Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul on 25 March, 2026
THE COURT OF SH. UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE v. RAHUL
FIR No. -: 1076/2014
Police Station -: Madhu Vihar
Section(s) -: 506/509 IPC
Cr. Case No. -: 88014/2016
1. CIS number : DLSH020082882016
2. Name of the complainant : Ms. Kusum Goyal
W/o Sh. Sajjan Kumar Goyal
R/o C-90, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-
92. Mob. 9136474201.
3. Name of the accused, : Sh. Rahul
parentage & residential S/o Sh. Mittan Lal Gupta
address R/o House no. F-101, West Vinod
Nagar, Delhi.
4. Offence complained of or : U/s 506/509 IPC
proved
5. Date of commission of : 21.09.2014
offence
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Final Judgment : Acquittal
8. Date of judgment/order : 25.03.2026
Date of Institution: 23.09.2016
Date of Reserving Judgment: 27.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 25.03.2026
Duration: 9 years 3 months
9 days
Argued by: Sh. Kapil Sharma, Ld. APP for the State.
Ms. Nimisha Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Sh. M.K. Sharma and Sh. Ajay Kumar, Ld. Counsels for
complainant.
Udbhav Digitally
by Udbhav
Kumar Jain
signed
FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Date: Page no. 1 of 18
2026.03.25
Jain 16:52:28 +0530
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that accused is a neighbor of the complainant and a godown belonging to the father of the accused is situated adjacent to the house of the complainant. When on 21.09.2014 at about 11.45 a.m. at Gali no. 3, C-Block, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi, the complainant asked the accused to make less sound while removing cement bags, he started abusing the complainant and used derogatory language against her. When the husband of the complainant also tried to pacify him, he charged towards them with a saria (iron rod) and tried to beat the complainant. He also threatened to kill the complainant. As such, it is alleged that the accused Rahul committed offences under Sections 506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") for which FIR No. 1076/2014 was registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer (hereinafter 'IO') conducted investigation and on culmination of the same, chargesheet against the accused namely Rahul for the alleged commission of offences u/s 506/509 IPC was filed. Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 17.04.2017. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused was directed to appear and face trial before the Court. Accused appeared in court and he was supplied the copy of documents relied upon in the charge sheet in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC").
3. Since prima facie offences against the accused were made out, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2018 framed charge against accused for the offence punishable u/s 506/509 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Kumar Jain Page no. 2 of 18 Date:
Jain 2026.03.25
16:52:35
+0530
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused Rahul to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No. PW1 Smt. Kusum Devi Complainant/ victim PW2 HC Preeti Police official who recorded statement of complainant PW3 Sh. Sajjan Kumar Eyewitness Goyal PW4 HC Pradeep Police official with IO PW5 SI Sanjay Kumar IO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit Number Description of Document The Witness who proved or attested the document Ex.PW2/A Statement of complainant PW-2 Mark Statement u/s 161 CrPC of PW-3 PW3/D1 PW-3 Ex.PW4/A Arrest memo of accused. PW-4 Ex.PW4/B Personal search memo of PW-4 accused.
Ex.PW5/A Rukka PW-5
Ex.PW5/B Site plan PW-5
Ex.PW5/C Application for recording PW-5
statement of complainant
Ex.PW5/D Notice for appearance of PW-5
complainant
Udbhav Digitally
by Udbhav
Kumar Jain
signed
FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Date: Page no. 3 of 18
2026.03.25
Jain 16:52:43 +0530
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS U/S 294 CrPC
Ex. P1 FIR No. 1076/2014
Ex. P2 DD No. 11A dated 21.09.2014
5. Smt. Kusum Devi (PW1) in her examination-in-chief deposed that at the time of the incident, the cement godown of the accused was situated beside her house. Currently, the cement godown is located in front of her house.
Generally, at the time of the incident, the accused, Rahul, works at the godown, loading and unloading cement bags from the truck and dispatching those bags via rickshaw. The witness specifically instructed the accused, Rahul, to load and unload the cement bags in a slow and careful manner, as her children's health was affected due to his business activity. The loading and unloading of the cement bags caused cement dust to fly in the air. In response, the accused Rahul did not speak to her properly and used obscene language, calling her "randi." While using such language, the accused made derogatory remarks against her modesty, insulting her and making her feel deeply ashamed. The accused then began shouting at her. He ran after her while carrying an iron rod, threatening to beat her. The accused also threatened to kill her and her family. Hearing the commotion, her husband arrived at the scene. The husband called the police at 100. Afterward, they went to the police station where the witness's statement was recorded by a female police officer. The accused present in the Court was correctly identified by the witness. The police registered the case and the local police arrived at the scene. The witness showed the police the spot, where the site plan was prepared. The Investigating Officer (IO) requested her to go with him to court for the recording of her statement, but she did not agree due to personal reasons. The incident took place on 21.09.2014 at about 11:45 AM in Gali No. 3, C Block, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi, at the cement godown Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Date:
2026.03.25 Page no. 4 of 18 Jain 16:52:53 +0530 adjacent to her residence. The police may have recorded her statement again thereafter.
5.1. On her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, the witness deposed that she is 10th grade pass and can read and write in Hindi but cannot understand English. Witness admitted that her complaint (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded as per her instructions and dictation, and in her presence. Witness also admitted that she signed the complaint after understanding the same. The witness confirmed that she told the police everything that happened to her on the day of the incident. When questioned as to whether she felt at any moment that anything was not recorded in her complaint, she answered in the negative. When questioned as to whether any specific abusive words, gestures, or actions through which she felt ashamed or embarrassed were mentioned in her complaint, she replied that she did not know whether a specific word was mentioned in the complaint or not. The witness denied the suggestions that she did not mention any specific word, gesture, or action that caused her to feel ashamed or embarrassed, that her statement before the court has been altered to falsely implicate the accused or to have him punished in a false and frivolous case.
5.2. Witness was also questioned whether she asked the Investigating Officer to seize the alleged 'sariya' as it was a substantive piece of evidence, to which she replied that she told the IO to seize the 'sariya'. After the incident, the accused fled the spot, and he was seen at the location at about 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. when they returned from the police station. The witness denied the suggestion that the 'sariya' was not seized because there was no such item at the site of the incident. She also denied that the accused did not use the sariya against her. Witness was also questioned as to why she did not appear before the Hon'ble Court of Ld. CMM (Shahdara) to get her statement Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav signed FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Jain Page no. 5 of 18 Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.03.25 16:53:02 +0530 recorded under Section 164 CrPC, to which she recalled being ill on the day of the recording of her statement and, as a result, refused to go to the court. The witness denied the suggestion that she intentionally did not appear before the court under Section 164 CrPC because she was aware that she had filed a false and frivolous case against the accused. She confirmed that there is an electricity pole in front of her house but denied the suggestion that she falsely implicated the accused in the current case in order to have the pole moved to the accused's house. The witness further denied that she was testifying falsely.
6. HC Preeti (PW2) in her examination-in-chief deposed that on 21.09.2014, she was posted as Woman Constable at Police Station Madhu Vihar. On that day, she was present at the police station and was performing duty at the Women Help Desk. The complainant in the present case, namely Kusum Goyal, visited the police station on that day. SI Sanjay Kumar also arrived at the police station, and he enquired about the matter from the complainant and directed the witness to record her statement. On the instructions of SI Sanjay Kumar, the witness recorded the statement of complainant as dictated by her. The said statement was exhibited as Ex. PW2/A. The same was attested by SI Sanjay Kumar bearing his signature at Point A. The witness stated that she is acquainted with the handwriting and signature of SI Sanjay Kumar and is competent to recognize and identify the same. The Investigating Officer recorded her statement in this regard.
6.1. On her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness deposed that on 21.09.2014, the witness recorded the statement of the complainant Kusum as per whatever she had stated regarding the incident that had occurred.
FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Udbhav Digitally
by Udbhav
signed
Page no. 6 of 18
Kumar Kumar Jain
Date: 2026.03.25
Jain 16:53:13 +0530
7. Sh. Sajjan Kumar Goel (PW3) in his examination-in-chief deposed that there is a cement godown of Mithhan Lal adjacent to his house, where the loading and unloading of cement bags from trucks takes place, causing cement dust particles to fly into the air resulting in health issues for his wife and children. On 21.09.2014, around 11 am/12 noon, his wife asked the accused, Rahul (who was present in the Court), to unload the cement bags slowly and peacefully. In response, Rahul used filthy language and made derogatory remarks, such as "RANDI-VANDI." The individual then went to the scene and told Rahul not to use such language toward his wife. Rahul began to quarrel with him, grabbed an iron rod, and advanced towards them, attempting to strike him. He also used more filthy language, stating, "saale tujhe bhi jaan se maar dunga." Subsequently, the individual called the 100 number, and after some time, he and his wife went to the police station, where his wife's statement was recorded by a female police officer. Later, they, along with the police, returned to their house, and the police prepared a site plan at the wife's request. The individual also informed the police about Rahul's godown. After a while, Rahul arrived at the location, and the police took him to the police station with them. Following this, the police recorded the individual's statement.
7.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness deposed that he studied up to the 9th class and can read and write in Hindi but cannot understand English. The witness was shown his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, marked as Mark PW3/D1 and the same was read over to him. He confirmed that his statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded in his presence as per his dictation and instructions. He affirmed that he told the police everything that had happened to him and his wife on that day. The witness did not feel at any point that something was not recorded by the police in his statement. The witness was questioned regarding his FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed Page no. 7 of 18 Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.03.25 16:53:21 +0530 examination-in-chief where he stated the words "RANDI-VANDI" as having been said by the accused Rahul to his wife, but these words were not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, to which the witness confirmed that he did not mention the words "RANDI-VANDI" in his statement under Section 161 CrPC. On similar lines, he was questioned regarding use of the words "saale tujhe bhi jaan se maar dunga" to him by the accused, to which he acknowledged that the exact sentence "saale tujhe bhi jaan se maar dunga" was not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 CrPC. However, he did inform the police that Rahul had run toward them with a rod and tried to kill him. Similarly, the witness was questioned regarding the fact that the dust particles caused health issues to his wife and children, to which he confirmed that this fact was not written in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, marked as PW3/D1. He denied the suggestions that his statement before the court has been altered to falsely implicate the accused in a fabricated case, or that he was giving testimony at the instance of his wife. He stated that he shared all the facts with the investigating officer (IO), though he did not know why they were not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 CrPC. The individual denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
8. HC Pradeep (PW4) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 21.09.2024, he was posted as Constable at PS Madhu Vihar. On that day, IO received a DD, and the witness, along with IO, went to C-90, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. When they reached the spot, they learned that the caller had already gone to the PS. Thereafter, the witness, along with the IO, returned to the PS, where they met the complainant and W/ Ct. Preeti recorded her statement, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-2/A. The IO then prepared the Tehrir, and a case was registered. Following this, the witness, along with the IO, the complainant, and her husband, went to the spot. The Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Date: Page no. 8 of 18 2026.03.25 Jain 16:53:28 +0530 IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, and the complainant also showed the house of the accused. The accused was subsequently arrested from there, as per the arrest memo, exhibited as Ex.
PW-4/A, bearing his signature at point A. The accused present in the Court was correctly identified by the witness. The personal search of the accused was conducted, as per the personal search memo Ex. PW-4/B, bearing his signatures at point A. The accused was then taken to the PS. Since the offense was bailable, the witness statement in this regard was also recorded. Witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
9. SI Sanjay Kumar (PW5) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 21.09.2014, he was posted at PS Madhu Vihar as SI. On that day, he was on day emergency duty at PS from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM. At around 11:00 AM, he received DD No. 11A regarding a quarrel at C-90, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, he, along with Ct. Pradeep, reached the spot, where it was informed that the complainant had already gone to the PS. He and Ct. Pradeep then went to the PS, where they found the complainant, Kusum Goyal, present with her husband. He inquired from her and asked Lady Ct. Preeti to record her statement. Accordingly, Lady Ct. Preeti recorded the statement in his presence, which was marked as Ex. PW-2/A, signed by him at point B. He prepared the rukka at the PS, which was Ex. PW-5/A, signed by him at point A. He handed over the copy of the rukka to the Duty Officer for the registration of the FIR. Afterward, he, along with the complainant and her husband, went back to the spot. He prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, which was Ex. PW-5/B, signed by him at point A. On the same day and time, the accused, Rahul, was pointed out by the complainant, who was sitting beside his godown. He was apprehended and brought to the PS. After reaching the PS, he recorded the statement of the complainant and her husband under Section 161 of the Digitally signed by FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Udbhav Udbhav Jain Page no. 9 of 18 Kumar Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.03.25 16:53:38 +0530 CrPC. Following interrogation, the accused, Rahul, was arrested as per the arrest memo, Ex. PW-4/A, and his personal search was taken as per the memo, Ex. PW-1/B, signed by him at point B. Rahul was later released on bail. During the investigation, he moved an application for recording the statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the CrPC, and a date was fixed for the same. He gave notice to the complainant to appear before the Court on 18.09.2016 for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. The complainant wrote on the notice that she did not want to appear for the statement. The application for recording the statement was Ex. PW-5/C, signed by him at point A, and the notice for appearance to the complainant and her reply to the notice was Ex. PW-5/D, signed by him at point A. During the investigation, he recorded the statements of other witnesses. After completing the investigation, he prepared the challan and filed it accordingly. The accused, Rahul present in the Court was correctly identified by the witness.
9.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness deposed that the complainant did not specifically mention in her statement the abusive and derogatory words used by the accused against her. He searched for the iron rod as mentioned by the complainant but did not find it. He tried to inquire from neighbors or the public regarding the incident, but no one came forward to disclose anything. He did not note down the names and addresses of those individuals. It was denied by him that he never went to the spot. It was also denied by him that he falsely implicated the accused in the present case at the complainant's instance. Furthermore, it was denied that he was deposing falsely as an interested witness.
10. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed on 26.06.2025.Digitally signed
Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Date:
2026.03.25 Page no. 10 of 18
Jain 16:53:46
+0530
STATEMENT AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
11. On 19.09.2025, whatever incriminating evidence and material were available on record and brought forth by the prosecution, were put to the accused and statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded whereby accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.
12.1. Ld. APP for the State argued that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. PW-1 and PW-3 have supported the case of prosecution, and their testimonies are reliable and unimpeachable. Accused is liable for the offence as oral as well as documentary evidence has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that accused be punished for the said offence.
12.2. Supporting the case of prosecution, Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the case of the prosecution is duly proved. PW-1 and PW-3 have supported each other testimonies and nothing contradictory has come on record in their cross-examination. As regards 164 CrPC statement of the victim, she was not well that due to which she could not go for recording of her statement. Defence of the accused is also not established. Hence, accused be convicted and punished as per law.
12.3. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused argued at length. The gist of her submissions is that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly, when complaint was made by the complainant, she did not disclose what words were allegedly used by the accused and Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav signed FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Kumar Jain Date: 2026.03.25 Page no. 11 of 18 Jain 16:53:53 +0530 even the FIR is silent to the words allegedly used by the accused. This is itself is sufficient for acquittal of the accused as section 509 IPC can only be invoked when specific words used/gestures made are provided/alleged. In fact, for criminal intimidation also, the complainant failed to tell the exact words used at the very first instance when the memory was fresh. Complainant failed to disclose these words in her 161 CrPC statement. On this aspect, Ld. Counsel also relied upon judgments to buttress her contentions. Secondly, the alleged weapon i.e., sariya used by the accused was never recovered. Thirdly, non-recording of statement of the complainant before the concerned Magistrate u/s 164 CrPC is also fatal to the case of prosecution. Fourthly, contradictions in the case of prosecution were also shown from the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 and it was claimed that the words allegedly used by the accused were disclosed only during their deposition before the Court which is clearly an after-thought since even the police officials admitted that the exact words were not disclosed during investigation. Fifthly, even though the incident took place on open road/street, but no public person was called to support the case of prosecution. Lastly, it was submitted that the accused was falsely implicated in this case due to a neighbourhood issue. Hence, since there are contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses and ingredients of the offences not being satisfied, accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case. There are material deficiencies in the case of the prosecution and case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that accused be acquitted of the said offence.
POINT OF DETERMINATION
13. After going through the record and considering the material available on record, the point of determination is whether the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Date: Page no. 12 of 18 Jain 2026.03.25 16:54:00 +0530 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
14. The general burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
15. In Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka, (2025) 3 SCC 612, as relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused, it was observed and held as under:
29. The conclusion that emerges from the above discussion is that it will be essential for this Court to carefully assess the evidence presented, in order to determine whether there is sufficient material to establish the intention and knowledge on the part of the appellants, to insult the modesty of the complainant or, to put it pithily, whether any act was intended to shock the sense of decency of the complainant being a woman.
30. The term "filthy language", when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant's modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509IPC. Had there been references to specific words used, contextual details, or any gestures--whether preceding, succeeding, or accompanying these words--that could demonstrate a criminal intent to insult the modesty, and it might have assisted the prosecution in establishing the case against the appellants.
33. To reiterate, in the present case, the complaint does not indicate that the appellants used language towards the complainant that would warrant an offence under Section 509IPC. However, the charge-sheet alleges that the appellants scolded the complainant using "filthy language". Notably, this allegation is also absent in the FIR.
Section 506IPC
35. This brings us to the offence under Section 506IPC, which the High Court has found to be prima facie disclosed against the appellants. Section 506IPC prescribes the punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation, while Section 503 defines the offence of criminal intimidation.
36. This Court had the occasion to examine the ingredients of Sections 503 and 506IPC in Manik Tanejav. State of Karnataka [Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 132] , wherein it was observed as follows : (SCC p. 428, para 11) "11. ... A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed Page no. 13 of 18 Kumar Date:
2026.03.25 Jain 16:54:07 +0530 and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do."
39. Before an offence of criminal intimidation to be made out against the first accused, it must be established that she had the intention to cause alarm to the complainant. A review of the alleged threat reveals that the complainant is primarily alleging illegal termination, which constitutes a civil dispute, rather than criminal intimidation. It is also the appellants' case, which has not been disputed by the complainant, that the complainant has filed a reference before the Labour Court challenging her termination and seeking reinstatement along with back wages. Given these circumstances and the materials on record, the ingredients of Section 506IPC, prima facie, are not disclosed against the first accused too.
40. After a thorough examination of the matter, including a review of the materials on record : viz. the complaint, the FIR, and charge-sheet, we are of the view that none of the ingredients of Sections 323, 504, 506 and 509IPC are present, even if they are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety.
The complaint is bereft of even the basic facts, which are absolutely necessary for making out an offence.
42. To sum up, after the complainant filed the complaint, an NCR was registered. It indicated that no cognizable offence was initially believed to have been committed against the complainant. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged on 23-12-2012 i.e. 58 (fifty-eight) days after the initial complaint was filed, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 and 511IPC. It is pertinent to note that only Section 509 constitutes a cognizable offence, whereas Sections 323, 504, and 506 are non-cognizable offences. Furthermore, the FIR does not contain any allegations that would substantiate a charge under Section 509IPC. Additionally, the charge-sheet is the sole document that alleges the use of "filthy language" by the appellants in scolding the complainant.
43. The discrepancies and variations outlined above, suggest a deliberate attempt to reclassify the nature of the proceedings from non-cognizable to cognizable or to transform a civil dispute into a criminal matter, potentially aimed at pressurising the appellants into settling the dispute with the complainant.
44. Notwithstanding this, and as asserted by the appellants, there are certain facts that strongly suggest that the criminal proceedings were initiated by the complainant against the appellants with mala fide intentions, specifically to wreak vengeance, cause harm, or coerce a settlement. The presence of the second accused cannot by any stretch of imagination be visualised, if one were to barely read the complaints--initial and subsequent--and treat the contents as true; yet, the complainant alleged acts against him which, according to her, amounted to criminal offence. We are reminded of the maxim res ipsa loquitur and leave the discussion at that.
Digitally signedUdbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar 2026.03.25 Date:
Page no. 14 of 18 Jain 16:54:16 +0530
16. In Basheer v. State of Kerala, 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 6013, the Hon'be High Court of Kerela observed and held as under:
"3. The learned Magistrate, and also the learned Sessions Judge erred in law to find that this prosecution can proceed under Section 509 IPC. Mere insult will not attract Section 509 IPC. For a prosecution under Section 509 IPC there must be a definite allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into the privacy of woman. Thus the allegation must involve modesty of woman or privacy of woman. Mere insult or false allegation will not attract a prosecution under Section 509 IPC. In Annexure A2 complaint the 2nd respondent does not have a case that the petitioners herein had insulted her modesty as a woman, or that they had intruded into her privacy in any manner. If at all the petitioners had spread or published any insulting and defamatory matters, she can initiate prosecution for defamation under Section 500 IPC, provided, the allegations would come under the definition of defamation under Section 499 IPC. Any way mere insult or insulting words, or abuse will not attract a prosecution under Section 509 IPC. In this case there is absolutely nothing in the complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent, or in the final report submitted by the police to indicate that the petitioners had in any manner insulted her modesty or intruded into her privacy. Merely insulting a woman is different from insulting the modesty of woman. The subject of insult for a prosecution under Section 509 IPC must be the modesty of woman and not the woman as such. When there is nothing to make out the essential elements of the offence under Section 509 IPC, the prosecution against the petitioners cannot proceed under the law..." (emphasis supplied)
17. After going through the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, following are the issues/facts that have erupted which raise doubts on the version of prosecution:
a. While PW-1 and PW-3 have deposed on similar lines, but it is an admitted position that none of these witnesses at the very first instance disclosed the exact words used by the accused on the date of incident so as to outrage the modesty of the victim PW-1. In fact, PW-3 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention the exact words at the time of recording of statement u/s 161 CrPC. This shows the words deposed during their evidence are afterthought.
b. In cross-examination of PW-2, witness deposed that she recorded the statement of complainant as stated by her which shows that the FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav signed Page no. 15 of 18 Kumar Kumar Jain Date: 2026.03.25 Jain 16:54:28 +0530 complainant did not tell the alleged exact words used by the accused at the time of incident. Further, in cross-examination of PW-5, who is the IO of the case, he deposed that complainant did not state specific abusive and derogatory word used by the accused. Thus, deposition of PW-2 and PW-5 belies the version of the complainant PW-1 and PW- 3 as it is clear that the complainant and her husband did not tell the exact words used by the accused at the time of alleged offence.
c. No iron rod/sariya was ever recovered to prove that the accused used the same to threaten the complainant.
d. The complainant PW-1 did not appear before the Ld. Magistrate for recording of statement u/s 161 CrPC. Although Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that explanation in this regard was deposed by her in her testimony, but the same reason was not disclosed and recorded in Ex. PW5/D rather the complainant stated that she will directly depose before the court.
e. The site plan Ex.PW5/B is also questionable as there is no signature of the complainant on the same even though it was prepared at her instance. Now if the complainant was present on the spot at the time of preparation of the site plan, then why the same was not counter signed by the complainant. No explanation is available on record in this regard.
f. There is no independent/public witness to support the story of the prosecution. It is not the case that the alleged incident took place behind closed doors and there were clear eyewitnesses of the alleged incident as admittedly there were neighbours present on the spot, but no such person was brought forth by the prosecution. PW-5 in his cross-examination stated that no person came forward to disclose anything. Thus, possibility of falsely implicating the accused in the Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Date: Page no. 16 of 18 2026.03.25 Jain 16:54:36 +0530 present case cannot be ruled out especially when there are various contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2.
g. There is no evidence in particular which connects the accused with alleged commission of offence and a neighbourhood dispute from both sides was given a criminal colour.
18. Due to the issues/facts as pointed out above, it cannot be said that the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of accused. From the complete record the ingredients for the both the offences u/s 506/509 IPC are missing and the same are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The failure to provide exact words used by the accused in the complaint as well statement u/s 161 CrPC are material omissions in the case of prosecution which are fatal to the case of prosecution itself. Reliance here is placed upon explanation to section 162 CrPC and also the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rohtash vs State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 589 as relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused.
19. The nature of burden of proof to prove the guilt of accused is beyond reasonable doubt but the prosecution has not been able to discharge that burden. The allegations in the present case seems to be motivated without any supporting evidence especially the lack of public/independent witnesses.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Goswami (Dr) v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 22 held 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. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in Nanjundappa & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 628. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Kumar Date: Page no. 17 of 18 2026.03.25 Jain 16:54:44 +0530 could not discharge the burden of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, accused Rahul is entitled to benefit of doubt.
CONCLUSION
21. In view of the above discussion, the accused Rahul is hereby found not guilty. Accordingly, accused Rahul is hereby acquitted of the offences under section 506/509 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court today i.e., 25.03.2026.
Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.03.25 16:54:54 +0530 (UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN) JMFC-04:SHD:KKD This judgment contains 18 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
FIR No. 1076/2014 State vs Rahul Page no. 18 of 18