Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Pankaj S/O. Sh. Mahil Pal, on 26 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITRI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 45057/15
FIR No. 1064/14
PS. Karawal Nagar
U/s. 451/354/506/34 IPC & 3 of SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities )Act, 1989
Instituted on 06.07.2015
Argued on 19.11.2022
Decided on 26.11.2022
Final Order Acquittal
State Vs. 1. Pankaj S/o. Sh. Mahil Pal,
R/o. H. No. B-94, Gali No.8,
Phase-, Shiv Vihar, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi
2. Sarita Devi W/o. Sh. Pankaj Kumar
R/o. H. No. B-94, Gali No.8,
Phase-, Shiv Vihar, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi
JUDGMENT
1. In this case, challan was filed on the basis of FIR registered under Sections 451/354/506/34 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (POA)Act, 1989. As per the FIR, the complainant is a physically handicapped house wife belonging to SC community. It is further mentioned in her typed complaint dated 20.10.2014 that accused persons, who are husband and wife, regularly abused her family members FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 1 of 16 on the basis of their caste and called them "chamar and neech biradari". Accused Pankaj, who is a criminal and had a pistol, had threatened to kill the complainant. Further, some people had followed the complainant and her children for some days. She apprehended them to be henchmen of accused Pankaj. On 07.09.2014, accused Pankaj trespassed into the house of the complainant 'N' and misbehaved with her(badtamizi ki). He abused her and called her "Langri and chamari. Accused Sarita, wife of accused Pankaj, also abused the complainant.
2. When the complainant told about the entire episode to her husband and when her husband went to the house of accused persons, he was manhandled and they called him "chamar". The complainant called at 100 number. Police visited and suggested them to resolve the matter on their own, being neighbours. Then, 'N' submitted a written complaint in PS Karawal Nagar, but no action was taken.
3. Thereafter, as per the allegations in the complaint, accused Pankaj installed a CCTV camera in front of the house of complainant on 11.09.2014 and recorded objectionable videos and photographs of the complainant which he threatened to make public. When the complainant and her husband opposed it, he slapped her husband and used caste related abuses. Police complaint was made and police took the camera with them but no action was taken. Further, a false case was got registered by accused Sarita against complainant and her family members by inflicting injuries upon herself. This happened on 19.10.2014 when the complainant along with her family had gone to Gurgaon for darshan at Sheetla Mata Mandir.
4. She called at 100 number but police did not arrive. So, she along with her family went to PS Karawal Nagar to lodge a complaint. It is further mentioned in the complaint that accused Pankaj used to deliberately obstruct the way of the complainant family by parking his car outside her house. It is further mentioned that on 07.09.2014, complainant made a complaint in PS Karawal and on 08.09.2014 to ACP Khajuri Khas, but no action was taken.
FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 2 of 16
5. By way of this complaint dated 20.10.2014, she requested to take legal action against the accused. Present FIR on the basis of complaint dated 20.10.2014 was registered on 23.11.2014 after making endorsement on photocopy of complaint Ex.PW2/A. At that time, an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C filed by the complainant was pending before the court of Ld. CMM, N/E, KKD Courts, Delhi, for registration of the FIR.
6. During the investigation, statements of different witnesses were recorded. Further, statement of complainant was got recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. Relevant documents and evidence were collected and challan was filed on 02.02.2015 under Sections 451/354B/506/34 IPC r/w section 3 of SC/ST ( POA) Act, 1989.
7. Record shows that challan was filed before the court of Ld. CMM, N/E, Delhi and not before the designated court. Thereafter on 27.06.2015, this matter was committed to the sessions courts. In this manner, an irregular procedure was adopted though it does not affect the merits of the case.
8. After hearing arguments, charge was framed against both the accused persons on 29.07.2015. Both accused Pankaj and Sarita were jointly charged of offences u/s.451/506/34 IPC read with section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act,1989. An additional charge under 354 IPC was also framed against accused Pankaj Kumar.
9. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. PW1W/HC Anjula, is the DO who got registered the present FIR.
10. PW2 'N' is the complainant herself. In her evidence, she has mentioned about the incident of 07.09.2014 and the abusive words "i.e roz chamarin yahi kaam karti hai, behan ki laudi, ek tang tuti hai dusri bhi todni padegi" used by accused Pankaj for her. She has also deposed that thereafter accused Sarita used caste related words "chamari tu theek karni padegi". She has further deposed that both accused pelted stones on her house but ran away before FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 3 of 16 the police reached at the spot. She has also mentioned that when her husband went to the house of accused persons to talk about the matter, they scuffled with him. Accused Pankaj took out a katta saying that he would kill each chamar. Thereafter, next morning accused Sarita abused her saying "chamari tujhe bhagha kar chorungi". She has also deposed about the installation of CCTV camera by accused at their house which was aimed at her house and its removal by the local police.
11. She further deposed that on 18.10.2014, she along with her family had gone to Sheetla Mata Mandir, Gurgaon. All of them came back next morning at 7.00 AM. She alleged in her evidence that accused Sarita lodged a false complaint about her and her family members, on which police did not take action as they told that they were not even at their house and had just returned. Next morning, accused Pankaj again said "chamaron tumne kar liya jo karna tha". Thereafter, such behaviour continued for many days and was continuing till the date of the complaint.
12. After the examination- in -chief of the complainant, as detailed above, was recorded, the Ld. Addl. PP wanted to cross examine her. On the request of Addl. PP for the State, the court had allowed him to cross examine this witness. During cross examination, at the instance of Ld. Addl. PP, she deposed on the aspects which were not covered in her examination- in- chief but were part of her police complaint and investigation conducted and documents prepared by the IO.
13. During her cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, she admitted that she belonged to Jatav Caste(SC) and was also handicapped. She also admitted that on 07.09.2014 accused Pankaj entered into her house and did badtamizi with her and had called her langri and chamari when she resisted. She further admitted that when her husband went to the accused persons to talk about this, they scuffled with him and uttered caste related abusive words. She also admitted that her husband was slapped by accused Pankaj when they objected to installation of CCTV camera. She further admitted that she and her family had gone to Gurgaon on 19.10.2014.
FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 4 of 16 Regarding the date of visiting Gurgoan, different versions have been given by the witness at different stages.
14. During her further cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, she also admitted regarding recording of her statement under section 164Cr. P.C (Ex.PW2/B) on 12.12.2014. She also admitted the detailed account of incident dated 07.09.2014 (as per her 164 Cr. P.C statement) when put to her by Ld. Addl. PP that on that day both the accused forcibly entered into her house. Accused Pankaj had torn her clothes and pressed her breast telling her " tumare jaise chamar hamar neeche rahte hai, Tumare jaise logo ko hum gaon mein banduwa mazdoor rakhte hai". She also admitted that she made a call at 100 number thereafter.
15. After her cross examination by Ld Addl.PP, this witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons. She denied the suggestion that she had deposed falsely and complaint lodged by her on 20.10.2014, the day after an FIR was registered against her and her family members, was false. She admitted that document Ex. PW2/A which is her police complaint is a photocopy and not the original complaint.
16. She admitted during her cross examination that an FIR bearing No. 946/2014 was registered on 19.10.2014 against her, her husband, her father- in- law, devar and devrani, at the instance of accused Sarita. Copy of the FIR was placed on record during cross examination of the witness. She denied the suggestion that on 19.10.2014, she and her above mentioned family members had assaulted accused Sarita or had caused sharp injuries to her. She denied knowledge if accused Sarita was taken to hospital or her MLC GTBE-233716 were prepared at the hospital. She denied the suggestion that present false FIR was got registered by her in order to exert pressure on accused persons as she and her family members mentioned above were likely to be arrested by the police in that FIR bearing No.946/2014 and to counter the allegations of the said FIR.
17. The witness was asked that her complaint did not mention the time FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 5 of 16 when accused had trespassed into her house while she was alone but she kept mum despite learning and understanding the question; as observed by the Ld. Presiding Officer who has got the evidence recorded on 18.08.2018.
18. Thereafter witness was cross examined on the contents of her police complaint. She responded that she did not remember if she had mentioned her complaint that the quarrel started when she poured water on the stairs in front of her house to clean the same. She denied the suggestion that accused Sarita Devi did not utter any caste related abusive words to her or that none of the accused persons scuffled with her husband when he went to the house of accused persons to talk about the incident.
19. Then the witness was cross examined with respect to improvements made by her in her evidence before the court and having deposed some facts which were not the part of her complaint/164 Cr. PC statement. She denied that her version in her examination- in- chief was an improvement over her police complaint.
20. She deposed that she had made following averments in her complaint.
a). She had stated in her complaint Ex. PW2/A that accused Pankaj came out from his house and started shouting at her using caste related words "roz chamarin yahi kaam karti hai, behan ki laudi, ek tang tuti hai dusri bhi todni padegi".
b). That both the accused persons had also pelted stones on her house.
c). That during that fight, accused Pankaj tookout a katta saying that he will kill each chamar.
d). That on the next morning while she was cleaning her house, accused Sarita started abusing loudly from her house saying " Chamari tujhe bhagha kar chorunga".
e). That accused persons continued to quarrel and abuse in similar manner for many days, about 15-20 days.
FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 6 of 16 She was confronted with all the above as none of these averments was mentioned in her complaint and therefore, these were clear improvements.
21. She denied the suggestion that accused persons never misbehaved with her or that accused Pankaj did not utter the words "chamaro tune kar liya jo karna tha". She also denied the suggestion that accused Pankaj never entered into her house or that he did not any badtamizi with her or that he never uttered any caste related abusive words to him. She also denied the suggestion that Pankaj did not install any CCTV camera intending to violate the privacy of the complainant family or that he neither slapped nor uttered any caste related abusive words to her husband.
22. Witness admitted during her further cross examination that her family had installed bore well in front of their house. She also admitted that the accused persons made a complaint to local police, SDM and NGT about installation of bore well and that the bore well was removed by SHO, PS Karawal Nagar. She denied the suggestion that due to illegal bore well, there were cracks in the gali or in the house of accused persons who had conveyed their grievance to the witness and her family about the cracks due to bore well. She also denied the suggestion that the accused persons had told that they would lodge a complaint to the police and other authorities regarding the bore well and for this reason, witness and her family members had assaulted accused Sarita.
23. She also admitted that two FIRs had been registered against her brother at the instance of accused Sarita Devi.
24. With respect to the present case, witness stated during her cross examination that she did not remember as to whether she and her husband were taken to hospital by the police for medical examination. She stated that police did not seize her torn clothes.
25. Witness was shown the certified copy of status report filed in this matter by the IO before the court of Ld. CMM, N/E, where she had filed a FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 7 of 16 complaint u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C prior to the registration of the present FIR. She denied the awareness if the IO had filed any status report in her complaint u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C, before the Ld.CMM. She admitted that one Sarita Pandey was her neighbour.
26. She denied the suggestion that she had made her 164 Cr.P.C statement( which was recorded after about three months from the incident) after receiving legal advice and made false allegations against the accused.
27. Other public witnesses were also examined in this matter as follows:-
i) PW11 Pradeep Kumar, husband of the complainant
ii)PW8 Smt. Mukesh W/o. Sh. Harpal Singh (the witness is first cousin of husband of the complainant and her cousin nanad.
iii) PW9 Rakesh Kumar, devar of the complainant
iv) PW10 Rita, devrani of the complainant.
v) PW7 Ved Prakash, the property dealer whom complainant and her husband had contacted about selling their house.
The evidence of all these witnesses is related the alleged incident dated 07.09.2014 and on the same line as the complainant PW2. Rather, these witnesses have mentioned some details which were not even deposed by the complainant herself in her evidence. All of them have, in substance, deposed that accused Pankaj had caught hold of complainant 'N' by her hair and dragged her out from her house in gali and had given beatings to her while both accused persons uttered caste related abusive words. While complainant did not mention the time of incident in her complaint Ex. PW2/A, these witnesses mentioned the time as around 10.00 AM.
28. PW3 is W/SI Nazma who had accompanied the complainant to the court for getting her statement u/s.164 Cr P.C recorded. PW15 is Sh. Sunil Gupta the then Ld. MM who recorded statement of complainant under section 164 Cr.P.C on 12.12.2014. PW4 is W/Ct. Rukmesh; PW12 is Inspector Satender Pal Singh;
FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 8 of 16 both of them had accompanied the IO while accused Sarita was arrested by the IO from her house on 20.12.2014.
29. PW5 is SI Sachin who had accompanied IO on 24.11.2014 while IO prepared site plan. Then IO seized the copies of the caste certificates of complainant and her husband in the presence of this witness. He is also a witness of arrest of accused Pankaj by the IO on 21.01.2015 when accused Pankaj surrendered in the PS Karawal Nagar. PW4 and PW5 were not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused persons.
30. PW6 Sh. Rajesh Dhawal is Tehsildar, Karawal Nagar who had verified the caste certificate of Pradeep Kumar, husband of the complainant, online. PW13 Pradeep Kumar Singh is the Tehsildar, Baraut, Bagpat, UP. He conducted online verification of caste certificate of complainant.
31. PW14 is Inspector J. S. Mehta, the then SHO, PS Karawal Nagar who got registered the present FIR while the complaint u/s.156(3)Cr P.C was pending before the court of Ld. CMM, N/E. KKD Courts, Delhi. During his cross examination, the witness denied knowledge about FIR No.946/2014 registered on the complaint of accused Sarita Devi u/s. 324/452/354/34 IPC on 19.10.2014 against the complainant, her husband Pradeep, her devar Rakeh, devrani Rita and father in law Shiv Charan. Challan filed in this FIR was also put to the witness during his cross examination. Surprisingly, this witness was SHO at the time when the FIR at the instance of accused Sarita was registered. He also must have forwarded the same at the stage of submitting the challan being SHO. Registration of FIR against the complainant side is an admitted position, yet this witness has denied any knowledge of the same. Considering his deposition, I have no hesitation in holding that this witness deliberately evaded answers to justified questions put to him during his cross examination and had thereby withheld information that is presumed to be in his knowledge considering his official designation as SHO at relevant time.
FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 9 of 16
32. Last witness is PW16 Sh Vipin Kumar Nayyar, the then ACP and IO of this case. In his examination- in-chief, he has mentioned about preparing site plan, seizing the caste certificates of complainant and her husband and recording of various statement and also arrest of accused persons and getting recorded 164 Cr. P.C of the complainant.
33. During his cross-examination, it was put to him Ex. PW2/A was the photocopy of the complainant and not the original document. This fact is correct as I have seen from the record.
34. He admitted that he filed a status report dated 12.11.2014 before the Ld. CMM, N/E in 156(3) Cr.P.C application of the complainant, mentioning that he had recorded statements of some witnesses and had conducted inquiry in this matter on the basis of the complaint dated 20.10.2014 by complainant 'N' (Ex.PW2/A) and he had found that no such incident had taken place as alleged in the complaint Ex. PW2/A. This status report was accordingly exhibited as Ex. PW16/DA.
35. He also admitted that FIR was registered while application u/s.156(3)Cr .P. C was still pending and no order for registration of FIR was passed by the court concerned. He further stated that he had told to the senior officers that he had conducted inquiry in this matter and found that no such incident had taken place. He volunteered to say that an oral direction was given by senior officers in Crime Review Meeting regarding all the complaints received under section 156(3) Cr. P.C that in all such complaints case had to be registered first and then decided after investigation.
36. Witness admitted that being ACP he forwarded the charge-sheet in FIR No. 946/14, PS Karawal Nagar, u/s. 324/452/354B/34 IPC and also admitted his signatures on the same. The certified copy of this charge-sheet, based on FIR registered at the instance of accused Sarita, was exhibited as Ex.PW16/DB. The witness also stated that complainant 'N', Shiv Charan, Pradeep, Rita and Rakesh Kumar are the accused persons put in column No.11 of this charge-sheet and as per FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 10 of 16 this document, accused Sarita Devi was assaulted by above said persons and medically examined at GTB Hospital. Witness denied the suggestion that in order to counter this FIR by accused Sarita Devi, the instant FIR was got registered by the complainant by making a false complaint. While admitting that complainant had not mentioned the name of any witness in her complaint Ex.PW2/A, the witness denied the suggestion that he introduced relatives of the complainant as false witnesses to fill up the lacunae of witnesses in the present case. He denied the knowledge if all the witnesses belong to SC, Jatav Community.
37. Perusal of status report Ex. PW16/DA submitted by this witness before the court of Ld. CMM, N/E would show that complainant had stated that she could not tell about any witnesses who had seen or heard the caste related abusive language allegedly used by accused persons against the complainant woman and her husband. It is mentioned in the status report that independent witness Sarita Pandey was examined who was neighbour of both parties. As per her, on 07.09.14, accused Sarita Devi was sitting on the stairs outside her house at about 10.00-11.00 am, complainant came out in street and started abusing Sarita Devi. Then Rita (devrani of complainant) also came out and joined the complainant. Sarita Devi neither quarreled nor said any caste related words to them. Accused Pankaj was not even present at that time. It is further mentioned in this report that as per inquiry, no such incident took place plus the place is not in full public view. Complainant could not produce any witness in her support and since the complainant could not substantiate the allegations, therefore the complaint was filed.
38. This lady Smt. Sarita Pandey. who was examined during the inquiry and her name duly mentioned in the inquiry report, was not cited as witness in the charge-sheet, by the IO. Witness further stated that complainant neither gave him her torn clothes nor any medical certificate/document. He also admitted that alleged complaint dated 07.09.14 by the complainant was not on record. Further, IO had not examined any witness who had allegedly taken away CCTV camera as mentioned in FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 11 of 16 Ex.PW2/A. Further, witness denied any knowledge about installation/drilling of bore well by the complainant side and thereby cracks developing in the gali and in the house of accused persons. He also denied any knowledge about the complaint made in this regard to SHO and ACP concerned and proceedings before NGT, New Delhi. He denied the suggestion that he had filed challan without evidence against the accused persons.
39. After the conclusion of evidence, statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr. P.C were recorded wherein they took defence of false implication. Accused persons did not opt to lead DE.
40. I have heard the final arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for accused as well as Ld. APP for the State and perused the case file. Now, I proceed to analyze the evidence and record my findings.
41. Admittedly, in the present case on the complaint of complainant 'N' no FIR was registered initially. She moved an application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR, before the Court of Ld. CMM, N/E. The Court called for a status report and IO PW 16 submitted the status report Ex.PW16/DA. It was clearly mentioned in the status report that a local enquiry was conducted, statements of independent witnesses were recorded and it was found that no such incident as alleged by the complainant, had taken place. Further, the complainant could not produce any witnesses in her support, during enquiry. Despite this position, the FIR was lodged even before any orders in that regard to be passed in application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. Circumstances of registration of case have been mentioned in details during cross examination of PW16 as discussed above already.
42. One fails to understand as to how when the complainant could not produce a single witness during enquiry, statements of so many public witnesses were recorded during investigation, after several months of the incident. Interestingly, all these public witnesses are relatives of the complainant and most of them are accused in the cross FIR lodged at the instance of Sarita Devi. The other FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 12 of 16 PWs are one Mukesh, who is first cousin of the husband of complainant(daughter of real uncle) and as admitted by one of the witnesses i.e. dewar of the complainant Rakesh PW9 that since Mukesh did not have any brothers, the witness and his brother(husband of the complainant) performed all the ceremonial rituals on the occasion of any marriage or other social occasions etc in the matrimonial house of Mukesh, being her brothers(cousins).
43. Second is one Ved Prakash, the property dealer with whom the complainant and her husband were in negotiations for selling their house. Therefore they shared a business relationship with him. Admittedly, he also belongs to the same caste as the complainant family. Accordingly, in my view, none of the public witnesses examined in the present matter is qualified to be called an independent public witness as they were closely related to the complainant and also had a very strong motive to falsely implicate the accused persons.
44. Here I wish to highlight the conduct of Witness Rita PW10 who is a liar of first degree and was even cautioned by the Court to be truthful. This woman even tried to hide her relationship with the complainant but was rendered unsuccessful in her attempt to do so due to able cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel.
45. The independent witness cited in the status report namely Sarita Pandey, was neither examined nor made a witness during investigation of the case after the FIR was registered. Not only this, there are a number of contradictions and improvements in the evidence of complainant in comparison to her earlier statements which are sufficient to dent and taint her testimony. During her cross examination, she deliberately evaded answering the question put to her regarding not mentioning the time of alleged incident of 10.09.2014 in her complaint. Many of the averments contained in u/s 161 statement were not deposed by her when her examination in chief was recorded. It was only after Ld. Addl.PP for the State cross examined her on all those aspects and her memory was refreshed that she admitted FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 13 of 16 those contents as correct and as part of her complaint and u/s. 161 Cr.P.C and u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. statements. Then there are many averments in her u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. statement which were not mentioned in her complaint and therefore a clear improvement with a view to implicate the accused persons falsely. Then, there are further improvements in her chief-in-examination as she has made certain statements which were neither stated by her in her original complaint nor in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement. These aspects have been discussed in details while I have given an detailed account of evidence of complainant.
46. Further, admittedly the complainant family had got drilled/installed a borewell outside their house in the gali. One of the PWs even admitted during his cross-examination that due to drilling of the borewell, cracks had developed in the road and also in the house of the accused persons. It is also an admitted position that a complaint was made by the accused persons against the installation of borewell to the local police, concerned SDM as well NGT. The borewell was removed by the SHO on directions of the NGT. It is also an admitted fact. Under these circumstances, it was only natural on the part of the accused persons to complain about the borewell to the complainant family who had got the same installed, the fact which has been denied by the complainant in her cross-examination. It was also natural under these circumstances for the complainant family to get annoyed, when accused persons made complaint against them related to borewell, specially after removal of the same. So far the complainant is concerned, she had an additional reason to nurse a grudge against accused Sarita Devi because admittedly two FIRs had been registered against her brother at the instance of accused Sarita Devi. Therefore, as recorded in the status report regarding enquiry conducted in the matter, I have no doubt that it was not the accused Sarita or her husband who had committed any offence against the complainant or her husband who belonged to Scheduled Caste Jatav community; rather it was complainant and her devrani who had abused the accused Sarita on 7.09.2014 i.e the date of alleged offence.
FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 14 of 16
47. The complaint on which present FIR is based, was not made on 07.09.2014. Rather with respect to that incident, there was not even a call at 100 no. made as no such document/witness has brought on record. The complainant deposed about having made a written complaint first to the SHO and then to ACP on 07.09.2014 but neither she nor IO nor any other prosecution witness reduced any such written complaints on record. Same is the position regarding the allegation of CCTV camera installation by the accused Pankaj and its removal by local police. There is neither any document available on record nor any witness examined that would suggest even a fraction of truth regarding this allegation about CCTV camera and making objectionable videos of the complainant by the accused Pankaj.
48. In view of these reasons stated above, I have no hesitation in holding the complainant and other public witnesses are supporting her case are neither truthful nor independent and were actuated with a motive to falsely implicate accused Sarita and her husband after an FIR was lodged at the instance of accused Sarita against the complainant, her husband, devar ,devarani and father in law, on the basis of some incident of assault and outraging modesty that took place on 19.10.2014. The present complaint was made after the cross FIR was already registered on 19.10.2014. So, the obvious purpose behind the complainant making the present false complaint was to counterbalance the FIR registered against her and her other family members and to exert pressure on accused persons.
49. The natural course of events that actually seems to have taken place is that firstly the complaint family got installed the borewell on the road outside their house and thereafter the accused persons objected to the same as it damaged their house and the road. When the complainant did not heed, they made a complaint against the borewell to various authorities and got it removed ultimately. Thereafter, the accused persons got annoyed and on 07.09.2014 complainant and her devarani abused the accused Sarita in the morning of 07.09.2014 and thereafter, the incident of assault upon the accused lady Sarita took place which resulted in registration of FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 15 of 16 FIR on 19.10.2014 against complainant and her family members. In order to counter balance the same, the complainant made the present complaint on 20.09.2014, taking advantage of her belonging to SC Jaatav community and to gain sympathy on the ground of her physical handicap.
50. In view of the above reasons, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove this case against the accused persons. Therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, I acquit both of them of all the offences charged against them. Put up for furnishing of bail bonds u/s. 437A Cr.P.C. on 28.11.2022.
SAVITRI Digitally signed by
SAVITRI ATTRI
Announced in Open Court
as on 26.11.2022 ATTRI
(SAVITRI )
Date: 2022.12.01
16:52:07 +0530
Addl. Sessions Judge-02/North East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 1064/14 State Vs. Sarita Devi & Anr page 16 of 16