had committed the offence or with any such motive have not been proved against him. Further, the allegations of touching the complainant with the intention to outrage her modesty are also not sustainable as the same are completely vague and do not inspire confidence. The complainant has levelled general allegations against the accused and the same are devoid of merit as the complainant has not explained the same even during her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC. Further, the story of the complainant cannot be believed as she herself has FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 20 of 21 admitted that she had not stated the exact abusive language used by the accused against her in her complaint, or in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC. Therefore, there was nothing to lend support to the testimony of PW1 apart from bald averments made in the complaint and her testimony before the court. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
15. In view of the above discussion and considering the material, available on record, the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused Santosh Kumar Singh is acquitted for the offences U/s 354/323/354C/451/509 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 25.04.2019 Metropolitan Magistrate02
(Mahila Court), SouthEast,
Saket, New Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2019.04.26
16:49:10
+0530
FIR No. 291/2016 State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh;PS G.K.I 21 of 21