Delhi District Court
Fir No: 106/13 1 State vs . Rohit Kundu on 16 October, 2014
FIR No: 106/13 1 State vs. Rohit Kundu
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : ROHINI, DELHI.
FIR No. 106/13
PS - Pr. Vihar
U/s. 354A/509/323 IPC
ID No. 02404R003861243
16.10.2014
STATE VS. ROHIT KUNDU
Date of institution : 07.06.2013
Date of Commission of Offence : 07.03.2013
Name of the Complainant : Ms. Aarti
Name, parentage & Add. Of the
Accused : Rohit Kundu
S/o Sh. Sunil Singh Kundu,
R/o H. No. A90,
Yadav Nagar, Village Badli.
Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 354A/509/323 IPC.
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Date for reserve of Order : 16.10.2014
Date of announcing of order : 16.10.2014
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The present FIR was registered at PS Pr. Vihar against FIR No. 106/13 State vs. Rohit Kundu 1 of 6 FIR No: 106/13 2 State vs. Rohit Kundu accused namely Rohit Kundu for the offences U/s 354A/509/323 IPC.
2. In brief, case of the complainant is that on 07.03.13 at about 8:30 p.m. in the bus running on route no. 889 Sector 11 Rohini, accused Rohit Kundu misbehaved with the complainant Ms. Aarti by touching her on her body parts with his shoes and abused her with intention to outrage her modesty and on being objected by the complainant accused slapped her and thereby committed offence punishable U/s 354A/323/509 IPC.
3. Investigation commenced and concluded by filing the charge sheet. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was made. Arguments on charge were heard and charge u/s 354A/323/509 IPC was framed against the accused Rohit Kundu to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses namely Ms. Aarti (complainant) as PW1, Sh. Suresh (husband of complainant) as PW2, Sh. Ashok Kumar as PW3, Sh. Karamvir (driver of the bus) as PW4. As all the four key witnesses turned hostile, PE was closed by the court as no useful purpose would be served by examining the other formal witnesses. SA and DE dispensed with and final arguments heard on behalf of State as well as accused. Record perused.
FIR No. 106/13 State vs. Rohit Kundu 2 of 6
FIR No: 106/13 3 State vs. Rohit Kundu
5. So far as offence U/s 354 A IPC is concerned it stipulates that :
"Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment - A man committing any of the following acts Physical contact and advanced involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
i) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
ii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
iii) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (I) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv0 of sub section 91) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. "
6. So far as charge U/s 323 IPC is concerned it provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and therefore it is necessary to go through the section 319 IPC which provided the definition of hurt:
Section 319 stipulates as under: "Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any FIR No. 106/13 State vs. Rohit Kundu 3 of 6 FIR No: 106/13 4 State vs. Rohit Kundu person is said to cause hurt"
7. So far as offence U/s 509 IPC is concerned it provides that :
" Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
8. PW1 Aarti (complainant) has deposed in her examination in chief that she cannot identify the person who touched her body parts with the shoes and slapped her and she do not remember whether the accused named in the arrest memo was ever arrested by the police in her presence. She further deposed that the accused present in the court today is not the person who misbehaved and slapped her on 07.3.13. As she was resiling from her previous statement which was given to the police, Ld. APP cross examined her. During cross examination she denied the suggestion that she is deliberately concealing true facts from the court and she is deliberately not identifying the accused.
FIR No. 106/13 State vs. Rohit Kundu 4 of 6
FIR No: 106/13 5 State vs. Rohit Kundu
9. PW2 Sh. Suresh (husband of complainant), PW3 Sh. Ashok Kumar and PW4 Sh Karamvir Singh (driver of the bus) also deposed on the same lines and failed to identify the accused and corroborated the testimony of PW1. PW2, PW3 and PW4 were also cross examined by Ld. APP for State however nothing material came out in their cross examination and they failed to support the case of prosecution.
10. Perusal of entire evidence reveals that complainant / victim, husband of the victim as well as public witnesses has not supported the case of the prosecution and categorically denied that accused person committed any offending act with the victim / complainant. In such kind of cases, evidence of the complainant / victim is the best available evidence and the case can be proved beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimony of said witness only.
11. In the fact and circumstances, case of prosecution is not supported by the key witnesses i.e. the victim, her husband and public witnesses as they have deposed nothing incriminating against the accused persons and complainant herself denied the case of prosecution. Upon the testimony of the key witnesses offence has not been proved and accused person cannot be held guilty. Accordingly accused namely Rohit Kundu stands acquitted for the offence U/s 354A/323/509 IPC However his FIR No. 106/13 State vs. Rohit Kundu 5 of 6 FIR No: 106/13 6 State vs. Rohit Kundu surety bond remain extended till 6 months from today U/s 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(SHILPI JAIN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 16.10.2014.
FIR No. 106/13 State vs. Rohit Kundu 6 of 6