Delhi District Court
State vs Jarif Ahmad on 11 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-03(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CA No.06/16
State ..... Appellant
Vs.
Jarif Ahmad,
S/o Sh. Sharif Ahmad,
R/o Jhuggi No.A-858,
Subhash Camp, Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi. ..... Respondent
Date of institution of appeal : 29.04.2016
Final arguments heard on : 11.05.2018
Date of final judgment: 11.05.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the State for assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 28.03.2016 passed by Ld. MM-02, South District (Mahila Court), Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR No.1180/15, PS Ambedkar Nagar. Vide impugned judgment, the respondent who was the accused before the Trial Court was acquitted of the charges of the offence punishable under Sections 354/354D/ 506 of IPC. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, appellant shall be referred as State and respondent as accused.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as emanating from the trial court record and the present appeal are that 03.12.2015 pursuant to DD no.24A, ASI Krishanpal with Const. Monu reached the spot at Jahapanah Forest near Don Bosco bridge where they found the complaint Sonali Pal who gave a written complaint Ex.PW1/A to the effect that she was 12th Class pass and was working in a Shop at GK-II, New Delhi. On that day, at about 10:30 AM when she was going for CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 1/19 her work and reached near Don Bosco, one boy namely Jarif of her locality came running behind her and gave her a slap and caught hold of her breast and started threatening her to cause her injury with the blade. In the meantime, two-three unknown boys, who were coming on the way, came to her rescue and saved her. Complainant further stated that Jarif had been following her even earlier and one day he asked her to make friendship with him saying that otherwise he would throw acid on her face.
3. DD No.24A was registered on 100 number call made by the complainant and the present FIR u/sec 354/354D/506 IPC was registered against the accused. During investigation, IO prepared the site plan of the place of the incidence at the instance of the complainant but he could not find any eye witness of the incident. Later on, accused was arrested on the identification of the complainant from the place near Jhuggi no.858, Subhash Camp. On 04.012.2015, IO also got the statement of complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C Ex.P-3 wherein, except the change in sequence of events, she narrated the incident more or less on the same lines as stated by her in her complaint Ex.PW1/A of incident. In said statement she further stated that the accused had been stalking her for last 3 years and had threatened her that in case she did not accept his friendship, he would disfigure her by throwing acid or by inflicting blade injuries on her face.
4. After completing the investigation, IO submitted the chargesheet before trial court on 15.01.2016, whereupon Ld. Magistrate took cognizance. Vide order dated 01.02.2016, charge for the offences punishable u/s 354/354D/506 IPC was framed against CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 2/19 accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During trial, prosecution examined only three witnesses i.e. complainant 'S' as PW-1, Const. Monu Yadav who had accompanied the IO during investigation as PW-2 and IO of the case SI Krishan Pal as PW-3. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused did not wish to lead any evidence in defence. Ld. trial court after hearing the arguments from both the sides passed the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2016 acquitting the accused of all the charges of offence punishable u/s 354/354D/506 IPC.
6. The present appeal has been preferred by State/ appellant on the grounds that Ld. trial court failed to appreciate that there are no improvement in the version of complainant and the discrepancies pointed out in her version were minor in nature and did not materially affect the prosecution case; that Ld. Trial Court was not justified in not relying upon the sole testimony of victim and for insisting on the requirement of corroboration through independent witnesses and that Ld. Trial Court erred in concluding that the victim's testimony did not inspire confidence.
7. Ld. Additional PP for Appellant/ State has argued on the same lines of grounds of appeal by submitting that the testimony of the complainant victim was cogent and consistent in all material aspect and trial court has fallen into error by discarding her version by giving undue weight to minor and immaterial discrepancies which are bound to occur especially in cases of truthful witnesses as a person cannot be expected to give a parrot like version of the incident. It is CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 3/19 further argued that small deviation from the earlier statement which does not go in the root of the matter cannot be made a ground to over throw the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that version of the victim always deserves to be given a special weightage because it is unlikely that the victim would falsely implicate a wrong person by allowing the actual culprit to go scot free. It is further stated that in the instant case, the accused has nowhere come up with any plea of previous animosity with the complainant and in absence of any such background, there was absolutely no reason for the victim to falsely implicate the accused.
8. Per contra, the appeal has been vehemently opposed by the counsel by raising the argument that Ld. Trial Court had acquitted the accused after due consideration of the entire material placed before it by the prosecution and since there were various material discrepancies and contradictions in the version of the victim, trial court was fully justified in discarding her version and impugned judgment therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. He further argued that Appellate Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal unless the same is found to be perverse and the impugned judgment does not show any such perversity so as to call for reversal of the order.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised from both the sides and also perused the entire record.
10. PW1, is the most material witness of the prosecution case as she is the victim of offence. As per her examination in chief, on CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 4/19 03.12.2015, she was going for her job and at about 10:00-10:30 AM, when she reached Jahapanah forest, accused came from behind and caught hold of her by her breast. When she pushed him, he gave her a slap and also showed her a blade and tried to cause injury to her. In the meantime, few passers by came to her rescue and snatched the blade from the accused's hand and threw it. As she was crying and weeping after the incident, some ladies (whom she referred as aunties) from the locality also came there and helped her. Thereafter, she made a call on 100 number from her mobile phone. However, the accused whom she correctly identified in the court, ran away from the spot. She also stated that accused had been abusing her and threatening her that he would kill her. She further stated that when she was in 10th class, accused had proposed her but she refused his proposal. However, accused did not desist even thereafter and continued to stalk her and for said conduct of accused she had to leave her computer classes. After she made a complaint to one known boy Kalu, who counselled the accused, accused stayed away from her for one year but thereafter, he again started following her.
11. Further as per her version, police had reached the spot and took her to police station, recorded her statement Ex.PW-1/A and arrested the accused from his house on the same date on her identification. Further that on 04.12.2015, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P. C. was also recorded at Saket Court.
12. In her cross-examination, PW1 further deposes that the boys who helped her on the date of incident were coming from behind. She denies the suggestion that the accused was behind said two boys. Except Laxmi Mausi, she did not remember the name of CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 5/19 other ladies who gathered at the spot after the incident. She denied the suggestion that she did not make the complaint regarding stalking as accused had never followed her. She however, admitted that the accused was having his residence in another gali but she stated that she had no friendship with the accused. Further, that police had not recorded the statement of ladies who had gathered at the place of incident. As per her version, the passersby who had helped her, had already left the place of incident after the arrival of the ladies /aunties. She further deposed that she had gone to police with one lady constable and her Laxmi Mausi who later informed her family members who also subsequently reached police station. Further, as per her cross-examination, accused was brought to police station by four boys. She denies the suggestion that no such incident had occurred or that she was in relationship with the accused or that no passersby had helped her or that she had made false allegations against the accused.
13. Prosecution has examined two more witnesses i.e SI Krishan Pal, the IO of the case and Ct. Monu Yadav who accompanied the IO during investigation as PW-2 & PW-3 respectively. In their examination in chief both the witnesses have deposed well in consonance with each other with regard to receipt of DD No. 24A Ex. P1, statement of complainant Ex. PW-1/A, registration of FIR Ex. P1, arrest of accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B. In addition to above deposition IO has also deposed regarding statement of complainant recorded u/s 164 Cr. PC Ex. P3 before Ld. Magistrate. All the three prosecution witnesses were duly cross-examined by the defence counsel.
CA No.09/16State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 6/19
14. Trial court record further reveals that documents such as FIR, DD No. 24A dated 03.12.2015 and statement u/s 164 Cr. PC were admitted by the accused u/s 294 Cr. PC and the same were exhibited on record as Ex. P1, P2 and P3 respectively.
15. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein, he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him as incorrect and pleaded his innocence by stating that he was falsely implicated. In defence, accused did not prefer to lead any evidence.
16. After hearing arguments from both the side, Ld. Trial court acquitted the accused vide impugned judgment dated 28.03.2016 mainly on the grounds that the version of PW-1 was not consistent and the observations of the Trial Court in this regard are as under:-
13. In the present case, it is duly noted that the complainant/PW1 has not been consistent in the version put across by her. For instance in her complaint Ex.PW1/A relied upon by her in her examination in chief she has stated that the accused Jarif had come running from behind, slapped her, caught hold of her from her breasts and also threatened to injure her with a blade whereas in her examination in chief she has deposed that accused Jarif came from behind and caught hold of her from her back side. She has further deposed that he held her breast upon which she pushed him, he slapped her and also showed a blade to her and tried to injure her. Thus, there is a variation in the sequence of events in as much as whether he had slapped her prior to holding her breast as stated in Ex.PW1/A or whether it was subsequently as deposed to during her examination in chief. Further there is also an improvement as in Ex.PW1/A she has stated that the accused had merely threatened to injure her with a blade whereas in her examination in chief she has deposed that he had infact tried to injure her. It is also duly noted that the initial complaint Ex.PW1/A is conspicuously silent as to the blade being thrown by the passersby after snatching it from the accused as has been deposed to by the complainant/PW1 in her evidence. Thus PW1 has improved upon her version while deposing in the court".
17. However, after careful scrutiny of trial court record, I am CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 7/19 of the view that Ld. Trial court has taken a hyper technical approach by expecting the FIR to contain all details of the sequence of events and further to expect the victim to narrate the incident in the same sequence as narrated by her in her initial statement Ex. PW-1/A. Victim-PW1 in her examination in chief has deposed that on 03.12.2015, while she was going for her job and reached near Jahanpana forest, the accused came from behind and caught her by holding her breast. When she pushed the accused, he slapped her and showed her a blade and tried to cause her injury. Even in her statement Ex.PW-1/A, she has narrated the incident materially on the same lines as she stated that at 10:30 am when she reached the bridge before Don Bosco in Jahanpana forest, accused came from behind caught her by her breast and gave her a slap and also threatened her with a blade. Even in her 164 statement Ex. P3, she states that accused had come from behind, pressed her breast and when she tried to stop him, he slapped her and resultantly she fell on the ground and when she managed to get up, accused took out a blade and tried to attack on her.
18. Here, it is necessary to note that the threat is not always extended through words but sometime it is also extended through gestures. For instance, if a person under some angst or fit of rage rushes towards a person with some sharp object like blade in his hand, his said conduct is likely to cause an alarm in the mind of the person so approached that he may cause him some harm despite there being no verbal threat from said person. Even in the instant case from the version of victim, it appears that accused tried to attack the injured with a blade and his said conduct caused an alarm in the mind of the complainant that accused may cause her harm with the CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 8/19 blade.
19. The core issue before the court was whether the accused tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant by his alleged conduct of catching hold of the complainant by her breast from behind and slapping her in public glare while she was going to her office through Jahanpana forest. The fact that whether the accused tried to only threaten her with the blade or tried to cause her injury with the blade is ancillary to the core question and therefore, some discrepancy with regard to same even otherwise is not material so as to discard the whole version of the victim especially when she is consistent in her statement on all material aspects of the matter.
20. Ld. Trial court had also noted the variation in the sequence of events in as much as whether accused had slapped her prior to holding her breast as stated in Ex.PW1/A or whether it was done subsequently as deposed by her in her examination in chief. It seems that trial court has lost sight of the fact that FIR is not supposed to an encyclopedia of all details of events and minor variation with regard to the sequence of the events in my view is not at all fatal to otherwise consistent testimony of a witness especially when the witness is victim of offence of a sexual nature. Hence, in my considered view Ld. Trial court has shown a hyper technical approach by observing that PW1 has improved her version in her examination before the court as she was silent about the facts regarding the passerby having snatched the blade from the hands of accused and regarding some ladies from the locality having gathered there after the incident, in her original statement Ex.PW1/A. CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 9/19
21. Here it is pertinent to note that the statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr.PC available on trial court record as Ex.P-3 was got recorded by the IO on the very next date of the incident i.e. on 04.12.2015 wherein, victim has duly mentioned about the local ladies having gathered on the spot after hearing her screams and further about the passerby having intervened to save her from the hands of the accused. She stated in Ex.P-3 that when accused misbehaved with her, two boys came from behind and they caught hold of Jarif's hand and one of the boys who intervened to save her also sustained injuries in his hand with the blade which clearly shows that accused was carrying a blade in his hand at the time of alleged incident and she was saved by two passersby who were incidentally passing by the same road where the alleged incident had occurred. She has clearly mentioned in her statement Ex.P-3 that some ladies also came to her rescue after they heard the complainant screaming after the incident. Considering said detailed statement given by the complainant before Ld. Magistrate u/sec 164 Cr.PC, immediately on the next date of alleged incident, the narration of facts given by the complainant in her testimony recorded before the court cannot be treated as improvements merely on account of the fact that in the FIR said details were missing.
21. In Kirender Sarkar and others Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2009 SC 2513, hon'ble Apex court has observed that, "the law is fairly well settled that FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire events and cannot contain the minutest details of the events. When essentially material facts are disclosed in the FIR that is sufficient. FIR is not substantive evidence and cannot be used for contradicting testimony of the eye witness except that may be used CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 10/19 for the purpose of contradicting maker of the report."
22. There are two more aspects which heavily weighed in the mind of the trial court in disbelieving the prosecution case. First is that no public/independent witness was examined and second is the non recovery of weapon used during alleged offence. It was observed by the trial court that since the offence had been committed in the presence of public witnesses and the case was not the one where victim himself happened to be the only witness to the offence, therefore, non examination of any public witness/independent witness assumed importance because the entire case of the prosecution rested on sole testimony of complainant.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that the blade which the accused was allegedly carrying in his hand at the time of incident is not the weapon of offence because it is nowhere the prosecution case that any injuries were caused to the victim by any such object. In said circumstances, non recovery of said blade cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. We are also not oblivious of the fact that generally public at large do not feel inclined to be made as a witness in criminal cases especially considering the hassles which sometime the witnesses have to face on account of lengthy trial and repeated adjournments. Therefore, non examination of any public witness cannot by itself be a ground to discard the otherwise credible testimony of the witness especially when the witness herself is the victim of crime. Now a days when life has become so fast and people are becoming more and more self centric, it becomes difficult to expect that an unknown person would come to the rescue of another person in distress and in such situation to further expect from him CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 11/19 (rescuer) that he would also stand as a witness to support the victim's case in the court during trial, would be too unrealistic approach. In the instant case, before the police arrived at the spot, said passerby who helped the complainant and who actually were the eye witness of offence, had already left the spot, while the ladies who were present there, were not the eye witness. As per victim's version, ladies had come after the alleged incident, upon hearing her crying and weeping.
24. Interestingly, on the one hand trial court believed the testimony of PW1 as consistent to the extent of accused pressing her breast. On the other hand, court disbelieved her version saying that sole testimony of PW1 did not inspire confidence. However, in my considered view the version of the victim was cogent, consistent and truthful and mere fact that it did not get corroboration through some independent witness is not sufficient to discard her version because in any case, it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence, which actually matters for proving the case.
25. Now coming to section 354 IPC which prescribes punishment for use of criminal force or assault on any woman with an intention to outrage her modesty, though the word modesty has not been defined anywhere in Indian Penal Code but, in State of Kerala Vs. Hamsa; LAW (KER)-1986-(6-13). it was held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court that modesty is the attribute of female sex and it is a virtue which attaches to a female on account of sex. The question of infringing the modesty of a women depend upon the customs and habit of people and the acts which are outrageous to morality would be outrageous to modesty of women. In the light of above CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 12/19 observation, the consistent testimony of the victim to the effect that the accused caught her from behind by holding her breast, slapped her while abusing her in a public glare evidently establishes the fact that the accused used criminal force against complainant with an intention to outrage her modesty and his conduct in holding complainant's breast by its very nature was outrageous to the modesty of any woman and thus, was sufficient to make him liable to be punished for the offence u/s 354 IPC.
26. With regard to the allegation of stalking punishable u/s 354 D IPC, the trial court's view suffers from perversity. For ready reference I may reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned judgment which reads as under.
"It is also duly noted that the testimony of the PW1 as to the accused following her does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 354D IPC as her testimony as to him following her since class 10 th cannot be construed to mean that he had contacted her or attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite clear indication of disinterest by her as she has herself deposed that after she rejected his proposal he did not follow her for one year though she has stated that it was because one of her known to brother had counselled the accused. Her testimony as to accused following her again after one year in the absence of any deposition as any clear indication of disinterest by her also does not satisfy the ingredients of the said offence especially as no specific time has been deposed to for the same nor has the manner of the same been elucidated. Thus, with the prosecution failing to produce sufficient proof of the accused having committed an offence under Section 354D IPC the accused is entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt and be acquitted".
27. Before adverting to the testimony of the witness, I may first refer to section 354D IPC which reads as under:-
Stalking- (1) Any man who-
(I) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to
contact such woman to foster personal interaction
CA No.09/16
State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 13/19
repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:
28. Now I may refer to the version of the witness with regard to said allegation of stalking. PW1 in her examination in chief has deposed to the effect that accused was following her since her 10 th class. When she was in 10th class, he had also proposed her but she refused her proposal. She further stated that due to the stalking of the accused, she had to leave her computer classes. She further stated that she had not made any complaint in that regard because one known boy Kalu had counselled the accused and after that accused refrained for one year but thereafter, he again started following her.
29. The version of PW1 if read as a whole, shows that when she was examined in the court she had already completed her 12 th class and at that time she was working as an Assistant in a shop of pharmacy in GK II where she was working for last one year. Said version makes it evidentaly clear that accused started following her when she was in 10th class. He also proposed her which she refused and after the accused was counselled by one known boy Kalu, he stopped following the victim for one year but thereafter he again started following her. The above version makes it clear that accused kept quite only for one year after the intervention of one known boy to whom the victim complained about his (accused's) conduct. However, after one year accused again started following her for which CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 14/19 she had to also discontinue her computer classes.
30. In view of said deposition of victim, the observation of the trial court that the victim's version does not contain any clear indication of disinterest by her or that same does not satisfy the ingredient of section 354D IPC is totally wrong and unsustainable. The witness has specifically deposed that she refused the accused's proposal made to her prior to the incident and accused refrained for one year that too after he was counselled by one third person on victim's request and thereafter, he again started following her are sufficient to establish the essential ingredients of section 354D IPC as the circumstances clearly show that accused kept trying repeatedly to contact the victim to foster personal interaction. Victim's indication of disinterest is evident from the fact that she refused his proposal and also sought help of one known person to ask the accused not to follow her but despite that he continued to follow her for which victim also had to leave her computer classes. I have thoroughly gone through the cross examination of PW1. In my considered view victim has successfully withstood the test of cross examination and the defence failed to elicit any major contradictions or discrepancies in her testimony and the version of victim has remained unimpeachable. On all material aspect, her version has remained unshaken. There is no reason to disbelieve cogent and consistent version of victim, especially when accused has nowhere put forward any plausible defence to urge that he has been falsely iumplicated. There is no defence from accused's side that he had any previous enmity with victim or her family. In absence of any such history or background, the alleged plea of false implication cannot be believed.
CA No.09/16State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 15/19
30. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujrat (AIR 1983 SC 753), the Supreme Court while dealing with defence argument about discrepancies in the evidence in a case involving offence of rape made following observations:-
Undue importance cannot be attached to minor
discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to
possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The power of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be human tape recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.
CA No.09/16State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 16/19 Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is the liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him- Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanisim activated on the spur of the moment".
31. In Jisan and ors. Vs. State Crl. A.550/2012, decided on 21.07.2015, this court ruled as under :-
"Small contradictions by themselves are no reason to throw the case out. It has been held time and again that discrepancies do not necessarily demolish the testimony. Proof of guilt can be sustained despite little infirmities (Narotam Singh Vs. State MANU/SC/0140/1978. 1978 CR.L.J. 1612 (SC) No undue importance can be attached to such discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter or do not shake the basic version of witnesses. (Lallan Vs. State MANUUP/0287/1988: 1988 Cr.LJ 463), it was ruled in Ramni Vs. State, (MANU/SC/0596/1999): JT 1999 (6) SC 247) that all discrepancies are not capable of affecting the credibility of witnesses. Similarly all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impair the credit of a witness".
32. In a traditional and conservative country like India, any CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 17/19 attempt to misbehave or sexually assault a woman is one of the most depraved act. Considering the repeated incidents of stalking, sexual assaults, acid attack etc, these road side romeos, have to be strictly dealt with by the courts. In Ajahar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl) No.2817/13 decided on 04.10.2013, Hon'ble Apex Court had taken a stern view against such offenders, who make the life of innocent girls miserable. While declining the benefit of probation to accused it was held that such crimes are heinous crime and with social condition prevailing in society, the modesty of a woman has to be strongly guarded, In said case accused was convicted for the offence of Section 354 IPC and the allegation against him were that, he forcibly caught hold of complainant's hair, while she was going to attend her tuitions and planted a kiss, resultantly she suffered a cut over her lower lip and started bleeding.
33. However, as regard allegations of threat, though PW1 in her examination in chief has deposed that accused was abusing and threatening her that he would kill her but, she does not disclose as to when was the alleged threat extended to her, i.e. whether prior to intervention of public persons or after that. Had said words been uttered after the alleged incident of criminal assault i.e. after the public people intervened, then said utterance in my view was not capable of causing alarm in her mind so as to fall within the definition of section 503 IPC. From her statement u/sec 164 Cr.PC, Ex.P-3, she was threatened to be killed by accused after the accused was overpowered by passerby and after the ladies gathered at the spot and consoled her. Hence, the impugned judgment to the extent of acquitting the accused for offence of section 506 IPC is not interfered.
CA No.09/16State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 18/19
34. In view of above discussion, appeal stands partly allowed. Accused is convicted for the offence of Section 354/354D IPC. Impugned judgment dated 28.03.2016 to the extent of acquitting the accused for said two offences is set aside.
36. Be put up for arguments on sentence on 15.05.2018.
37. Copy of judgment alongwith trial court record be sent to Ld. trial court.
Announced in the open court on 11.05.2018 (SUNENA SHARMA) Addl. Sessions Judge-03(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi CA No.09/16 State Vs. Jarif Ahmad page no. 19/19