Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Kishore on 16 September, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT): DWARKA, NEW DELHI
State Vs Raj Kishore
FIR NO. 188/11
Police Station Dwarka North
Date of Institution of case 07.09.2011
Date on which case 14.09.2011
reserved for judgment:
Date of judgment 16.09.2011
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a)Date of offence 21.08.2011
b)Offence complained of u/s 354/323/509 IPC
c)Name of accused and Raj Kishore S/o Sh. Puttu Lal
his parentage R/o Plot no. 97, Near Pragti Public
School, Sector 13, Dwarka, N.Delhi
d)Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
e)Final Order Convicted u/s 354 IPC,323 IPC &
509 IPC
JUDGMENT:
Brief facts of the case of Prosecution as follows:
1. The complainant Anju who is related to the accused Raj Kishore as his step daughter. As per the version of the prosecution, the accused had come home drunk on the fateful night, gave beatings to his wife as well as the complainant who is a child, tore her underwear and showed his FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 1 2 penis to her by removing his own underwear after which the police was called and she was taken to the hospital for medical examination. She gave the statement to the police officials on the basis of which FIR got registered. Accused person was accordingly taken into custody by the police officials. After conclusion of the necessary investigation, charge sheet in the matter was prepared and filed in the Court. Cognizance upon the offence was then taken up by the court.
2. Charge U/s 354 IPC/323/509 IPC was framed against the accused person on 08.09.2011 to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Matter was then listed for Prosecution Evidence. Prosecution in support of its case has examined ten witnesses. Defence has however not examined any witness.
4. PW1 WHC Usha Rani who had proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A. She was cross examined by the counsel for the accused.
5. PW2 Lady Ct. Parmilla Khatri who deposed to have taken the complainant and her mother to the DDU hospital for medical examination of the complainant and collected the copy of MLC of the complainant which is Mark A on record as well as the pullanda handed over by the doctor alongwith sample seal which she in turn handed over to the Investigating Officer in the police station. She further deposed to have proceeded to the spot alongwith SI Sandeep Shah and PSI FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 2 3 Surender after seizure of the exhibits handed over to them vide Ex.
PW2/A bearing her signatures at point A. She correctly identified the case property i.e. One white colour skirt and one underwear of blue colour having white strips on it as Ex. P1 collectively. In cross examination by the counsel for the accused person, PW2 Lady Ct. Parmilla Khatri declined the suggestion that she never took the complainant to the hospital.
6. PW3 is Ms. Anju aged 11 years who was put certain question to ascertain her understanding level and her maturity. After conclusion that she was comfortable with the answers and has been able to clearly express herself her testimony was recorded. She stated that her father who is the accused in the present matter, came back home drunk after which a fight ensued between her father and mother. She further deposed that her father started beating her and her mother after which he pressed her neck, torn her underwear and showed his private parts to her by removing his underwear. Thereafter police officials was called and she was taken to the medical examination and then for the concerned Ld. Magistrate for recording of her statements. She proved her statement as Ex.PW3/A. She identified her signatures on the said statement Ex. PW3/A at point A on record. She also identified the case property as Ex. P1which is a white skirt and one blue underwear having blue strips on it.
7. In cross examination by the Counsel for the accused, PW3 Anju stated FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 3 4 that entire incident happened in the presence of her mother. She declined the suggestion that she has falsely implicated his father in the present case on persuasion of mother to teach him a lesson. She stated that quarrel took place at about 2am to 3am in the midnight and that she was awake at that time. She also stated that her mother called the police officials who happened to be patrolling on the road at the relevant time. She also stated that she has not received any injury on her person. She further stated that there was a complete darkness in the room but things were visible because of the street light.
8. PW4 Smt. Seema who deposed that her husband came back home at about 10pm drunk and again went outside on pretext of eating eggs, again came back after 12 hours and started fighting with her. She further deposed that she was kicked by the accused who also started beating her daughter Anju , tore her underwear and showed his private parts by removing his underwear and also tried to press the neck of her daughter, after which she called up the police, who took her and her daughter to the hospital. She stated that her husband was arrested from home vide Arrest Memo Ex. PW4/A bearing her thumb impression at point A. She proved the Personal Search Memo as Ex. PW4/B bearing her thumb impression at point A. In cross examination by the DLSA Counsel for the accused, PW4 Seema declined the suggestion that accused had not beaten her daughter or did not tear the underwear of her daughter. She admitted that accused was in the state of FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 4 5 intoxication and that she had not suffered any injury as such.
9. PW5 is Sh. Raj Kishore who deposed that accused who was in drunken condition and his wife Seema started fighting with each other, shouting in a loud voice and as such he tried to intervene between them but they did not relent and kept on fighting after which he went off to his house and slept. He was cross examined by the counsel.
10.PW6 is HC Charan Singh who proved the DD entry no. 9A as Ex.PW6/A recorded by him on the instructions of the mother of the complainant Seema.
11. PW7 SI Sandeep Shah who deposed to have recorded the statement of complainant Anju which is Ex. PW3/A on record, prepared Rukka Ex. PW7/A. He proved the Site Plan as Ex. PW7/B prepared at the instance of Smt. Seema . He seized pullanda vide Seizure Memo as Ex. PW2/A of the articles handed over by PW2 Lady Ct. Parmilla Khatri. He deposed to have arrested the accused vide Arrest Memo as Ex. PW4/A, conducted the personal search vide Personal Search Memo as Ex. PW4/B. He had moved the application for the recording of the statement u/s 164 CrPC which is Ex. PW7/D on record bearing his signatures at point A. He was cross examined.
12.PW8 HC Satbir who proved the entry in the register no. 19 of one sealed pullanda bearing the seal of CMO DDU hospital and one sample seal bearing the seal of CMO DDU hospital kept in the malkhana as Ex. PW8/A and the said case property was not tampered or altered till the FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 5 6 same remained in his custody. He was also cross examined by counsel for convict.
13.PW8 A is Dr. Kumar Narender Mohan who deposed to have examined the patient brought by Lady Ct. Pramilla Khatri in the hospital with the history of attempting sexual assault by step father as told by the patient herself. He further deposed a mild swelling over mid portion of upper lip was found on external examination of patient. He proved his report as Ex.PW8A/A on record. He was not cross examined despite opportunity.
14.PW9 is Dr. Parul Mehra who had made gynecological examination of complainant on 21.08.2011 in which she opined that there was no external injury over vulva and thighs and hymen was intact andthere was no bleeding per vagina. She proved her report as Ex. PW9/A bearing her signatures at point A. In cross examination by the counsel for the accused, she admitted that there was no internal injury found during the examination. She declined the suggestion that she had prepared the MLC on the behest of the police.
15.Statement of accused person u/s 313 CrPC has been recorded in which all the accused person denied the allegations and stated that he did not want to lead the evidence in defence.
16.Final arguments advanced. Ld. APP has argued that the case of the prosecution was proved by the conjoint reading of testimony of various prosecution witnesses. Counsel for accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the matter and as such, it was FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 6 7 only a scuffle between the husband and wife and that the daughter had nothing to do with the incident in question.
17. I have perused the case record carefully.
18.There are two most significant witnesses in the matter, PW3 Anju who is the complainant herself and PW4 Seema who is the mother of the complainant.
19.PW3 Anju is only 11 years old. She was put certain questions prior to recording of her testimony in order to understand her maturity level and the conclusive opinion was derived qua her sense of understanding after which her testimony was recorded . She was put to the cross examination by th counsel for the accused persons. She faced the questions put to her with absolute ease and explained/narrated the events with equal ease. She withstood the test of examination. The defence has not been cull out even a single answer from her which can raise any doubt on her credibility or her reliability. She has proved her statement given to the police as Ex. PW3/A. Her testimony before the court is in absolutely symphony with her narration given to the police and even her statement given before the Magistrate for recording of statement u/s 164 CrPC. Facts which she has deposed about overlappingly have been testified by her mother who appeared in the witness box as PW4.
20.Defence has not been able to get any contradiction from the two testimonies of PW3 Anju and PW4 Seema. Defence has taken a FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 7 8 stand that the child conspired with the mother to hold father falsely responsible for something he had not done. The defence is absolutely weak and untenable. Further, that there was a complete darkness in the room has been portrayed by the defence occasioning the child not having to see her own father. It is part of testimony that the things were visible due to street light. Accordingly, even this defence has absolutely no stand or substantiation.
21.There is no doubt/dispute about the identity of accused person who is related to the complainant as her own father. PW3 Anju and PW4 Seema who were the only ones present at the time of incident have both categorically deposed about the facts pertaining to the incident in question. The facts are corresponding in both the testimonies as well as in their respective submissions made before the police and the concerned Ld. Magistrate. There is absolutely no contradiction brought on record in the testimony of any of the prosecution witness as far as the fact of the case are concerned. There is no reason to doubt the deposition of the two prosecution witnesses which have appeared in the witness box. There is no occasion for a small child or for the wife to level false allegations against her husband without any rhyme or reason. Any reason for which she could have raised such a plea has also not been brought on record by defence. Police was called immediately. The defence has not raised the argument that accused was not present at the spot at the time of incident. The torn underwear FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 8 9 has been identified by the witness PW3 Anju and PW4 Seema before the court. The testimony accordingly brought forth on behalf of the prosecution is clinching, clear, categoric, specific and convincing with nothing to create any doubt in the version of the prosecution. Infact the other prosecution witnesses apart from PW3 Anju and PW4 Seema have also deposed and proved the respective documentation effected by them as part of their official duty during the investigation of the present case, the medical examination reports have also been categorically proved.
22.Accordingly, in view of the discussion made above, the prosecution version that the accused had given beatings to his wife Seema as well as to their child Anju, pressed her neck, tore her underwear and also deliberately showed his penis after removing his underwear to the child stand conclusively and convincingly proved by the prosecution. The testimonies are well knit and confidence inspiring with no material contradiction on record, sufficient to create any doubt qua credibility or reliability of any of the prosecution witness. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC, 323 IPC and 509 IPC. Ordered accordingly.
(Announced in the open court (Shelly Arora)
today i.e.16.09.2011) MM(Mahila Court)
Dwarka: New Delhi
FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 9
10
FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 10
11
FIR no. 188/11 State Vs Raj Kishore 11