Delhi District Court
Rambha vs . Babu Sahab Rai on 29 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. ALKA SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08
(SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
DLSW020155072016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rambha Vs. Babu Sahab Rai
Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016
U/s 354B/376/509 IPC
PS : Uttam Nagar
Date of Institution : 28.11.2016
Date of Judgment : 29.10.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 5006627/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : Rambha S/o Sh. Santosh Thakur, R/o A-38B, Maharani Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
3. Date of commission of offence : July 2012 to 19.11.2016
4. Name of accused person : Babu Sahab Rai S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai, R/o A-33, Vikas Nagar Extension, Hastsal Village, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 1 of 12 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date: SINGH 2022.10.29 16:40:47 +0530
5. Offence charged : U/s 354B/354C/509 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty.
7. Final Order : ACQUITTAL BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The present case was instituted on a complaint filed U/s 200 CrPC accompanied with an application U/s 156 (3) CrPC against the accused Babu Sahab Rai. It is the allegation of the complainant that in between July, 2012 to 19.11.2016, at A-38B, Maharani Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, accused assaulted the complainant with intention to disrobe her and also captured her images while she was engaged in a private act. It has also been alleged that accused thereby also insulted her modesty by resorting to such acts i.e., he exhibited the objects and the pictures which intruded upon her privacy.
2. After giving an opportunity to the complainant to argue her application filed U/s 156 (3) CrPC, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2017, however, cognizance was taken on her complaint U/s 200 CrPC and she was allowed to lead pre-summoning evidence.
3. In pre-summoning evidence, complainant examined herself as CW1 and Santosh Thakur as CW2. Thereafter, the pre-summoning evidence was closed and arguments were heard on the point of summoning of the accused.
Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 2 of 12 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2022.10.29
16:41:01
+0530
4. Vide order dated 25.07.2018, accused Babu Sahab Rai was summoned to face trial for the offence U/s 354B/354C/509 IPC.
5. Upon the appearance of the accused, the copies of the complaint and other documents were supplied to him and after hearing the parties on the point of charge, a charge U/s 354B/354C/509 IPC was framed against accused Babu Sahab Rai on 14.11.2018 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for post charge evidence.
7. In the course of post charge evidence, complainant Rambha was examined as CW1 who adopted her pre-summoning evidence and in her examination in chief, same facts as in her complaint was reiterated by her and the complaints given to DCP and to National Commission for Women were Mark-2 (colly). It was also stated by the complainant that accused gave tuitions to both her minor sons.
In her cross examination, it was stated by her that accused was residing as a tenant in her house since the year 2012 and remained there as a tenant till 19.11.2016. It was also admitted by her that she was sent into custody in case FIR no.380/2017 (POCSO Act) upon a complaint made by the accused and that she used to write letters to the accused, however, under pressure from the accused. The witness could not recall as to how many letters were written by her to accused Babu Sahab Rai. It was also deposed by her that she never called the accused on her own, rather, she called him whenever his mother asked her to do so when he was late. She further deposed that she went to Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 3 of 12 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2022.10.29
16:41:16
+0530
police station to make a complaint against the accused on 10.11.2016 and also affirmed the fact that the accused gave tuitions to her kids during the month of February-March, 2012 and used to reside in a rented room in their house. In the course of her cross-examination certified copies of certain handwritten letters were also produced by the defence counsel, which were allegedly written by the complainant to the accused and were marked as CW1/D1 to CW1/D7. All those letters were then put to the complainant and she denied having written any of them. All the adverse suggestion of the defence counsel were thereafter denied by the witness.
8. CW2 Santosh Thakur was also cross examined by the defence on the basis of his pre-summoning evidence which was recorded on 01.11.2017 and the same was treated as examination in chief, wherein he had also reiterated the same facts as of the complaint and he stated that accused tried to rape his wife (complainant) behind his back and when he asked the accused to vacate the house, he threatened him that he will show the video of his wife in which he has recorded wherein she is bathing, to the people of locality and blackmailed him by asking for Rs.5 lacs. He further asserted that on 10.11.2016, the accused beat up his wife and they went to the police station Uttam Nagar for lodging the complaint. It was also deposed by him that on 13.11.2016, again his wife was beaten up by the accused and a call on 100 number was made but no action was taken on their complaints. It was further asserted by the witness that on 19.11.2016, his house was vacated by the accused but the accused again entered his house on 20.11.2016 and Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 4 of 12 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2022.10.29
16:41:24
+0530
threatened to kill him and his children.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was acquainted with the accused as he stayed in his house as a tenant from July 2012 to 19.11.2016 and stated that the accused did not rent any room nor gave tuitions to his children in February, 2012. The witness also certified that complainant had gone to jail on the complaint of the accused. It was also affirmed by the witness that a quarrel had taken place between the complainant and accused after which the mother of accused had left the tenanted premises and thereafter another quarrel took place on 10.11.2016, however on that day no PCR call was made rather the PCR call was made on 13.11.2016. All the adverse suggestion of the defence counsel were denied by the witness.
9. As CW3 HC Ramesh Kumar was examined, who produced the PCR call record with respect to phone number 8467959368 from which a call was received on 14.11.2016. Same was Ex. CW3/A.
10. Since, no other witness was examined by the complainant, hence, the post charge evidence was closed and statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to allow him to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidences against him wherein the accused denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent. It was also claimed by accused that at the time of the alleged offence he was a minor and complaint used to harass him sexually. It was stated that when the call was made by the Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 5 of 12 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2022.10.29
16:41:32
+0530
complainant on 100 number he was produced before the court wherein his statement was recorded and after recording of his statement, complainant was taken into custody and an FIR was also registered against her.
11. Accused also examined two witnesses in his defence.
12. Ms. Pooja was examined as DW1, who deposed that her father and father of accused were friends and in the year 2011, accused started residing in the house of the complainant as a tenant along with his mother. She further deposed that on 14.02.2012, when accused Babu Sahab Rai was the student of class 12th, complainant Rambha Devi established physical relationship with the accused and the said facts were told to her by her husband (accused). She further stated that she was also called by Rambha Devi and she told her that Babu Sahab is her husband and that they have kids together but because of her (witness) he beats her and she will come along with police to her house, if she did not stop talking to Babu Sahab Rai. The witness further asserted that when her rented premises was vacated by the accused all his documents and certificates were stolen by the complainant.
In her cross-examination, she stated that she got married to the accused on 06.02.2019 and the incident pertaining to 14.02.2012 was told to her by her husband. It was also stated that she did not make any complaint to the police when the complainant had called her and the FIR under the POCSO Act was registered against the complainant in Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 6 of 12 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2022.10.29
16:41:40
+0530
the year 2017. All the adverse suggestion of the defence counsel were denied by the witness.
13. As DW2 Mahender Mandal was examined by the defence, who stated that in the year 2011, he helped the accused in hiring a room on rent in the house of Santosh Thakur and on that time, accused was studying in school and was residing with his mother. It was also stated by the witness that accused vacated the rented room in November, 2016, and on that day complainant Rambha Devi broke the lock of his iron suit case and took out all his documents and certificates including his ID card and also called the police. The witness further asserted that the complainant was not allowing the accused to vacate the room but with the help of the police, accused vacated the room and thereafter, Rambha Devi was sent to judicial custody for 14 days.
In his cross-examination, he stated that accused is his brother- in-law (Sala) and also stated that no police complaint was lodged against the complainant for breaking the lock of the iron suit case of the accused and for stealing the documents therefrom. All the adverse suggestion of the defence counsel were denied by the witness.
14. Thereafter, DE was closed and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
15. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of complainant as well as the accused.
Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 7 of 12 Digitally signed ALKA by ALKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2022.10.29 16:41:47 +0530
16. In the course of final arguments, it was argued by the counsel for complainant that accused was the tenant of the complainant and in the cross examination of the complainant no suggestion was given by the defence counsel to the effect that the alleged acts were not done by the accused. It was further argued that from the testimony of the complainant it is crystal clear that the offences U/s 354C/354B/509 IPC are complete as on those points no questions have been asked by the defence. Further, it was argued that the defence did not even cross examine CW3 who produced the PCR details which proves that the PCR was called by the complainant. The counsel also argued that the complainant's version has also been corroborated by CW2 who was her husband and from the entire testimony of both the witnesses it has been conclusively proved that the letters were written by the complainant under pressure from accused.
17. Per contra, it was the arguments of counsel for accused that the present complaint case is a counter blast of the FIR which was registered against the complainant under the Provisions of POCSO Act and even as per her statement recorded U/s 164 CrPC accused was 16 years of age when the alleged physical relationship was established between the two. Further, even though it has been claimed that naked pictures of the complainant were clicked by the accused however, the police could not find any such photographs as they were already destroyed and were not available. Furthermore, the matter was also compromised twice between the two parties earlier with the help of the police. It was also argued by the defence counsel that if the Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 8 of 12 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2022.10.29
16:41:56
+0530
physical relationship was already established between the complainant and the accused then how a case only U/s 354 was made out and why the complainant did not further press the charges against the accused. The counsel also claimed that the complainant also did not hand over the documents of the accused to him and rather stole the same.
18. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the case file meticulously.
19. Now this court shall appreciate the evidences one by one in order to decide whether the complainant has been successful in proving its case.
20. The present case was instituted upon the complaint of the complainant wherein she has alleged that she was on various occasions assaulted and beaten up by the accused. However, to prove such an allegation no medical documents or other medical records have been filed by the complainant to support her allegations. Moreover, other than examining her own husband against the accused no other independent witness was examined by the complainant to supply her case with the required authenticity and genuineness. The other allegations which the complainant has levelled against the accused was that accused has clicked her naked pictures while she was bathing but again, nothing whatsoever has come on record to substantiate the allegation rather it all remained mere empty & hollow oral imputations. In this regard the arguments of the defence counsel have also to be considered, that no such photographs were retrieved by Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 9 of 12 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2022.10.29
16:42:08
+0530
the police as those were already destroyed. Thus, in absence of any such evidence, it would be highly unjustifiable to hold the accused liable for the alleged act of voyeurism.
21. The entire record of the case is such which indicates that even the conduct of the complainant was not taintless that is to say, even her role in the entire sequence of events appears to be dubious i.e., on the alleged dates of incident accused was a person of under age and thus, for engaging in physical acts with him as was claimed by the complainant, she herself was sent to judicial custody and in FIR was order to be registered against her. What is rather more bizarre here is the fact that complainant admitted having written letters to the accused although claiming it to be under pressure but such an averment appears to be a pretence in what appears to be a rather volitional act of complainant. Further, even if it is presumed that pressure was exerted upon the complainant by the accused for doing so, why then no complaint was made by her earlier or why did she not tell this fact to anyone including her husband?
22. Moreover, the certified copies of certain letters were produced by the defence counsel, which were filed along with the charge-sheet in case FIR no.380/17, PS Uttam Nagar against the complainant under POCSO Act, and when the complainant was confronted with those letters, there was a clear denial by her that she has written any of them but despite her denial and despite also the fact that, in the report dated 28.07.2018 the handwriting expert could not express any opinion on the admitted and questioned handwriting of the complainant on the Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 10 of 12 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2022.10.29
16:42:16
+0530
basis of the letters which was sent for comparison i.e. the letters marked Q1 to Q6 and Q4/1 to Q6/1 which comprised of the letters Mark CW1/D1 to CW1/D6, however even though, it cannot be overlooked that in her cross examination complainant has indeed admitted of having written some letters to the accused.
23. The version of the complainant has also been very contradictory i.e., firstly in her complaint she made allegations against the accused for raping her i.e., an offence U/s 376 IPC whereas later on at the time of her deposition in the court as a witness it was stated that accused on various occasion tried to rape her. Thus, she herself was not consistent and forthright in her asseverations i.e., whether or not the accused established physical relationship with her or it was an attempt made by him and if it was indeed a case of rape then again, no charges for the said offence or the alleged offence of assault were pressed against the accused at the time when the charges were actually framed against the accused U/s 354B/354C/509 IPC. No appeal whatsoever was preferred by the complainant against the order on charge passed by the court. Thus, all in all the present case appears to be a premeditated complaint without any element of truth in it and therefore, the same cannot be made a basis for convicting the accused or hold him liable in any respect.
24. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, it can conclusively, be held that complainant has failed to prove his case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the accused Babu Sahab Rai S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai is acquitted for the Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 11 of 12 Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA SINGH Date: SINGH 2022.10.29 16:42:27 +0530 offence u/s 354B/354C/509 IPC.
25. Ordered Accordingly.
Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 29th October, 2022. This judgment consists of 12 signed pages.
ALKA Digitally signed by ALKA SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.10.29 16:42:36 +0530 (ALKA SINGH) Metropolitan Magistrate-08/South-West Dwarka Courts: New Delhi Rambha Vs. Babu Sahai Rai Ct. Cases No. 5006627/2016, P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 29.10.2022 Page No. 12 of 12