Delhi District Court
State vs . Om Prakash Soni & Ors. on 25 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South West District; Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Date of Institution : 20.09.2021
Date of Reserving Judgment : 15.03.2023
Date of Judgment : 25.03.2023
In the matter of :
State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No. 281/2021
PS : Sector-23 Dwarka
U/s: 506/509/34 IPC
1. Regn. No. of Case : 11918/2021
2. CNR No. of Case : DLSW02-045895-2021
3. Name of accused person : 1. Om Prakash Soni
S/o Sh. Mukanda Ram
2. Manish Soni
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
3. Naveen Soni
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
All R/o Near Pole No. 916,
Amberhai Village, Sector 19,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
4. Offence charged under : 506/509/34 IPC
Section
5. Plea of accused : Not guilty.
6. Final Order : Acquitted.
State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka
Page No.1 of 13
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of prosecution that on 23.07.2021 at about 11:00 pm. at House No. 149, Village Amberhai, Sector 19, Dwarka, Delhi, all accused criminally intimidated complainant Kavita by threatening to kill her. They also used filthy words against her to outrage her modesty. Thus, prosecution has set up a case under Section 506/509/34 IPC against all three accused persons.
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by the police, charge sheet was filed in Court and copy was supplied to accused persons. On the basis of charge sheet, charge for committing offences punishable under Section 506/509/34 IPC against all accused were framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses, who are as under:
Sr. No Name Nature of Evidence 1. PW-1/Smt. Kavita Complainant. 2. PW-2/HC Ram Avtar IO. 3. PW-3/SI Sandeep Singh Formal witness.
4. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Exhibits Documents
1. Ex.PW-1/A Complaint made by complainant.
State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka
Page No.2 of 13
2. Ex.PW-1/B Statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of complainant.
3. Mark PW2/1 Copy of statement u/s 164 Cr.PC
4. Ex.PW-2/A Site plan
5. Mark PW-2/2 Statement of complainant regarding video of incident to HC Ram Avtar
6. Ex.PW-2/B Arrest memo of accused Om Prakash
7. Ex.PW-2/C Arrest memo of accused Naveen Soni 8 Ex.PW-2/D Arrest memo of accused Manish Soni
9. Ex. A-1 Copy of FIR No. 281/21
5. Thereafter, PE was closed and statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein accused claimed that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Om Prakash and Manish examined themselves in defence.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation, which is defined in Section 503.
Section 503 IPC reads as under:
'Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.3 of 13 of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.' Similarly, Section 509 IPC reads as under:
'Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.--Whoever, 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, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.'
8. The evidence of prosecution witnesses has to be examined against this legal backdrop.
(i) PW-1 Kavita has deposed that Om Prakash and his sons Manish and Naveen were his neighbours. On 23.07.2021, at around 11 p.m., accused Manish and Naveen broke the doors of her house and tried to enter inside. They both abused her in filthy language by saying "randi" "tere ko kothe pe bitha denge" "bhen ke lodi" etc. When she told them that she will call the police, accused Om Prakash told the other accused to snatch her phone and drag her outside the house and also said "is bhen chaudi ko gair ke maar do".
Wife of Om Prakash, Pushpa and their daughter Komal were also abusing her by saying "randi" "dhanda karti hai". Accused used to leave their pet dog outside so that he State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.4 of 13 could bite her children. Accused Manish used to threaten her by the name of one criminal Monu from Dichauan Village that he will get her and her family kidnapped and also get her husband killed. Thereafter, she called at 100 number and gave her complaint to the police when they came. On the next day, she went to the PS alongwith her husband but FIR was not lodged. Thereafter they went to the office of DCP and on his direction FIR was lodged on 26.07.2021 and her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded on 29.07.2021. Further, accused Manish and Naveen used to point towards their private parts and instigate her children to get the video of the incident deleted. Accused Manish and his sister Komal used to make videos of her with their mobile phone from the roof of their house. On 08.10.2021, accused Manish tried to beat her daughter and started quarreling and abusing her when she came out. On 18.10.2021, both parties were called to DCP office and she showed the video in her mobile phone to DCP and while coming out from the room of DCP, accused Manish snatched her mobile phone which is yet to be recovered.
During cross examination that she knows the accused persons since last 13 years and that they were not on talking terms. Further, there were five-six pending cases between them. She denied the suggestion that on the date of incident at about 11 p.m. she had deliberately broken a flower pot outside the house of accused. Further, when accused persons came out after hearing the noise and questioned her, State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.5 of 13 she started abusing them. Further, she admitted that during investigation by the police, she had not shown the broken bolts of her door and also did not give video of the incident made by her in her mobile phone to the IO. She further admitted that on 18.10.2021, accused Manish had not snatched the phone from her hand and had snatched it from the police staff present in DCP office which fact was told to her by the police staff.
(ii) PW-2 ASI Ram Avtar has deposed that he conducted further investigation in this case. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan and also recorded supplementary statement of complainant. Further, as per statement of complainant, she was asked to provide video of the incident from her mobile phone. However, she refused vide written statement dated 08.08.2021 Mark PW-2/2 stating that she will produce the video in Court. Accused were arrested and subsequently released on bail. Thereafter, the witness filed the charge sheet in Court.
During cross examination, he admitted that a handwritten complaint was received from complainant and he did not know as to who had written the said complaint. Further, on visiting the spot of incident on the same day i.e. 26.07.2021, he did not see any broken door in the house of complainant. He could not depose whether any PCR call was made by complainant. He denied the suggestion that accused have been falsely implicated by complainant and further that video footage of the incident was not seized as there was no such State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.6 of 13 incident.
(iii) PW-3 SI Sandeep received the written complaint of complainant after endorsing the same it was marked to SI Ram Avtar for further investigation after registration of FIR.
He was not cross examined despite opportunity.
9. Accused Om Prakash and Manish examined themselves in defence.
(i) DW-1 Om Prakash Soni deposed that on 23.07.2021, he was sleeping near the gate of his house. Mukesh and Kavita (complainant) were fighting with each other. Complainant came out of her house and broke a flower pot placed outside his house. She also abused the witness/accused Om Prakash and his family. Later on, she filed a false case against all accused. Further, complainant has filed 4-5 false criminal cases and two criminal kalandras by falsely implicating all accused in order to grab their property. The accused had given various police complaints but action was not taken.
The witness has relied on the photograph of a broken flower pot Ex.DW-1/E, one CD Ex.DW-1/F and four written complaints Ex.DW-1/A, Ex.DW-1/B, Ex.DW-1/C and Ex.DW1/D. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.DW-1/G. State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.7 of 13 During cross-examination, he has deposed that first application to the police was filed on 28.07.2021, after he came to know that complainant had filed a complaint against him on 27.07.2021. He denied the suggestion that the aforesaid complaint dated 28.07.2021 was a counter-blast to the complaint of complainant. He admitted that the audio in the CD Ex.DW-1/F has not been tested in any forensic lab. He denied the suggestion that he abused the complainant alongwith other accused on 23.07.2021.
(ii) DW-2 Manish Soni has deposed that his father Om Prakash was sleeping near the gate of his house. Mukesh and Kavita (complainant) were fighting with each other. Complainant came out of her house and broke a flower pot placed outside his house. She also abused the witness/accused Manish and his family. Later on, she filed a false case against all accused. Further, complainant has filed 4- 5 false criminal cases and two criminal kalandras by falsely implicating all the accused in order to grab their property. The co-accused Om Prakash had given various police complaints but action was not taken.
The witness has relied on the photograph of a broken flower pot Ex.DW-1/E, one CD Ex.DW-1/F and four written complaints Ex.DW-1/A, Ex.DW-1/B, Ex.DW-1/C and Ex.DW1/D. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.DW-1/G. During cross-examination, he has deposed that State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.8 of 13 first application to the police was filed on 28.07.2021 by his father. Further his father/co-accused came to know that complainant had filed a complaint against him on 27.07.2021. He denied the suggestion that the aforesaid complaint dated 28.07.2021 was a counter-blast to the complaint of complainant. He admitted that the audio in the CD Ex.DW-1/F has not been tested in any forensic lab. He denied the suggestion that he abused the complainant alongwith other accused on 23.07.2021.
10. To prove the charge under Section 509 IPC, it is not sufficient to merely prove that abuses were hurled at a woman. The nature of such abuses have to be proved and further that the nature was such so as to insult the modesty of a woman or a readily identifiable group of women. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. If the word uttered or the gesture made could be perceived as one capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman, then such act would amount to insulting the modesty of the woman. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill AIR 1996 SC 309).
11. The nature of abuses has to be analyzed in this context. In her complaint made to the police Ex.PW1/A, complainant has stated accused Manish and Naveen tried to enter in her house and started abusing her and also threatened to kill her. However, the said complaint does not contain any specific abuse or words which may be construed as so State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.9 of 13 offensive so as to insult her modesty. It has further come on record that the said complaint Ex.PW1/A was already handwritten and then submitted to the police. If this was the case, then what precluded her from mentioning the material particulars of the entire incident and details of the abuses hurled at her by the accused. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C Mark PW2/1, she has mentioned the abusive statements made by accused, which have been reiterated by her during her evidence in court. However, her testimony does not inspire confidence of the court for the reasons mentioned below.
12. To prove the offence under Section 506 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that accused had threatened the complainant with injury to her or someone in whom she is interested. Further, it was to be proved that such threats caused alarm to the complainant. However, the prosecution has not been able to prove the offence under S.506 against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 506 IPC, the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. Intention has to be gathered from the act complained of and the circumstances under which it is committed. Intention, being a state of mind, could not be proved by direct evidence. It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a given case.
State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.10 of 13
14. In the present case, the evidence on record is rife with the fact of previous enmity between the complainant's family and accused. It has further come on record that several FIRs have been lodged by both parties against each other. Complainant has admitted in her cross examination that she was not on talking terms with the accused. The facts and circumstances of the case show that complainant is an interested witness.
15. It is well settled that the Court has to scrutinize evidence of an interested witness with great care and caution. An interested witness would have some direct or indirect interest in ensuring the conviction of accused, thereby increasing the probability of false implication. Thus, testimony of the complainant cannot be relied on to form the basis of conviction, in the absence of corroboration from independent witnesses.
16. Even otherwise, the evidence of complainant is not without inconsistencies. In her original complaint given to the police, she has made allegations against accused Naveen and Manish that they broke open the doors of her house and further abused her. There are allegations also against one Komal and mother of accused. However, there are no allegations against co accused Om Prakash in her original complaint. During her statement under Section 164 CrPC, she has changed her State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.11 of 13 version in so much as she had stated that accused Manish and Naveen tried to break open the doors of her house and further that co accused Om Prakash was also standing with them. Surprisingly, there are no allegations against Komal and mother of accused. In fact, allegations of hurling abuses by all three accused to the complainant have been made by her in her statement under Section 164, CrPC. Such material and unexplained omissions/improvements in her evidence casts serious doubt on the veracity of her allegations.
17. Further, while the complainant has maintained that she had a video recording of the incident in her phone, the said video never found its way in the Court. During her evidence, complainant simply stated that she did not deposit the same to the IO as she did not trust him. However, later during her testimony in court, she altered her version yet again, stating that accused Manish snatched her mobile phone, when both parties were called to the DCP office. She changed her version yet again during cross examination and stated that Manish did not snatch the phone from her hand and infact he snatched her phone from the hands of police staff present in DCP office. She further clarified that she did not see accused Manish snatching her phone from police staff but the same was told to her by the police staff. The name of such police staff is interestingly omitted by the complainant. Further, as per her version, the doors of her house were broken open by the accused. However, she admitted during cross examination that no such State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.12 of 13 incident happened on 23.07.21. She further admitted that she did not show the broken bolts of the door to the IO during investigation.
18. Thus, evidence of complainant does not inspire the confidence of court. In view of the material adduced on record, prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the evidence of accused is cogent in nature and has been corroborated by documentary evidence. Further, nothing prejudicial has come on record from the cross examination of accused.
19. Accordingly, accused Om Prakash Soni, Manish Soni and Naveen Soni are acquitted of the offences charged under Sections 509/506/34 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
SAMIKSHA
SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Pronounced in open Court GUPTA Date:
on 25th of March, 2023 2023.03.25
16:34:54
+0530
SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi 25.03.2023 State Vs. Om Prakash Soni & Ors.
FIR No.281/2021; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.13 of 13