Delhi District Court
State vs . Janender on 24 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
( MAHILA COURT - SOUTH EAST DISTRICT )
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
State Vs. Janender
FIR No. 346/06
P. S. Badarpur
U/S U/s 506/509 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1. Date of institution 17012008
2.Date of commission of offence 23.02.2006
3.Name of the complainant State through Sarvesh
Chaturvedi
4.Name of the accused (1) Jainender
5.Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty
Date of reserving order : 22102011
Date of pronouncement : 24102011
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Accused Jainender was arrested by the police of police station FIR No. 346/06 P.S. Badarpur Page No. 1 of 10 Badarpur and produced before the Court to face trial for insulting the complainant and her daughter by using abusive words and thereby committed offence u/s 509 IPC. Also on the said date, time and place criminally intimidating the complainant and her daughter and thereby committed offence u/s 506 IPC.
2. After complying with the provisions of section 207 Cr. P.C formal charge was framed against the accused on 23092008 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses PW 1 ASI Umrao Singh was the DD writer.
4. PW2 ASI Naresh Kumar deposed that on 26.04.2006 complainant came at the PS and gave her statement. She had filed written complaint earlier on 23.02.2006 regarding the same incident. Rukka was prepared and FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses was recorded. Accused was arrested on 06.05.2006. He identified the accused in the court.
FIR No. 346/06 P.S. Badarpur Page No. 2 of 10
He was cross examined by counsel for accused wherein he stated that complainant visited the police station on 23.02.2006 and gave a complaint to the reader of the police station. No public witness was examined. FIR was registered after two months of the complaint. After enquiry, he came to know that the quarrel started on the issue of cleaning of street. Earlier the quarrel had taken place between the complainant and mother of the accused but the accused did not make any complaint. He is not aware about the proceedings u/s 107/151 CrPC
5. PW3 Ms. Ruchi Chaturvedi deposed that on 23.02.2006 a quarrel took place between her mother and her neigbour Jainender regarding the disposal of garbage. In the meantime, she reached there and the accused started abusing her in filthy language. He threatened to rape her. He chased her but she succeeded in saving herself. He also threatened to kill her. She identified the accused in the court.
She was cross examined. In her cross examination she stated that the quarrel took place between her mother and the mother of accused. No quarrel had earlier taken place between her mother FIR No. 346/06 P.S. Badarpur Page No. 3 of 10 and the family of accused but the quarrel had earlier taken place between her family members and uncle of accused. Another complaint was filed on 01.03.2006. Police did not record statement of any other public person in her presence. She went to the police station and got her statement recorded. She admitted that the quarrel took place between her mother and the mother of accused while the accused was inside the house. Heated arguments took place but no manhandling was done. She denied having made any statement before the police at the instance of her mother. She denied that the accused did not come out from his house at the time of quarrel.
6. PW4 Smt. Sarvesh Chaturvedi deposed that on 23.02.2006 some heated arguments took place between her and her neighbour regarding the disposal of garbage. In the meanwhile, the accused present in the court came there and chased her daughter to beat her. He abused her daughter in filthy language. He came there with a sword and chased her daughter to cause her injury. Complaint was filed by her but no action was taken then on 01.03.2006, she again sent the complaint before various FIR No. 346/06 P.S. Badarpur Page No. 4 of 10 authorities of Government.
In her cross examination she stated the accused did not cause any injury as he was apprehended by the neighbour. She told the police that accused chased her daughter with sword. At the time of quarrel, accused was inside the house. Her statement was recorded in the police station but her statement was not read over to her. She denied that accused was not present at the time of quarrel.
7. PW5 Ct. Shankar Lal he was the duty officer.
8. Evidence of the prosecution was closed on the statement of Ld. APP. Statement of accused was recorded wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to prior enmity. No such incident took place. He wanted to lead evidence in defence.
9. He examined Satyapal Sharma as DW1 and he deposed that he has been residing at the above said address since 2001. He knows the complainant as well as accused and his mother, being FIR No. 346/06 P.S. Badarpur Page No. 5 of 10 neighbours. On 23.02.2006 a quarrel took place regarding the disposal of garbage in the street between the complainant and mother of the accused. He was present at the time of incident in his house. Accused was not present there and came to the spot later. The accused only scolded his mother. He did not quarrel or abused anyone else. Complainant is in the habit of quarreling and frequently calling the police. She has implicated many persons of the street in different cases Jaitpur Extension, Welfare Association also made a complaint against the complainant before MCD and MLA. Copy of the same is Mark A1 to A5.
10. The case was argued at length by the Ld. APP for the State and the counsel for the accused. Ld. APP submitted that the prosecution has substantially succeeded in establishing the case against the accused. From the depositions of the prosecution witnesses guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
11. On the contrary, counsel for the accused argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the complainant due to prior enmity. She is in the habit of lodging FIR No. 346/06 P.S. Badarpur Page No. 6 of 10 false complaints against the people as is evident from the testimony of the defence witness. Complainant and her daughter have improved their statements in the court. Delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by prosecution. The accused is entitled to be acquitted.
12. I have heard the rival contentions of both the counsels as well as gone through testimonies of witnesses and perused the records. Complainant in her original complaint dated 23.02.2006 had simply stated that the accused used abusive language against the daughter. The accused came with a sword and threatened the daughter of the complainant. Thereafter she filed another complaint dated 26.04.2006 narrating the incident occurred on 23.02.2006. She had made contrary statements in the next complaint. She had changed her version from her earlier complaint and stated that on 23.02.2006 a quarrel had taken place between herself and the mother of the accused upon which the accused intervened and threatened to rape her daughter. The accused even abused her and her daughter.
Both the complainant and her daughter have given contrary FIR No. 346/06 P.S. Badarpur Page No. 7 of 10 versions in their statements u/s 161 CrPC as well as their deposition in the court. None of the said witnesses have used a specific words used by the accused against the complainant and her daughter. The complainant had stated that the accused used filthy language against her daughter and the daughter has stated that the accused used filthy language against her mother. PW3 daughter of the complainant had accepted that no quarrel had taken place between her mother and the accused, rather the quarrel was between her mother and the mother of the accused. Accused was inside the house when the quarrel had taken place. She has also admitted that the quarrel was by words of mouth and no manhandling was done. The mother of the complainant PW4 has gone to the extent of stating that the accused had chased her daughter with a sword in his hand which is not supported by the testimony of any other witnesses. It is a sheer afterthought and the complainant has tried to improve her case both in her complaint dated 26.04.2006 as well as her deposition in court.
13. The defence witness Satyapal Sharma has marked the complaints filed before the Welfare Association of the area against FIR No. 346/06 P.S. Badarpur Page No. 8 of 10 the complainant. She is a lady of quarrelsome nature. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of defence witness who, in no way can be said to be interested witness as he is known to both the complainant as well as the accused.
Since the incident had taken place in the gali, the prosecution had failed to explain why no public witness has been examined.
Moreover, none of the prosecution witnesses has explained the delay of two months in registration of FIR.
It is a settled law that in order to convict a person u/s 509 IPC specific words used by the accused have to be mentioned. But in the instant case neither the complainant nor her daughter has mentioned the specific words used by the accused.
14. As far as offence u/s 506 IPC is concerned the accused as per the complaint of the complainant had threatened her of dire consequences and of raping her daughter and even chased her daugher with a sword. But as per the deposition of DW 1 the accused was inside the house at the time of quarrel and only scolded his mother which fact has not been disproved by any of the witnesses. Also I would rely on the judgment 86 (2000) Delhi FIR No. 346/06 P.S. Badarpur Page No. 9 of 10 Law Times 609, Delhi High Court, M.S.A Siddiqui, Justice, Kanshi Ram , petitioner Vs. State, respondent wherein it has been held that that mere threat is no offence the threat alleged to have been given by the petitioner must have caused alarm to the complainant. It has also been 2000 CRI. L. J. 4772 Delhi High Court M.S.A. Siddiqui, Justice Amitabh Adhar and another, Petitioners Vs. NCT of Delhi and another, Respondents. Crl. R.No. 84 of 1997, dated 22032000. The threats alleged to have been given to the complainant do not not fall within the definition of criminal intimidation in as much as the complainant has nowhere stated that the threats given by the petitioners caused an alarm to her. It is well settled that mere threat is no offence.
15. From the above prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He is accordingly acquitted.
Announced in open court ( POOJA TALWAR )
on 24102011. M.M/MAHILA COURT/SED
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 346/06
P.S. Badarpur Page No. 10 of 10
FIR No. 346/04
P. S. Badarpur
24.10.2011
Present : Ld. APP for State.
Accused in person.
Accused is acquitted vide my separate judgment dated 24102011. Bail bond is furnished and same is accepted. File be consigned to record room.
( POOJA TALWAR ) M.M/MAHILA COURT/SED Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 346/06 P.S. Badarpur Page No. 11 of 10