Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/286/2012 on 20 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MM02, MAHILA COURT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
FIR No. : 286/12
PS : Aman Vihar
U/s 509/507 IPC
Unique I.D. No. 02404R0154942013
State v. Anil Kumar
J U D G M E N T :
a)Serial No of the case : 165/2/14
b)Date of commission of offence : 26.09.2012
c)Name of the complainant : Ruby D/o Ram Singh, R/o A65,
Lakhi Ram Park, Aman Vihar,
Delhi
d)Name parentage and address
of accused : Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan
Gopal R/o VPO
Chandpur, Delhi.
e) Offence complaint of : 509/507 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Date on which judgment was
reserved : 20.05.2015
h)Final Order : Acquitted
i)Date of decision : 20.05.2015
Brief Statement and Reasons for Decision:
1. Accused is facing trial on the allegations that he made indecent gestures and uttered obscene words within the hearing of complainant FIR No.286/12 State v. Anil Kumar Page Number 1 of 6 Ruby intending to insult her modesty. He also sent anonymous communication threatening the complainant Ruby with injury to her person with the intention to cause alarm to her. On these allegations, investigation was carried out and after investigation charge sheet for the offence u/s 509/507 IPC has been filed. On appearance of accused, copy of the charge sheet was supplied. Arguments on charge were heard. Prima facie charge for the offence u/s 509/507 IPC was made out against accused Anil Kumar S/o Krishan Gopal and charge was accordingly framed by the Ld. Predecessor to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses.
PW 1 Ruby stated that she does not remember the date of incident. She was working as a beautician in a shop at Pitampura. She went to parlor at 11 am and came back at about 8 pm. She had made a complaint at no. 100 about the incident that some person followed her and made calls at her mobile number. She did not remember the said mobile number on which accused sent SMS and called her. She neither gave any complaint to the police nor got registered any case against accused. She did not identify the accused in the Court. As she was resiling from her earlier statement, she was FIR No.286/12 State v. Anil Kumar Page Number 2 of 6 cross examined by Ld. APP. Despite cross examination by Ld. APP for State, nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from her testimony. She stated that accused did not follow her at any point of time. She made the call to the police at 100 number at the instance of some friends. The accused never threatened her. She stated that accused who is present in the Court is not the same persons who chased, threatened and misbehaved with her.
PW2 Phoolo is the mother of the complainant. She also resiled from her earlier statement. She stated that she did not know about the incident. She also did not know the accused present in the Court. She had seen the accused first time in the Court on that day. Accused was not arrested in her presence however her signatures were obtained on blank papers. She admitted her signatures at point B on arrest memo of accused Ex.PW1/A. Despite cross examination by Ld. APP for State, nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from her testimony.
PW3 Monu also resiled from his earlier statement and stated that he did not know anything about the present case. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP for State.
PW4 Ct. Surender stated that on 26.09.12, he was posted at Aman Vihar as constable. After receiving the DD entry no. 28A, he FIR No.286/12 State v. Anil Kumar Page Number 3 of 6 along with IO SI Sumit Kumar reached at Lakhiram Park and met the complainant namely Ruby D/o Ram Singh who disclosed that one boy namely Anil Kumar used to harass her from last 10 days. Accused Anil used to visit at R.K Plaza, Sector 21, Rohini. After recording the statement of the complainant and registration of FIR, IO arrested the accused and personally searched the accused vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
3. In the present matter, the complainant and the public witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Despite being cross examined by Ld. APP for State, nothing incriminating against the accused could be extracted from their testimony. The remaining witnesses were either police witnesses or formal witnesses, hence prosecution evidence was closed.
4. As the complainant as well as public witnesses failed to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the offence, therefore, for want of incriminating evidence against the accused, his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. Accused chose not to lead any evidence in defence. Hence, the matter was listed for final arguments.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel, Sh. Gajraj Singh for the accused and perused the Court record. It is cardinal principle of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent FIR No.286/12 State v. Anil Kumar Page Number 4 of 6 till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favor of the accused.
6. In the present case, the complainant/victim is the most important and vital witness of the incident however complainant has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused. She denied to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the present offence. Similarly, the public witnesses also did not support the prosecution version and did not identify the accused.
7. The identity of the accused is most germane aspect in the criminal trial to prove the guilt of the accused, which could not be established by the prosecution. Even if it is presumed that a call on 100 number was made on which the complainant gave the statement to the police as well as statement of complainant was recorded in the Court, however, as the complainant failed to testify against the accused in the Court, benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Hence, prosecution has failed to discharge the onus placed upon it. Accordingly the accused Anil Kumar is entitled to acquittal as his guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No.286/12 State v. Anil Kumar Page Number 5 of 6
8. In view of the above discussion, accused Anil Kumar S/o Krishan Gopal stands acquitted for the offence u/s 509/507 IPC. The accused is directed to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.10,000/ and furnish his recent photograph and present address. Bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C furnished by the accused and are accepted for 6 months from today. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 20th day of May, 2015 Susheel Bala Dagar Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court02,North West Rohini Courts, Delhi All pages signed.
FIR No.286/12 State v. Anil Kumar Page Number 6 of 6