Delhi District Court
Fir No.259/02 State vs . Jagdish Unique Id ... on 23 September, 2014
FIR No.259/02 State Vs. Jagdish Unique ID No.02402R00035662003
IN THE COURT OF Ms. HARLEEN SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.259/02
PS Dilshad Garden
U/s. 354/509 IPC
State Vs. Jagdish
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the Case 604/07/12
b. Date of Commission of offence 28.11.2002
c. Name of complainant Smt. Aarti, W/o. Late Sh. Durga Ram,
R/o.H.No.23/144, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
d. Name of the accused, his Jagdish, S/o. Late Sh. Gauri Dutt,
parentage and residence
R/o.H.No.A-193, GTB Hospital
Campus, Staff Quarter, Delhi.
e. Offence complained of or Charged u/s 506/509 IPC
proved
f. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g. Final Order Acquitted
h. Date of such order 23.09.2014
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision
1. The complainant in this case is a widow, having three children. She was 32 years of age at the time of registration of the FIR. In her complaint dated 28.11.2002 which is Ex.PW-2/A, the complainant had stated that she was working as an Office Attendant in UCMS Department, GTB Hospital for the last 8 to 9 years. She got the said job in place of her husband after his death. Her colleague Jagdish is employed as a cook in the hostel. She complained that Jagdish used to make gestures towards her and used to follow her wherever she went. He used to approach her for friendship. When the complainant refused, he extended threats to her. Each time, he used to apologize for his behaviour. Acting on this complaint, FIR No.259/02, u/s 509 IPC was registered against the accused Jagdish at PS Dilshad Garden.
Page No.1 of 6FIR No.259/02 State Vs. Jagdish Unique ID No.02402R00035662003
2. Pursuant to the completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 354/509 IPC was filed against the accused Jagdish. Vide order dated 24.04.2009, the accused was charged with commission of offence u/s 506 IPC and 509 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case, out of which five are public witnesses. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that the complainant used to work in the UCMS Hostel Office where as he was working in the UCMS Boy's Hostel Mess. Accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him. He took a stand that the complainant had lodged a false complaint against him regarding misbehavior and he got to know of the said complaint when a committee was constituted to look into the matter. Accused alleged false implication at the instance of Geeta Bisht (PW-6) and Dr. Anil Kumar Tyagi (PW-5) due to certain personal enmity which they had towards him on account of the case of attempted suicide by one employee Hitkishori, who was a Jr. Asst. in the UCMS Office. The accused examined two witnesses in his defence.
4. The prime witness of the prosecution is the complainant. She has been examined as PW-2. She has testified working as an Office Attendant at the Girls Hostel, GTB Hospital. PW-2 could not state the exact date of incident, although she stated that the same occurred 7 to 8 years ago. PW-2 has testified that the accused used to harass and torture her. She had made a complaint in this regard in her office. The matter was compromised and the accused had apologized. However, he again started indulging in the same acts. Later on, the complainant lodged the above mentioned complaint Ex.PW-2/A. As per PW-2, the accused used to touch her while walking and used to defame her in the department. He used to follow her on a scooter and used to board the bus in which she used to travel. The learned APP for the State cross- examined PW-2, after which she admitted having made a complaint on 28.11.2002. She further stated that the accused used to threaten to kill her and used to put his hands on her body in prohibited areas. One day when she boarded the bus, accused caught hold of her hand and pulled her outside the Page No.2 of 6 FIR No.259/02 State Vs. Jagdish Unique ID No.02402R00035662003 bus. He used to put his hands on her back and private parts. In this way, PW-2 tried to explain the meaning of lewd gestures, as appearing in her complaint. In her cross examination by learned defence counsel, PW-2 could not tell the date when she moved a complaint in her office with respect to the misbehaviour of the accused. She did not make any complaint in writing to the police or any authority in respect of the previous conduct of the accused prior to the registration of the present case.
5. Like PW-2, all the remaining public witnesses have also been cross examined by the learned APP for the State. PW-3 Mariamma Thomas has not supported the prosecution case at all. She admitted knowing the complainant as the complainant was working as Office Attendant in her office in the year 2002. PW-3 however stated that she did not know anything about the present case. Even when she was cross examined by the learned APP for the State, PW-3 stated that she had not given any statement to the police. Her earlier statement Mark X was read over to her, to which she stated that she did not know whether the accused Jagdish was working in her office at the time of incident. She denied the suggestion that the complainant had told her about the improper acts of the accused. She denied having any knowledge of any complaint made by the complainant against the accused to the Principal, UCMS. Another public witness is PW-5 Dr. Anil Kumar Tyagi. At first, the witness did not remember anything about the case. After refreshing his memory, he stated that the complainant and the accused were known to him in his official capacity, as both were employees of UCMS. When cross examined by the learned APP for the State, PW-5 denied the suggestion that the complainant had complained to him regarding sexual harassment by the accused. In his cross examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-5 stated that he did not remember whether the police recorded any statement of his. The complainant did not make any complaint to him in writing.
6. PW-6 Geeta Bisht was also an employee of UCMS. She testified working as a Section Officer in the Officer Hostel in UCMS since July, 1993. She too testified that the complainant had made a verbal complaint to her Page No.3 of 6 FIR No.259/02 State Vs. Jagdish Unique ID No.02402R00035662003 against the accused Jagdish. She too was cross examined by the learned APP for the State. In her cross examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-6 too stated that the complainant never made any complaint in writing to her. She did not remember whether the police had recorded her statement or not. The last of the public witnesses is PW-7 Dr. O.P. Tandon. He has not supported the prosecution case at all. PW-7 has testified to the effect that he was the officiating Principal of UCMS and GTB Hospital from the year 2002-2004. He had no personal knowledge about the case. When cross examined by the learned APP for the State, PW-7 stated that the police had not recorded his statement. When the statement Mark Z was read over and explained to him, PW-7 stated that he did not remember whether in the year 2002, the complainant had complained against the accused Jagdish, who was a cook in the boys hostel. He also did not remember whether the complaint was referred to a committee headed by one Dr. Nisha, HOD, Pathology. PW-7 could not even identify the accused, stating that he had no personal knowledge of the accused and there were other persons by the name of Jagdish who were working there at that time.
7. As regards the remaining witnesses, PW-1 HC Laxmi Narain was the Duty Officer at PS Dilshad Garden on 28.11.2002. He registered the present FIR Ex.PW-1/A on the basis of rukka brought by SI Radha Pandey. His endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW-1/B. PW-4 Ct. Yashpal Singh had joined the investigation of the case alongwith the IO. PW-4 has testified regarding the arrest of the accused from A-193, GTB Hospital Campus. Like the public witnesses, PW-4 too was cross examined by the learned APP for the State, after which he stated that the IO had not recorded his statement. He could not remember the date of arrest of the accused. Lastly is the evidence of PW-8 SI Radha Pandey. She is the IO of the case. She has testified about the various proceedings carried out during the investigation. She also stated that on 29.11.2002, the complainant came at the police station and gave a supplementary statement, after which Section 354 IPC was added in the present case. No site plan was prepared by PW-8, as is evident from her cross examination by the learned defence counsel.
Page No.4 of 6FIR No.259/02 State Vs. Jagdish Unique ID No.02402R00035662003
8. As regards the defence witnesses DW-1 Ashok Kumar Sharma and DW-2 Yogeshwar Prasad, both the witnesses were known to the accused for the last many years. They have deposed about the good moral character of the accused and that the accused was the Vice President of Employees Union. Both witnesses have stated that the accused had called a strike against the authority in favour of one Ms. Hitkishori, who had consumed phenyl due to some dispute with Section Officer Ms. Geeta Bisht and Dr. A.K. Tyagi. In their cross examination by the learned APP for the State, both the witnesses admitted having good relations with the accused.
9. I have heard the arguments of the learned APP for the State as well as the learned defence counsel and perused the entire record. It was argued by the learned APP for the State that in view of the testimony of the complainant PW-2 and other witnesses, the case of the prosecution stands proved. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned defence counsel that in view of the vague testimony of the complainant and other witnesses, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
10. A perusal of the complaint Ex.PW-2/A and the testimony of the complainant (PW-2) reveals that general allegations have been levelled by PW-2 against the accused. There is no specific date of incident of 28.11.2002 or for that matter of any other date. In the complaint Ex.PW-2/A, PW-2 has stated that the accused used to make certain gestures towards her,used to follow her, approached her for friendship and on her refusal, he threatened her. However, in her testimony, PW-2 has greatly exaggerated the allegations. As per the testimony of PW-2, the accused used to try and touch her, defame her in the department and used to board the bus in which she used to travel. PW-2 has gone a step further and deposed that the accused used to put his hands on her body in prohibited areas and once even pulled her outside the bus in which she was travelling. However, none of these incidents have been stated by PW-2 in her previous complaint. Admittedly, prior to this case, PW-2 never made any complaint in writing to the police or any authority in respect of the Page No.5 of 6 FIR No.259/02 State Vs. Jagdish Unique ID No.02402R00035662003 conduct of the accused.
11. Further, there are various contradictions in the testimony of PW-2 and PW-8. While PW-2 has deposed that her statement was recorded in the police station itself, PW-8 has testified that the statement of PW-2 was recorded on 28.11.2002 at GTB Hospital, where PW-2 was working. Further, as per PW-2, her statement was recorded by the police only once. On the other hand, PW-8 has testified that on 29.11.2002, the complainant (PW-2) came to the police station and gave a supplementary statement, after which Section 354 IPC was added in the present case. Furthermore, PW-2 has testified that the police had arrested the accused in her presence. Per contra, in her cross examination, PW-8 has stated that the complainant (PW-2) was not present with her when the accused was arrested. Lastly, as per PW-2, her brother and behnoi (brother-in-law) were with her when she moved the complaint before the police. On the other hand, as per PW-8, PW-2 came to the police station alongwith one of her staff member. Thus, there are various inconsistencies in the sequence of events as narrated by PW-2 and PW-8.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the testimony of the complainant does not state any specific dates of incident with respect to the allegations against the accused. Further, her testimony is exaggerated and the same casts a doubt on the prosecution version and renders her testimony unworthy of credence. Out of the eight prosecution witnesses, six of them, including all five public witnesses, were cross-examined by the learned APP for the State. PW-3 and PW-7 have not even spoken a single word to support the prosecution case. In these circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has absolutely failed in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused stands acquitted of all the offences for which he was charged.
Announced in the open court on 23.09.14 (HARLEEN SINGH) MM (Mahila Court) North East/KKD/Delhi Page No.6 of 6 FIR No.259/02 State Vs. Jagdish Unique ID No.02402R00035662003 FIR No.259/02 PS Dilshad Garden 23.09.2014 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused with learned counsel Sh. A.K. Tiwari.
Vide my separate judgment of even date, accused stands acquitted in this case. Bail bond of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today, u/s 437 A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
(Harleen Singh) MM (Mahila Court) N/E, KKD Courts/23.09.14 Page No.7 of 6