Delhi District Court
Fir No. 187/2016 State vs . Monu Page No. 1 Of 16 on 13 July, 2018
Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan Magistrate
(Mahila court (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 187/2016
PS: Kalkaji
U/s : 354/354A/354D IPC
State v. Monu
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 02.07.2016
Cr.C No. : 96273/2016
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet.
Name & address of the accused : Monu
persons S/o Ramesh Kumar
R/o C109, DDA Flats,
Kalkaji, New Delhi
Offence Complained of : U/s 354 IPC
Offence Charged of : U/s 354/354A/354D IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted.
Date of arguments : 10.07.2018
Date of announcing of order : 13.07.2018
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has stated in her complaint dated 14.03.2016 that two months prior when she was FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 1 of 16 coming from lane No.09, Govindpuri Extension one boy had held her by her hand and said that he loved her and therefore, complainant raised alarm and the said boy ran away from there. On 14.03.2016 at around 2.00 PM same boy was standing outside her house and when complainant got out of her house, he again caught hold of her hand and hit on her chest and hugged her and said that he loved her and she should accompany him. He also said to the complainant "us din tumne shor macha diya tha to mujhe bhagna pada tha, aaj shor mat machana" however, complainant raised alarm thereafter and accused ran away from the spot. She later came to know the address of the accused and his name to be Monu.
2. Pursuant to this complaint dated 14.03.2016 against the accused, FIR was registered on 14.03.2016 and the matter was investigated. Charge sheet was filed on 02.07.2016. The Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused Monu. Charge was framed against accused Monu vide order dated 01.04.2017 for the offence punishable U/s 354/354A/354D IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly, prosecution evidence was lead.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined five witnesses during trial.
FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 2 of 16PW1 Complainant (as per chargesheet) deposed that in the year 2016, however she did not remember the date correctly, on that day in the evening at about 5.00 to 6.00pm, her husband had a milk shop and supplies milk. She had gone to the market to purchase some household articles. On returning from the market, when she reached near her house, accused Monu, held her hand and said "I love you, main tumhein pyar karta hun". Accused had misbehaved with her by touching her breast upon which she objected him for his behaviour and also told him that she shall slap him. Thereafter, she got scared and returned to her house. After returning home, she narrated the entire incident to her husband. Thereafter, she went to the PS and complaint regarding the same to police. Thereafter, police took her complaint Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, police inquired from her regarding the matter. Subsequently, she noticed that whenever her husband was not at home, accused used to come outside her house and used to stand in the gali. Thereafter, her husband also told him that if she saw the accused again, she would inform him. After about one month, she had seen the accused again outside her house and informed the same to her husband. On one occasion, when her husband tried to confront the accused, accused even tried to attack her husband by picking up a brick. Thereafter, accused made apology before her husband and assured him that he will not repeat the said FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 3 of 16 incident again. Before one and half month of making the present complaint accused had first time misbehaved with her at gali no.9, Govind Puri Extension while she was returning home and held her hand and stated that "I love you". She saved herself from him and came to her house and after 1 ½ month, accused was found standing outside her house while she was coming out from her house, accused again held her hand and pressed her breast and stated that "meri nazar aap par kab se hai, main aapse pyar karta hun". She got scared and came back to her house and narrated the incident to her husband. Then she alongwith her husband went to the police station where she had given her written complaint to police, which is Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Ld. MM. Thereafter, witness was shown statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and she identified her signatures. On being asked about the date of incident, the witness stated that the last date of incident was 14.03.2016 and she could not tell the same earlier in her examination in chief due to lapse of time.
During crossexamination PW1 deposed that the accused had misbehaved with her twice. She did not remember the exact date and place of first time when accused misbehaved with her. After the first incident, she and her husband went to the PS for lodging complaint. It was correct that at the time of FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 4 of 16 first incident her husband had given a handwritten complaint to police. Police had registered the FIR on her first complaint. She did not know whether she had a copy of the said complaint or not. It was correct that the place of incident was crowded place. She did not raise any alarm when the accused misbehaved with her on both the incidents. It was correct that there were many people present when the incident had happened. It was correct that her husband was only supplying milk and they do not have any shop. She could not say whether boys are gathered outside of her house in the night and consuming liquor there. It was correct that her house was situated at a corner of gali. She did not remember the exact date when accused was trying to attack her husband with a brick but one boy had stopped the accused from doing so. She did not know the name of that boy who had stopped accused but many people were gathered there. She did not know whether they had dialed any 100 number call or not. Police came at the spot from PS on the next day of incident and also told her that she should inform again if she would see the accused. She did not remember the exact date when she saw the accused after one month. It was correct that accused was standing alone on the road and he was not on bike. There was no fixed time when her husband leaves for work and return back. It was correct that there were many shops in gali no.9 and they were opened at the time of incident and FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 5 of 16 there were many people at that time. She had not informed regarding the misbehaviour of the accused to the public persons when he was standing outside her house. It was wrong to suggest that no public person had seen the incident. She did not know if police recorded the statement of her husband. The complaint filed by her was read over to her by the police officials as she was not able to read or write. The complaint was written on her instructions and the same was read over to her by the police officials. She did not make a call on 100 number after the incident but she had gone to the police. She did not know if she had given the police the copy of complaint filed by her after the incident. It was wrong to suggest that she did not visit the police station after the first incident and had not filed any complaint. She had gone to the police station immediately after the incident on both the dates. Second time also accused had misbehaved with her and therefore, PW1 alongwith her husband had gone to the police station and also accused had entered into a quarrel with her husband.
PW2 HC Ravinder (Duty Officer) deposed that on 14.03.2016, he was posted at PS Kalkaji as Duty Officer. His duty hours were from 04:00 pm to 12 midnight. At about 06:15 p.m. he received rukka from Ct Rajesh. On the basis of said rukka, he registered the present FIR Ex.PW2/A. He also made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW2/B. After registration of FIR, he handed over FIR and original rukka to Ct. Rajesh to handover the same to SI Anish Sharma for further investigation of the present case. He had given certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW2/C. FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 6 of 16 During crossexamination PW2 deposed that he had registered the FIR immediately after receiving rukka. The certificate u/s 65B was issued on 14.03.2016.
PW3 Insp. Anish Sharma (IO) deposed that on 14.03.2016, he was posted as SI at PS Kalkaji and on that day, upon receipt of DD No.26A regarding misbehaviour with a lady, copy of the same was Mark A, he reached at the spot i.e. in front of house no.C236, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, at about 3.00pm, where complainant met him and one beat Ct. Rajesh was also present there. Complainant gave a written complaint Ex.PW2/B to him. On the basis of said complaint, he prepared rukka Ex.PW3/A and handed over the same to Ct. Rajesh for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Rajesh reached back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him. He alongwith Ct. Rajesh tried to search out the accused in the area and no clue was found out. On 17.03.2016, statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the complainant was got recorded and copy of the same was collected and attached with the file. On 14.04.2016, he had gone to Police Booth of DDA Flats, Kalkaji where HC Vinesh Kumar informed that accused Monu was found going into house no.C109, DDA Flats. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Vinesh Kumar went to house no.C109 where accused Monu was found present and he was identified by the HC Vinesh Kumar. PW3 interrogated the accused arrested vide Ex.PW3/B, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/C. Accused Monu was FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 7 of 16 identified by the witness. Accused Monu was sent for medical examination to AIIMS through Ct. Rajesh and thereafter, accused was sent to lockup. He recorded the statement of HC Vinesh Kumar. After completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
During crossexamination PW3 deposed that he made inquiry from the complainant regarding the previous complaint made against the accused, who had misbehaved with her prior to two weeks from the present incident and complainant stated that she had not made any complainant regarding the previous conduct of the accused. It was correct that in the present FIR, complainant mentioned the name of accused as Monu. It was correct that he had not prepared the site plan at the place of incident. It was correct that medical examination of the complainant was not got conducted.
PW4 ASI Vinesh Kumar deposed that on 14.04.2016 he was posted at PS Kalkaji and on that day, when he was sitting at the police booth, SI Anish Sharma came to him and asked to join the investigation. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Anish Sharma went in search of the accused and reached at C109, DDA Flats, Kalkaji. Upon reaching there, they apprehended the accused vide memo Ex.PW3/B. IO inquired about the matter from accused and his personal was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/C. Thereafter, accused was sent for his medical examination to AIIMS through Ct. Rajesh. IO recorded his statement.
FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 8 of 16During crossexamination PW4 deposed that even on the date prior to 14.04.2016 he had accompanied the IO to look for the accused but he was not found at his residence. IO had come to the police booth at about 9.30pm. Arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared at the house of accused. He could not tell as to who had conducted the personal search of the accused. They had apprehended the accused from the ground floor. IO had not recorded his statement of the date prior on which he had accompanied him to look for accused. He did not know the names of the public persons who gathered at the time of arrest of accused. The intimation of arrest of accused was given to his brother. He did not know the exact time when the accused was sent to lockup since he was not present. He did not know when accused reached back to PS after his medical examination. He was on duty on the aforesaid date. He did not remember for how much time on 16.04.2016 he remained with the IO for investigation. IO had called Ct. Rajesh at the spot immediately upon the arrest of the accused.
PW5 HC Rajesh deposed that on 14.03.2016, he was posted as Constable at PS Kalkaji. He received a call from PS to go to House No.C236, DDA Flat, Kalkaji and he reached there at around 2.30 PM where complainant Smt. Kulvinder met him. IO/SI Anish Sharma also reached there and received a written complaint from the complainant. IO prepared rukka and got it registered through him. After registration of FIR, he came back FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 9 of 16 with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO.
During crossexamination PW5 deposed that it was correct that he had joined the present investigation only for one day on 14.03.2016 and he again got conducted medical examination of accused Monu, at the request of IO on the day of his arrest i.e. 14.04.2016. He did not remember whether IO had recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC.
Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to the accused however, he did not question anything to the witness.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
5. Accused examined one witness in his defence.
DW1 Vijay (brother of accused) deposed that his younger brother/accused sat on the bullet bike of Sardarji/husband of complainant and suddenly, husband of complainant came down from his home and slapped his brother/accused. He intervened and pacify the matter. Husband of complainant threatened them that he will teach them a lesson through the legal procedure.
FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 10 of 16During cross examination DW1 deposed that It was correct that on 14.03.2016 at about 2.00 PM, he alongwith accused Monu were present in front of house No.C236, DDA Flat, Kalkaji. It was wrong to suggest that accused Monu caught hold the hand of complainant and touched her breast. It was wrong to suggest that the accused had hold the hand of complainant in gali No.9 when she was coming back from market to her house and advanced unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. He denied all the suggestions put to him.
6. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel.
7. Ld. APP for the state has argued that in the present matter all the witnesses have corroborated the story of the prosecution and there is no contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses and therefore accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged.
8. However, on the other hand Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the accused have been falsely implicated by the complainant and it is an admitted fact that the complainant and the accused are residing in a same locality for several years and the complainant always objected on parking of vehicles. Further, the complainant FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 11 of 16 has not even mentioned the date, time of the incident upon which present complaint Ex.PW1/A was registered. Further, the allegations against the accused for stalking are also not made out since the complainant has claimed to mention any specific details of the incidents on which accused had followed her or had repeatedly tried to make contact with the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that the allegations of the complainant pertaining to stalking are also not substantiated since she has failed to place on record any previous complaints made to the police officials, as stated by her in her examination in chief. Further, the present complaint was filed by the complainant after having spoken to her family members and therefore, the same is false as the allegations are an after thought. It is further argued that there is no corroboration in the testimony of the witnesses and the statement of the complainant. It is also argued that the complaint is vague and the allegations are fanciful and do not inspire confidence and therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted since no medical legal certificate of the complainant was prepared on the alleged date of incident.
Court Observation:
9. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:
FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 12 of 16In the present matter, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses among which PW1 was the complainant and all remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal in nature. In the present matter, the star witness of the prosecution is the complainant, who is also the victim in the present matter. However, if we carefully peruse her complaint Ex.PW1/A, her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC and her testimony before the court, there are glaring contradictions and no corroboration. Further, there is vast improvement in the testimony of the complainant and the complainant has failed to even narrate the manner in which the incident occurred and has not even stated the date or month of the incident. PW1/complainant has admitted during her examination on behalf of accused that the place of incident was a crowded place however, when the accused misbehaved with her, she did not raise alarm. She admitted that there were many public persons when the incident occurred. She further stated that the accused had misbehaved with her on previous one more occasion and she had filed a complaint upon which an FIR was registered, however, no such complaint or copy of FIR was placed on record. She did not remember the dates of any of incidents upon which accused had misbehaved with her on earlie occasion or the date when the accused had tried to hit her husband by the brick. Further, the aforesaid fact of the accused attacking the husband of complainant by brick does not find FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 13 of 16 mention in her complaint Ex.PW1/A. She further admitted that no 100 number call was made from her side and police had reached the spot to inquire about the matter only on the next day. Further, the IO in the present matter did not examine the husband of the complainant and did not even prepare the site plan of the spot where the alleged incident had occurred. It is also admitted by PW4 that he did not know the time of the arrest of the accused and was not aware as to when accused returned back to the police station after his medical examination. PW3, the IO of the present matter has also admitted during his crossexamination on behalf of the accused that the complainant had not made any complaint prior to the present complaint, which itself shows that there was no prior incident of stalking and no medical examination of the complainant was conducted to ascertain if there was any incident of criminal force or assault upon the complainant which was with the intention to outrage her modesty.
10. In the present matter, accused has been charged for the offence u/s 354/354A/354D IPC, however, none of the ingredients of the aforesaid offences have been proved by the prosecution against the accused.
11. In the present fact and circumstances, accused cannot be held liable for causing any injury to the complainant as neither the FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 14 of 16 complainant has stated in her examination in chief that a criminal force was used against her.
12. The improvement in the version of PW1 is crucial as Ex.
PW1/A is a hand written complaint admittedly prepared by her, soon after the incident and there is no justification or plausible ground as to why the complainant was unable to narrate the incident explicitly or elaborate upon the details particularly when the same has been written on the same day. The very fact that the complainant did not mention about the aforesaid fact and was never taken for medical examination from the place of incident itself shows that the complainant had not suffered any injury upon the alleged assault upon her by the accused. Further, the allegations of touching the complainant with the intention to outrage her modesty are also not sustainable as the same are completely vague and do not inspire confidence. The complainant has levelled general allegations against the accused and the same are devoid of merit as the complainant has not explained the same even during her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC. Further, the story of the complainant cannot be believed as she herself has admitted during her crossexamination that at the place of incident, there were several public persons but none was examined by prosecution. Therefore, there was nothing to lend support to the testimony of PW1 apart from bald averments made in the complaint and her testimony before the court. Therefore, it FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 15 of 16 can be safely concluded that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In view of the above discussion and considering the material, available on record, the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused Monu s/o Ramesh Kumar is acquitted for the offences U/s 354/354A/354D IPC.
Announced in the Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 13.07.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate02
(Mahila Court), SouthEast,
Saket, New Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2018.07.13
15:43:23
+0530
FIR No. 187/2016 State Vs. Monu Page No. 16 of 16