Delhi District Court
State vs . Prateik Kaushik on 15 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ( MAHILA COURT):
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
STATE Vs. Prateik Kaushik FIR NO. : 405/2013 U/s 354D IPC PS : Jaitpur A. ID No. of the Case : 02406R0168392014 B. Date of Institution : 28.03.2014 C. Date of Commission of Offence : October, 2013 D. Name of the complainant : Soummya Sagar D/o Pradeep Sagar E. Name of the Accused & his : Prateik Kaushik S/o Surya Kant Parentage & Address Kaushik R/o D-17/23, Molarband Extn., Badarpur, New Delhi .
F. Offence complained of : U/s 354D IPC. G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty H. Final order : Acquitted . I.Date of such order : 15.10.2015 FIR No. 405/2013, PS Jaitpur State Vs Prateik Kaushik Page no. 1 of 6
Brief Statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. Brief facts of the present case are that at the time of filing of present FIR, complainant Saumya Sagar was studying in 12th class and her sister Shreya Sagar was studying in class 10th in government senior school at Sriniwas Puri and they used to go to the school at 06.30am in the morning and school used to close at 01.30pm.
2. It is stated in the complaint that from last 10 -12 days one boy was following her and on last Friday and Saturday he reached till her house and also tried to hand over a letter to her but she did not take it and made a complaint to her parents who in turn made a complaint dated 27.10.2013 in PS Jaitpur.
3. On 28.10.2013, her father came to the school to take them and thereafter, came to Ashram Bus Stand where she found that boy sitting and she pointed him to his father and his father caught hold of him and called at 100 number.
4. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered u/s 354D IPC and investigation was carried out by the IO and upon completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 354D IPC was presented to the court against the accused for trial.
5. Accused was summoned and after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
On 15.12.2014 notice was framed u/s 354D IPC against accused Prateik Kaushik.
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for PE. Prosecution cited five witnesses and out of which three witnesses were examined. PW-1 is complainant namely FIR No. 405/2013, PS Jaitpur State Vs Prateik Kaushik Page no. 2 of 6 Soummya Sagar, PW-2 is SI Rohit Kumar, IO of the present case, PW-3 Pradeep Sagar, father of the complainant. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
7. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied all the allegations. He stated that he is falsely implicated in the present case. Accused examined himself as DW-01 u/s 315 Cr.PC and got his father examined as DW-02 in his defence. Therefore, DE was closed.
8. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
9. I have perused the record carefully and have given thoughtful consideration to the case.
Appreciation of Evidence:
10. Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC has stated that after reaching Ashram Bus Stand she called her father who called the police but in her statement Ex.PW1/A and examination in chief she has stated that she was along with her father on Ashram Bus Stand and pointed towards him and told her father that he is the same person who followed her and misbehaved with her and her father apprehended the accused. Ld. Counsel has argued that both the aforesaid statements are contradictory to each other and therefore, the statement of complainant cannot be relied upon.
11. He has further argued that PW-03 Pradeep Sagar, father of complainant has stated he along with his daughter went to school to pickup them and when they reached Ashram Bus Stand his daughter pointed towards him and told him that he is the same person who misbehaved with Soummya. He apprehended him. He has further argued that PW-01 has stated that she called at 100 number and they were taken to PS New Friends Colony by the FIR No. 405/2013, PS Jaitpur State Vs Prateik Kaushik Page no. 3 of 6 PCR and from there they were sent to PS Jaitpur. Whereas, PW-03 has stated that call at 100 number was made and PCR Van came there and they were taken to PS Jaitpur. He stated that this is a major discrepancy and statement of PW-01 and PW-03 are not trustworthy.
12. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the younger daughter i.e., Shreya who used to accompany the complainant has not been made a witness and no explanation has been given in this regard.
13. He has further argued that in the examination in chief she has stated that when she came out from the TSR, accused tried to stop her and hold her hand and also tried to give her letter but she refused to take it. Whereas, in Ex.PW1/A, there is no whisper of TSR.
14. He has further stated that the complaint dated 27.10.2013 is not on record allegedly given by the parents of the complainant in PS Jaitpur and therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that accused has repeatedly followed the compliant and he be acquitted in the present case.
15. Ld. APP for the state, on the other hand, has argued that the discrepancies pointed out by the counsel of the accused are minor and do not go to root of the matter whereas, the facts of the case have been proved and accused be held guilty for the commission of offence u/s 354D IPC.
16. The complaint of the complainant is that accused used to follow her and on one day that is the date of incident, he tried to hand over a letter to her but she refused to take it and went to her house and made a complaint to her parents. Her father picked her and her sister from the school and they came on Ashram Bus Stop where accused was found sitting by the complainant and she pointed towards him on which her father apprehended him. The complainant has stated that her father had made a complaint dated 27.10.2013 in PS Jaitpur but that complaint has not been made a part of FIR No. 405/2013, PS Jaitpur State Vs Prateik Kaushik Page no. 4 of 6 record either by the complainant or by the IO. Prosecution has failed to give any cogent reason for not filing the same by the IO during the course of arguments. This complaint is relevant for the purposes of proving on record that accused used to follow the complainant when she used to be on her way from school to her house along with her younger sister.
17. Prosecution has further failed to explain as to why the younger sister of the complainant who was studying in the same school as that of the complainant, was not made a witness as she was always present during the alleged incident of attempting to hand over a letter by accused to complainant and at the time accused was apprehended by their father and even when accused used to allegedly follow the complainant. This is a material lacunae in this case.
18. Further complainant has stated in her examination in chief as well as in her complainant Ex. PW1/A that her father was present when they reached Ashram bus stand but in her statement U/s 164 CrPC which is Ex. PW1/C she has stated that complainant called her father and he came there. This discrepancy is material in nature as the witnesses are interested witnesses and there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. This discrepancy has not been explained by the prosecution and the same goes to the root of the matter.
19. PW-1 in her cross examination stated that accused never talked to her whenever he followed her. She has further stated that before the date of incident, she never objected to the accused about his regular following. She has also stated that when accused tried to hold her hand and give one paper to her, she did not shout and ignored him and went to her house along with her sister. She has also stated that she never made any complaint against the FIR No. 405/2013, PS Jaitpur State Vs Prateik Kaushik Page no. 5 of 6 accused before the date of his arrest meaning thereby that no complaint was moved on 27.10.2013 as alleged by PW-3 Pradeep Sagar. Even otherwise the contents mentioned in this para which has come in cross examination of PW-1 shows that there was no clear indication of disinterest by the complainant at the time when accused used to allegedly follow her up. Apart from this , it is stated by PW-1 in her deposition that on the date of incident she has gone by TSR to her house whereas this fact does not find mention in Ex. PW1/A. The other discrepancies discussed the above are also material and can not be ignored.
20. Hence, I am of the considered view that commission of offence U/s 354D IPC by accused Prateik Kaushik has not been proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Prateik Kaushik is acquitted from the notice framed for the offence U/s 354D IPC.
21. Put up for furnishing bail bond U/s 437A CrPC by accused Prateik Kaushik.
Announced in the Open
Court on 15.10.2015 ( VANDANA JAIN )
Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (MAHILA COURT)
South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi 15.10.2015 FIR No. 405/2013, PS Jaitpur State Vs Prateik Kaushik Page no. 6 of 6