Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar vs . State on 22 April, 2010
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05/2010.
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05/2010
U/S : 374 Cr.P.C.
ASHOK KUMAR @ BABLU
S/O. SH. RAMU
R/O. H. NO. M-574, JJ COLONY
SHAKURPUR
DELHI. . . . . APPELLANT.
VERSUS
STATE . . . . RESPONDENT.
Date of Institution : 08.03.2010
Arguments heard on : 16.04.2010
Judgment announced on : 22.04.2010
ORDER
1. An appeal preferred by appellant/convict Ashok Kumar under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the order of conviction dated 08.02.2010 whereby learned MM Smt. Smita Garg, Mahila Court, Rohini, Delhi sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, SI for one week under Section 354 IPC in case No. 1049/02/06 titled as State Vs. Ashok @ Bablu FIR No. 0611/02 PS Saraswati Vihar.
: 1 :
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05/2010.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant Santosh @ Munni, daughter of Sh. Hoshila Parshad, r/o. M-581, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi aged 26 years lodged report with the police. She alleged that on 07.08.2002 at about 12.30 PM when she was washing clothes outside her house, then neighbourer Ashok @ Bablu started teasing her with bad intention and when she protested, then accused started abusing and beating her. Her brother came on hearing noise, then accused also started beating him. Somebody telephoned the police and police officials arrived at the spot. The complainant and her brother got freed by the police officials and during quarrel, accused Ashok Kumar torned the uniform of ASI Ravinder Singh. The complainant also alleged that previously also with bad intention, accused obstructed her passage. The complainant did not undergo medical examination. Police registered FIR under Section 354 IPC and investigation was carried out. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed for the trial of offence under Section 354 IPC before the learned Trial Court.
3. Learned Trial Court supplied complete set of copies and after hearing the arguments, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. served, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. : 2 :
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05/2010.
4. The prosecution in support of the present case examined PW-1 complainant Santosh Kumari, PW-4 her brother Ravinder Kumar, PW-3 HC Ranbir Singh, PCR and PW-6 ASI Ranbir Singh, the four key witnesses to the incident. Apart from these witnesses, prosecution examined PW-2 W/HC Manisha, PW-5 Constable Jitender Singh and PW-7 HC Joginder Singh. Prosecution evidence closed.
5. Statement of accused recorded by learned Trial Court under Section 281 Cr.P.C., who pleaded innocence and in defence, he examined DW-1 Om Prakash.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant Sh.Nirmal Singh assailed the impugned judgment and order on sentence interalia on the ground that the testimony of PW-1 Santosh Kumari after appreciation of the cross-examination does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 354 IPC. There are doubts erupted on the basis of testimony of PW-1 complainant Santosh Kumari, PW-4 Ravinder Kumar and two police witnesses of PCR PW-3 HC Ranbir Singh, PCR and PW-6 ASI Ranbir Singh. It is pointed out that no medical examination was conducted of the complainant. A mere scuffle took place between the brother of the complainant but police falsely implicated the accused under : 3 : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05/2010.
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE Section 354 IPC. The medical report of accused not placed on record although he was examined at BJRM Hospital after the arrest. It is contended that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence led by prosecution, which is doubtful and fell in error while passing the impugned order and order on sentence. It is prayed that the impugned judgment and order on sentence may be set aside.
7. Trial Court Record summoned. I have heard learned counsel Sh. Nirmal Singh for the appellant and gone through the trial court record.
8. In order to appreciate the evidence led by prosecution and convict in defence, it is essential to know the essentials of ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC to be established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC, mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged alone for its object. There is no abstract conception of modesty that can be applied in all cases. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63, it is held that a careful perusal of Section 354 IPC while dealing spell outs the essential ingredients as follows :-
: 4 :
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05/2010.
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE
(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;
(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her, and
(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.
9. Intention is not the sole criteria of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC adn it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed.
10. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the key witness PW-1 Santosh Kumari specifically deposed that accused Ashok was present when she was washing clothes on a Chabutra outside her house on 07.08.2002 at about 12.00/1.00 PM. Accused caught hold of her hand and when she tried to escape, he started abusing her. Thereafter, her brother Ravinder came there and tried to rescue her, then accused started scuffle with him. Police also arrived on calling by somebody but accused also scuffled with police officials and torn the shirt of a police official. She further specifically : 5 : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05/2010.
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE deposed that accused has misbehaved with her and had outraged her modesty on the day of incident. In the cross- examination, she specifically testified that neighbours were present there but no one agreed to become witness to the incident. She denied the suggestion that a similar complaint was made against neighbour Anwar but the same was rejected by the police after inquiry. She admitted that there was a enmity between accused and her family. She denied that her brother gave beatings to the accused on 26.05.2002. she denied that she lodged a false complaint against the accused and no such incident took place.
11. The incident dated 07.08.2002 further corroborated by PW-4 Ravinder Kumar. He also deposed that accused misbehaved with PW-1 Santosh Kumari, his sister. Thereafter, the accused grappled with him and also when police officials came, he quarreled with them. In the cross-examination, he remained coherent and cogent and denied all the suggestions put to him. He admitted that accused only caught hold hand of his sister and he denied that he had old enmity with the accused. He denied that on 15.05.2002, he gave a stick blow on the head of the accused.
: 6 :
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05/2010.
12. PW-6 ASI Ranbir Singh further corroborate the fact that on receiving the call, he came there on PCR Vehicle and saw the quarrel with PW-1 Santosh Kumari and when he tried to intervene, accused torn his uniform. The accused was heavily drunk and inebriated condition. He denied that he reached when accused was fighting with Ravinder. He denied all the suggestions put to him.
13. Now analysis of the testimony of these important witnesses of prosecution. The first ingredient is proved that accused Ashok assaulted PW-1 Santosh Kumari. Accused also assaulted or used criminal force against her. So, the two ingredients are established beyond reasonable doubt. Now coming to the third where accused was intended to outrage her modesty or that he knew that he would thereby outrage her modesty.
14. As discussed hereinabove, the knowledge and intention in furtherance to the assault or use of criminal force cannot be exhibited physically, it is in the mind of the assailant. The testimony of PW-1 Santosh Kumari is established that the accused caught hold of her hand and when she tried to escape, he started abusing her. She also categorically stated that : 7 : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05/2010.
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE accused misbehaved and outraged her modesty. Not only this, there is another case registered against the accused regarding the act done by the accused against police officials by torning the uniform. PW-6 ASI Ranbir Singh's testimony also established that the accused was under the influence of liquor at the time of incident and he was inebriated condition and heavily drunk. No suggestion or question put to the PW-6 in this regard. Hence, in these circumstances when a person heavily drunk inebriated condition caught hold of the hand of a woman, then the ingredients of Section 354 IPC are fulfilled.
15. On the basis of above discussions and observations, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the allegations against the accused. Hence, I find no infirmity, incorrectness or illegality in the judgment of conviction dated 05.02.2010. hence, the accused is legally and properly convicted under Section 354 IPC.
16. Now coming to the order on sentence passed by learned Trial Court, there is no doubt that appellant has suffered the agony of trial for about 8 years. Learned Trial Court imposed proportionate and adequate sentence of one month Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of : 8 : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 05/2010.
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE payment of fine, SI for one week. I find no ground to interfere with the sentence imposed by learned Trial Court.
17. On the basis of above discussions, the appeal stand dismissed. The appellant is directed to serve the sentence. Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith attested copy of the order. The file be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the Open Court (SANJAY KUMAR) Dated : 22.04.2010 Addl. Sessions Judge-I(NW), Room no. 308, Rohini Courts, Delhi : 9 :