Delhi District Court
Fir No. 46/10 Ps- Pul Prahlad Pur State vs . Ramesh Thakur on 4 July, 2014
FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-01 (MAHILA COURT): SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Ramesh Thakur
FIR NO.46/10
PS- Pul Prahladpur
UID NO.02406R0449472010
Date of Institution of case : 06.04.2010
Age of the case : 4 Years 3 Months
Date of judgment : 04.07.2014
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. PC.
a) Date of offence : 26.02.2010
b) Offence complained of : U/s 354/342 IPC
c) Name of accused, his parentage : Ramesh Thakur
S/o late Sh. Jagdish
Thakur
R/o H. No.265, D-1A,
Sangam Vihar, New
Delhi.
d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
e) Final Order : Convicted.
f) Age of the victim on the : 8 years
date of offence i.e 26.02.14
JUDGEMENT
1. Accused Ramesh Thakur has been sent to face Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 1 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur trial on the allegations that he touched the feminine body part child Reshma, with the intention outrage her modesty and had also wrongfully confined her in H. No.I-172, First Floor Lal Kuan and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 342/354 IPC.
2. The accused Ramesh Thakur was charge sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under section 342/354 IPC and vide order dated 03.12.2011 passed by Ld. Predecessor court, charge was framed against the accused U/S 354/342 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The matter was then listed for prosecution evidence. Prosecution has produced eight witnesses in support of its case, HC Usha Rani as PW-1, Smt Baby Haseena as PW-2, Ms. Manju as PW-3, Ms. Reshma as PW-4, Ms Muskan as PW-5, Ct. Sant Ram as PW-6, SI Ashok Kumar as PW-7 and Sh. Arman as PW-8 prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused was recorded U/s.313 r/w S. 281 Cr.P.C and he had stated that he does Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 2 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur not want to lead defence evidence.
4. Prosecution evidence was closed. The incriminating evidence whatsoever appearing against the accused Ramesh Thakur on record was put to him and statements u/s 313 Cr. PC r/w Section 281 Cr. PC recorded on 25.04.2013 to which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is innocent. He did not opt to lead Defence Evidence.
5. Heard final arguments on behalf of all the parties. Carefully perused the case record.
Prosecution witnesses deposed as follows:
6. PW-1 HC Usha Rani deposed that on 27.02.2010, she was posted as Duty Officer at PS- Pul Prahlad Pur and had recorded the case FIR no. 46/10 vide endorsement Ex- PW-1/A. She proved the original record pertaining to aforesaid Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 3 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur computerized FIR, Copy of the same is Ex-PW1/B(OSR).
7. PW-2 Smt. Baby Haseena who deposed that in the year 2010 in the month of February, she was at some shop and Reshma and Muskan were on the roof of aforesaid house. Ramesh Thakur present in the court called the Reshma at his house for watching TV and sent to the Muskan to purchase some eatable articles after giving Rs. 5/- and closed the door from inside and tried to remove the clothes of Reshma. Reshma had disclosed all the facts to her Mama Arman. The matter was delayed due to night time and they informed the police on the next morning. She further deposed that by that time, accused Ramesh Thakur collected his articles including TV and escaped. She further deposed that Police came and took the accused to PS. She further deposed that they all also went to the police station. She further deposed that Reshma told her that " Ramesh Thakur nanga ho gaya aur meri salwar bhi kholne ki Koshish karta raha, Lekin maine kholne nahi di aur main apne aap ko bacha ke bhagi." On the same evening, the accused stated to her that "Ki aaj mujshe ek kaand Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 4 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur hote hote bach gaya."
8. PW-3 Ms. Manju deposed that in the year 2010 in the month of January, she was at her house situated at Gali No.16, Sangam Vihar. On the next day of occurrence while accused was going to vacate the premises, she was called telephonically by her brother Arman and his daughter Muskan and informed that "Reshma ne bola Ki main TV Dekhne Muskan ke Saath gayi thi Ramesh Thakur ke ghar, waha Ramesh Thakur ne Muskan to 5 Rupees dekar Cheez lane bhej Diya aur uske baad Ramesh Thakur ne Reshma ke seene wagereh par haath phera aur gate laga diya(closed) tha", Jab Muskan cheez lekar aayi tab Muskan gate khulwai thi.". She further deposed that usne ye bhi bataya ki "Ramesh Thakur ne Reshma ko jabardasti khat par patka tha aur uske upar chad gaya tha aur uske kapde utarne ki koshish bhi ke thi." She further deposed that usne Reshma ki salwar kholne ki koshish ki thi". Thereafter Reshma and Muskan went to their house i.e house of her brother Arman.
Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 5 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur
9. PW-4 Ms. Reshma was put under the examination to her capability for deposition wherein she deposed that on 26.01.2010 at about 7.00PM to 8.00PM, her sister Zeba had gone to tuition and nobody was present in her home at that time. She further deposed that she had gone for watching TV to the house of accused Ramesh Thakur alongwith Muskan. She further deposed that accused Ramesh Thakur sent Muskan to purchase some eatable articles after paying Rs. 5/-. She further deposed that when Muskan went to the shop to purchase some eatable articles, accused Ramesh Thakur closed the door. She further deposed that accused closed her mouth and touched her face, chest and other body parts and tried to torn her clothes. She further deposed that accused Ramesh threw her on the cot and then he forced himself upon her. She further deposed that accused Ramesh Thakur tried to torn her clothes but he could not do so as Muskan had reached and knocked the door. She further deposed that Ramesh Thakur did not open the door but she tried to free herself, the accused had closed her mouth. In the meantime, Muskan returned and started knocking the door and asked if Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 6 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur Reshma was inside the room or not. Accused Ramesh Thakur told that Reshma was not there. When Muskan told him that she would call Zeba Khala then, accused Ramesh opened the door, thereafter both the girls returned back to their house. She further deposed that she did not tell about the incident to anyone in her house on that day. She further deposed that Muskan told about the incident to her brother on the next day. She further deposed that her brother asked him about the incident then she narrated the whole incident to her brother. She further deposed that thereafter her brother called the police, thereafter the police came at the spot and arrested the accused. One police official asked her about the incident and recorded her statement which is Ex-PW4/A which bears her signature at point A & B.
10. Certain court questions were put to PW-5 Muskan was to examine her capability for deposition and she gave coherent answers. She deposed that she had come to her Nani's house on the date of occurrence and that she alongwith her Khala Reshma went to the house of accused for watching TV. Accused Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 7 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur Ramesh Thakur gave her Rs. 5/- to purchase some eatable articles from the nearby shop. She further deposed that in the meantime, she went to purchase some eatable articles and her Khala Reshma remained there and in the meantime, accused Ramesh Thakur closed the door. Thereafter, she returned back and knocked the door, the accused Ramesh Thakur told from inside the room that Reshma was not there. In the meantime, Reshma said that she was inside the room. When Muskan threatened to call Zeba Khala, then accused Ramesh opened the door, thereafter both of them went to their house. She further deposed that she told about the incident to her Khala Zeba on the next day.
11. PW-6 Ct. Sant Ram who deposed that on 27.02.2010, he was posted as Ct. at PS- P.P. Pur. He was on emergency duty from 8.00AM to 8.00PM. On the receipt of DD No. 4A, he alongwith IO/ASI Ashok Kumar had gone to premised No.I-72, Lal Kuan, M. B. Road, New Delhi. He further deposed that prosecutrix Reshma was interrogated by the IO in presence of her mother and sister. He took the rukka and got the registered FIR Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 8 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur No.46/10. He further deposed that on return, he handed over the original rukka and carbon copy to the IO. He further deposed that accused Ramesh Thakur was arrested vide arrest memo Ex- PW6/A which bears his signature at point S. His personal search memo is Ex-PW-6/B which bears his signature at point S.
12. PW-7 SI Ashok Kumar who deposed that on 27.02.2010, he was posted as ASI At PS-P. P. Pur. He was on emergency duty from 8.00 AM to 8.00PM. On receipt of Dd No.4A, copy of which is Ex-PW7/A. He alongwith Ct. Sant Ram had gone to premised NO. I-72, Lal Kuan, M. B. Road, New Delhi. He further deposed that prosecturix Reshma was interrogated by him in presence of her mother and sister. He took the rukka and got the registered case FIR No. 46/10 vide his endorsement Ex- PW7/B. On return, he handed over the original rukka and carbon copy to him. He prepared the site plant Ex-PW-7/C.
13. PW-8 Arman who deposed that when he came back at his house from office, her younger sister Reshma told him Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 9 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur that in the evening, she went to the room of the neighbour Ramesh Thamur alongwith Muskan. Then Ramesh Thakur gave Rs. 5/- to Muskan and sent her to market. He further deposed that then accused Ramesh Thakur took Reshma inside the room and lied over her. He further deposed that accused Ramesh Thakur took off his clothes and when she tried to raise an alarm he put his hand on the mouth of Reshma. In the meantime, Mukan came at the spot and knocked the door, then Ramesh Thakur opened the door and both of them came from the room of Ramesh Thakur . On this information, he informed the police regarding the incident and apprehended Ramesh Thakur.
Arguments:
14. Ld. APP for the State has argued that victim Reshma was called by the accused in his room and Muskan was sent outside on pretext of bringing some eatables. Muskan is one of the main witness to the incident. When she returned back from the market, she found the room to be locked. Victim told her Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 10 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur grand mother and her mother about the incident in the evening, who deposed as PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 Baby Hasina has corroborated the FIR. PW-5 and PW-8 are material witnesses. PW-5 is the eyewitness to the incident and PW-8 is the brother of the victim who informed the police and got the FIR registered after the victim told him about the incident. PW-6 & PW-7 are formal witnesses. PW-6 has proved the rukka and PW0-7 is the IO of the case. Ld. APP submits that the victim has taken defence that he had been falsely implicated as the mother of the victim has borrowed Rs. 400/- and did not have the capacity to return it back, but he has not led any evidence to prove his defence.
15. Ld. Counsel for the accused had argued that there are several contradiction in the testimony of PW-2 . She argued that PW-2 did not speak of the whole story to the police and had not talked about the removing of clothes of the victim by the accused in her statement u/s 161 CrPC. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that the accused had given a loan of Rs. 400/- to the mother of the victim who was not in a condition to pay back the same and had Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 11 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur made up a false story to implicate the accused with a view to avoid the liability of the re-payment of Rs. 400/-. Ld. Counsel has further argued that as per the deposition of PW-6 Ct. Santram, he reached the police station with rukka at 2.30PM while the FIR was registered at 2.15PM and submits that the entire case is manipulated and that the accused has been falsely implicated.
FINDINGS:
16. The accused has been charged U/s 354/342 IPC for wrongfully confining child Reshma & outraging her modesty. It has to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond the pales of reasonable doubt.
17. The victim Reshma has been examined as PW-4. She has categorically narrated the incident which has been recorded verbatim. She has clearly deposed that accused Ramesh Thakur had sent Muskan to fetch something from the shop after giving her Rs.5. After Muskan went away, accused bolted the door from inside. The victim has clearly narrated she was made to lie on charpai and the Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 12 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur accused kept one hand on the mouth of victim and try to mount on her body. He was running his hand over her face and her chest and try to tear off her clothes. The victim tried to shout but could not as the accused had kept one hand on her mouth. When Muskan return and knocked at the door, the accused mislead her by saying that Reshma had left. The door was opened , when Muskan threatened to call Zeba Khala. PW-4 was not given any contrary suggestion on these aspects of her deposition. The testimony of the victim has remained unrebutted in cross examination. She has further identified the accused in the Court.
18. Now the question arises as to whether the deposition of Reshma who is victim and Muskaan, who are minor girl children can be relied upon. It is well settled principle of law that while appreciating evidence of a child witness of extreme tender age, it would be desirable for the court to keep in mind the principle that although there is no bar in accepting the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness, yet prudence requires that court should not act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child whether sworn or unsworn. Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 13 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur
19. The testimony of PW-4 stands corroborated by the testimony of her younger sister Muskan who was examined as PW-5. PW-5 has clearly and categorically deposed that the accused had given her Rs. 5 to bring something. When she had went outside, Reshma remained at the house of the accused and the door was bolted immediately after Muskan left. When she returned, the door was still bolted from inside and upon knocking, she received a reply from the accused that Reshma had left. It is only when Muskan threatened to call Zeba Khala, The accused said that he is opening the door. Thereafter, Reshma came out from inside the room. The accused threatened her not to tell anyone. Reshma asked Muskan not to play with accused as he is not a good person and that he would do same thing with her also. PW-5 was first to reach the place of incident. She narrated the incident to Zeba Khala in the morning. No contrary suggestions were given to Muskan. As such her testimony has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Her testimony is further corroborated by the testimonies of the victim Reshma and other witnesses.
Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 14 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur
20. Arman was examined as PW-8.He had deposed that he was told about the incident by Reshma when he returned from his office in the evening. Due to night time, police was informed the next day. He informed the police regarding the incident and the FIR got registered. The FIR is Ex PW1/B.
21. Ms. Manju was examined as PW-3. She was informed about the incident telephonically by her brother Armaan and daughter Muskan. Reshma narrated the incident to her.
22. The victim has categorically deposed about the incident which is duly corroborated by the testimony of baby Muskan as discussed above. The victim's presence at house of accused along with the accused Ramesh Takhur, on the date of occurrence at the relevant time is established. It is proved that he had sent Muskan out after giving her Rs. 5 asking her to fetch something. It is proved that he had bolted the door from inside after sending Muskan away. The accused has not disputed the other evidence put forth by the prosecution by giving contrary suggestion to witnesses. The conduct Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 15 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur of the accused subsequent to the occurrence also becomes relevant. The fact that accused Ramesh Takhur had vacated his house on the next date of the occurrence is also duly proved. The accused had told baby Hasina/ Mother of victim "aaj mujhse ek kaand hote-hote bach gaya" and no contrary suggestion was given to the witness.
23. The only defence of the accused is that he had lent Rs. 200 to the mother of the victim and that he has been falsely implicated as she was unable to return back the money. The accused did not even specify not any date, time and place of lending such money and the terms on which the same was given. No evidence was lead by him to the effect prove his defence.
24. The Counsel for accused had argued that PW-1 has deposed that the rukka was handed over by constable Sh. Sant Ram to her at 2:10 PM and the FIR was registered at 2:15 PM. PW-6 Sh. Sant Ram has deposed that he left the place of occurrence at 2:00 PM with the rukka. He had further deposed that the police station is approximately 400 metres away from the house of the Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 16 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur victim. A distance of 400 metres, even if travelled by foot, can be covered within 5-10 minutes. The FIR was registered at 2:15 PM. In these circumstances, even if the witness has deposed that he reached the police station in about half an hour is immaterial as he has not stated the reason as to why it took him around half an hour, to cover a small distance of 400-700 metres and that too when he travelled by scooter. The constable, who was traveling by scooter, could not have taken more than 5 minutes time to cover a distance of 400 to 700 metres. The PW-1 has categorically deposed that constable Sant Ram had reached the police station at 2:10 PM. Thus, the contradiction pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
25. Minor victim Reshma and baby Muskan have vividly narrated the whole incident in the court and has stood the test of cross examination and correctly identified the accused as the same person who had wrongfully restrained her and outraged her modesty her on the fateful day. The, prosecution has fairly established that accused Ramesh Thakur has deliberately sent Muskaan away on Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 17 of 18 FIR No. 46/10 PS- Pul Prahlad pur State Vs. Ramesh Thakur pretext of fetching some eatable and had wrongfully restrained Reshma in his house and caught hold of her and touched on her intimate body part and further put his hand on her mouth with the intention to outrage her modesty and thus, outraged her modesty,. On the basis of evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond the pales of reasonable doubt. Accused Ramesh Takhur, is thus convicted for the offence U/s. 354 / 342 IPC. Copy of the judgment be given to accused free of cost.
Order on sentence pronounced separately.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today (SHIVANI CHAUHAN)
on 04.07.14 M.M. /Mahila Court/SED
Saket/ N.D./ 04.07.14
Certified that the Judgment consists of 18 Pages and bears my signature on each and every page.
(SHIVANI CHAUHAN) M.M. /Mahila Court/SED Saket/ N.D./ 04.07.14 Pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2014 Page 18 of 18