Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd. Saddam Yunush on 7 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA: MM, MAHILA COURT-
01, SED/SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Mohd. Saddam Yunush
FIR No.:798/14
P.S.: Sun Light Colony
U/Sec.: 354/509 IPC
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of 89352/16 & 26.09.2015 institution Date of commission of offence 08.12.2014 Name of the accused Mohd. Saddam Yunush S/o Sh. Yunus Mohd R/o H. NO.44, 1st Floor, Sun Light Colony,New Delhi Nature of offence complained 354/509 IPC of Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 07.05.2018 Final Order Acquitted Date of order 07.05.2018 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. In the present case, accused is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 354/509 IPC on the allegations that on 08.12.2014 at about 08.10 p.m, accused came in between friends of complainant and touched the breast of complainant and physically molested her and he also made indecent and obscene gestures/act FIR No. 798/2014 State vs. Mohd. Saddam Yunush No. 1 of 5 to complainant with intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant.
2. On 08.12.2014 complainant gave a written complaint to the police stating that on the said date she has been molested behind balmiki mandir, Sun Light colony at 08:00 p.m. At that time she alongwith her friends Solemn Vashai and Wungamphy Vashai were meeting near her residence I.e H. No.333, Sun Light Colony. Meanwhile, accused Saddam came in between and touched breast of the complainant and physically molested in presence of her friends. She and her friends caught him and on confronting and asked him to apologize but the accused remained adamant and refused to apologize. It is then that she called on 100 number and reported the matter to police.
3. Police investigated the case and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 26.09.2015. Cognizance was also taken on 17.11.2015. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused on the same date. Charges for offences punishable U/s 354/509 IPC was framed upon accused Mohd. Saddam Yunush on 16.03.2016 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. On 16.03.2016 proceedings U/s 294 Cr.PC were conducted whereby the accused admitted copy of FIR as Ex.A-1, proceedings U/s 164 Cr.PC as Ex.A-2 (colly), certificate U/s 65-B IEA as Ex.A-3 and rukka as Ex.A-4. On 24.10.2016 complainant and the accused entered into a settlement before Mediation Cell, however, offence being non compoundable trial proceeded as quashing petitiion was FIR No. 798/2014 State vs. Mohd. Saddam Yunush No. 2 of 5 not filed by the accused.
5. To prove its case, prosecution cited 10 witnesses including complainant Sopeimi YL, Solemn Vashai and Wungamphy Vashai, and Sakturam as the only public witnesses in its list of witnesses. Despite summons being issued to complainant, she failed to appear before Court. Summons were issued to the complainant through DCP which was received back as unserved and accordingly she was dropped from the list of witnesses. Therefore, despite efforts, presence of the complainant could not be secured. Even alleged friends of the complainant I.e Solemn Vashai and Wungamphy Vashai, and Sakturam never appeared before the Court to testify despite repeated summons. They remained unserved despite summons been issued through DCP. As such, Solemn Vashai and Wungamphy Vashai, and Sakturam were dropped from the prosecution witnesses. IO/W.SI Shashi Dixit was examined as PW-1 and duly cross examined by the defence counsel.
6. Since, complainant and other material public witnesses Solemn Vashai and Wungamphy Vashai, and Sakturam have failed to appear in the present case, there is no other witness who can prove the present complaint and the incidents in question against the accused or identify accused is the person who allegedly committed the offence. SI Shashi Dixit who has investigated the case is not an eye witness to the incident and cannot prove the involvement of the accused in the offence.
7. In absence of evidence of the complainant and other public FIR No. 798/2014 State vs. Mohd. Saddam Yunush No. 3 of 5 witnesses, the prosecution can never hope to prove the allegations leveled against the accused as none of the remaining witnesses are eye-witnesses to the incident or even circumstantial witness to the commission of the alleged offence.
8. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2014 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that the prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused, would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its powers available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right to speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057.
9. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure, when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
10. Keeping in mind the aforementioned reasons and the above case laws, recording of further PE and statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C in the present case would be waste of judicial time, money and resources and will also cause unnecessary oppression of the accused who has anyhow faced the ordeal of trial in the present case for almost 03 years. Hence, by separate order of even date, FIR No. 798/2014 State vs. Mohd. Saddam Yunush No. 4 of 5 recording of further PE and statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with as nothing incriminating has come on record or can come on record against the accused in the present case.
11. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 SCC (Cri.) 258 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution cannot discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offence and thus, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
12. In view of the above discussion, since the complainant has failed to appear before Court, there is no other direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused. Accordingly, accused namely Mohd. Saddam Yunush is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 354/509 IPC.
(Announced in the open
Court on dt. 07.05.2018) (Charu Gupta)
MM/Mahila Court-01, SED
Saket Courts/New Delhi
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2018.05.08
22:37:25 +0530
FIR No. 798/2014 State vs. Mohd. Saddam Yunush No. 5 of 5