Delhi District Court
State vs Chatar Singh Ken on 20 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TARUNPREET KAUR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
FIR No. 251/2015
Police Station: Vasant Vihar
Under Section: 323/509/506(II)/34 IPC
State Vs. Chatar Singh & Others
Case No. 55048/2016
Name and details of the Sh. Kamlesh, S/o Late Sh. Lal
complainant Chand, R/o 332, Munirka
village, New Delhi
Name and details of the accused 1. Chatar Singh Ken, S/o Late
persons Sh. Ganga Das , R/o T-403/AC,
Budh Vihar, Munirka village,
New Delhi ;
2. Raju Raikwar, S/o Late Sh.
Kishan Lal Raikwar, R/o T-
401/CDE/3, Budh Vihar,
Munirka, New Delhi;
3. Milind, S/o Sh. Chatar Singh
Ken, R/o T-403/AC, Budh
Vihar, Munirka village, New
Delhi.
Offence complained of Under Section
323/509/506(II)/34 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquittal
Date of Judgment 20.08.2024
State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 1 of 16
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution, as stated in the complaint made by the complainant, is that the complainant had been to her plot at T 401/2 CDE on the date of the alleged incident i.e., 28.02.2015 and she saw that accused Milind Singh @ Appu and his father Chatar Singh were shooting a video at her plot alongwith her tenant Raju Raikwar with certain unknown boys and girls. The complainant objected to the same and made a PCR call at around 02:08 pm, as a result of which the cameramen ran away from the spot alongwith their cameras and said boys and girls. Thereafter, the accused persons namely, Chatar Singh, Milind Singh @ Appu and her tenant Raju extended a life threat to her and abused her. After having threatened and abused the complainant, they too ran away from the spot.
2. The FIR was lodged on the complaint made by the complainant.
The accused persons namely, Chatar Singh, Milind Singh @ Appu and Raju Raikwar were summoned vide order dated 26.04.2016. Subsequently, charge was framed against the aforenamed accused persons for offence punishable under section 323/509/506(II)/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and they claimed a trial.
State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 2 of 16
3. The prosecution examined four witnesses in all. PW-1 Smt. Kamlesh is the complainant/victim. PW-4 SI Suresh Kumar is the investigating officer in the present matter. Further, PW-2 HC Subhash and PW-3 HC Ravinder Kumar are the formal police witnesses.
4. In their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.PC, the accused persons denied the entire incriminating evidence put to them and they stated that the present is a false case filed against. Accused Chatar Singh stated that he has falsely been implicated in the present matter out of vendetta as there was property dispute between him and the complainant. He further stated that he had gotten demolished building of Shankar Lal, who is brother-in-law ("jeth") of the complainant, after obtaining an order from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
4.1 Further, accused Milind Singh stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident and that he had gone to his in-laws. Whereas, accused Raju Raikwar stated that he was at his workplace at the time of the alleged incident.
5. The accused persons opted to lead evidence in their defence and they summoned three witnesses in defence evidence. Sh. Sheel State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 3 of 16 Prashant was examined as DW-1, Sh. Manoj as DW-2 and Smt. Nanni Raikwar, as DW-3. The accused persons tried to establish their defence and plea of alibi through examining the defence witnesses. No further witnesses had then been summoned by the accused persons and accordingly, the defence evidence was closed.
6. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The submissions made by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State (hereinafter referred to as "APP") and the Learned counsel for the accused persons have been heard and considered. During the final arguments, the Ld. APP argued that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused persons and that they be convicted. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the accused persons argued that the present is a false case against the accused persons and that the prosecution has failed to prove their case qua them beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the accused persons deserve to be acquitted. He further argued that the present is a false and baseless case. He further submitted that there is no independent witness from the prosecution and that the accused persons were not even present at the spot at the relevant time. He further submitted that only the complainant and the investigating officer are material witnesses in the present matter, while rest are only formal witnesses.
State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 4 of 16
7. The accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable under section 323/506(II)/509/34 IPC. The relevant provisions under which the accused persons have been charged with in the present matter are being reproduced and discussed as under:-
7.1 Section 323 IPC states- " Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished...."
While section 319 IPC defines 'hurt' as "Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
It is the settled law that is not a sine qua non that in cases of simple hurt, a medical certificate must be forthcoming. The facts of each case are to be determined on their own merit. The medial evidence is only corroborative and not substantive piece of evidence. Thus, to determine if hurt has been caused, the same has to be done considering the facts of the case.
7.2 Section 509 IPC- " 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 State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 5 of 16 be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished...."
On perusal of Section 509 IPC, it is apparent that in order to bring an act committed by a person within purview of Section 509 IPC, the act must have been committed with an intention to insult the modesty of any woman or to intrude upon the privacy of such woman. Thus, intention is the basic ingredient of the offence under this provision. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused under section 509 IPC, prosecution is under obligation to prove that the accused had uttered any words, made any sound or gesture, or exhibited any object intending to insult the modesty of any woman or with such an intention he intruded upon privacy of any woman.
7.3 Section 506 IPC states- " Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Criminal intimidation has been defined in Section 503 IPC as "Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 6 of 16 cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."
A careful perusal of the above-stated definition and ingredients of section 503 IPC reveal that in order to bring home the charge for committing criminal intimidation under this provision, the prosecution has to show that the threat was extended with an intention to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do or omit to do any act as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in determining as to whether the alleged threat made by the accused falls within the meaning of "criminal intimidation". Mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. Therefore, material has to be placed on record to show that the intention of the accused was to cause alarm to the complainant. The gist of this offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. Also, the threat must be one which can be put into execution by the person threatening.
State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 7 of 16 In the case of Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there must be an act of threatening another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested, and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened, or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. It was held that mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of Sections 503 and 506 IPC.
7.4 Section 34 IPC states that - "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
Thus, as per this provision, when an offence is committed by several persons in furtherance of their common intention, each of such person would be liable for the said offence in the manner as if it was committed by him alone. Hence, two or persons committing an offence with a common intention, they all would be liable for the same equally. Further, common State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 8 of 16 intention is to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
With respect to "common intention" it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that "common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence."
8. Now, it is to be examined, analyzed and assessed as to whether prosecution case and the testimony of the eye-witness i.e., the complainant are credible and reliable enough to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the issues to be determined in the present matter are as to-
(i) whether the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, caused hurt to the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323/34?
State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 9 of 16
(ii) whether threat to life was extended by the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, to the complainant which could attract the provision of section 506(II)/34 IPC?
(iii) whether the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, abused the complainant and thereby insulted her modesty so as to attract offence under section 509 IPC?
9. There is no eye-witness to the alleged incident except the complainant herself. Also, there is no independent piece of evidence to the alleged incident. Hence, it is of immense importance that the testimony of the complainant has remained consistent throughout in material particular and that there are no contradictory or inconsistent statements made by her.
10. PW-1 Smt. Kamlesh i.e. the complainant deposed in her examination-in-chief that on the date of the alleged incident i.e., on 28.02.2015 at around 12:00- 12:30 pm, she had gone to see her plot i.e. House no. T-401/CDE/2, Budh Vihar, Munirka Village, Delhi. She further deposed that she saw there accused Chatar Singh, his son Milind Singh and her tenant Raju- who was residing at the said address/premises on rent alongwith some unknown boys and girls.
State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 10 of 16 She further deposed that they were making/shooting video with a camera. When the complainant objected to the same, accused Chatar Singh and Milind Singh misbehaved with her and pushed her by her shoulder. She further deposed that accused Raju had also abused her alongwith the aforenamed accused persons and they threatened to kill her. She further deposed that all of them then ran away from the spot alongwith the camera and she had called the police. Further, she deposed that the accused persons had abused her by saying "Saali, behan ki lodi, kutiya kamini aur iske alaava har tarah ki galiyaan di." PW-1 correctly identified all the accused persons before the court.
10.1 Whereas, in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC, the complainant stated that Chatar Singh, Milind Singh, Raju Raikwar and his wife Nanhi Raikwar, Naresh and Sushil were present at the spot when she had reached there. She further stated that on her objection to their making video at her property, they misbehaved with her and had abused her. She further stated that such incident had happened on two earlier occasions however, she had ignored the same.
10.2 It is pertinent to note that the complaint Ex. PW1/A made by the complainant and her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/B are totally silent on the point as to specific abusive words that were allegedly addressed to her by State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 11 of 16 the accused persons. Very evasively and in a vague manner, the complainant has alleged that she was abused by the accused persons and nothing has been stated in either of the aforesaid statements as to what actual abusive words had been said to her and by which of the accused persons. Further, the complainant/PW-1 deposed in her testimony that accused persons had abused her by saying "Saali, behan ki lodi, kutiya kamini aur iske alaava har tarah ki galiyaan di." Thus, the afore-stated abusive words had been stated by the complainant for the very first time in the present matter only when her testimony was recorded. It must be appreciated and noted that the same were not stated by the complainant/PW-1 in her testimony in a flow and the said words were stated at the end of her examination-in-chief, when apparently, she had already stated what she had to say and documents had been exhibited. Besides that, here also the complainant/PW-1 did not state as to by which of the accused persons the said words had been said?
10.3 Furthermore, there is no whisper as to threatening words allegedly told to the complainant by the accused persons in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/B. In a similar manner, the complainant/PW-1 vaguely stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused persons had threatened to kill her and nothing has been stated as to what State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 12 of 16 actual words had been said to her and by which of the accused persons. The alleged threat being not specific, it is required to be considered next as to whether 'alarm' had been caused to the complainant. It must be noted that the present complaint and the material available on record are also silent on the point as to what was the mental condition of the complainant after she had received a "life threat" and as to how she had reacted to the said threat. Also, it could not be ignored that the effect which words could have upon the mental condition of a person could not be scrutinised when the exact words themselves are not known. To conclude the discussion and analyses on the point under consideration- it is the settled principle for offence under section 506 II IPC that mere threat is no offence.
10.4 It is also noteworthy that the complainant miserably failed to have a consistent stand and she made different statements at different stages in the matter and she ended up making alterations and improvements to her previous statements. Apart from that, she named certain persons i.e. Nanhi Raikwar, wife of Raju Raikwar, Naresh and Sushil to be present at the spot in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/B, nevertheless, those names were not State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 13 of 16 stated by the complainant at any other stage in the present matter, whatsoever.
11. With respect to causing simple injuries to the complainant, the allegations are only that the complainant was pushed by the accused Milind Singh @ Appu. And, in view of above analysis of the statements made by the complainant, these allegations too appear to be vague and baseless. Also, there are no allegations whatsoever, that any injury of any sort had been caused to the complainant by the accused persons.
12. PW-4 SI Suresh Kumar is the investigating officer and other material witness in the present matter. He deposed in his cross examination that when he had reached the place of incident, he had met the complainant as well as the accused persons namely, Raju Raikwar and Chatar Singh. Now, this version came on record for the very first time that the accused persons were still there when the police had reached the spot. As per the version of the complainant, all the accused persons had run away from the spot and then she had made a call to the police. Thus, the accused persons had already slipped away when the police had reached.
State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 14 of 16 12.1 There are no public witnesses in the present matter and the investigating officer does not seem to have conducted proper investigation regarding making an enquiry from the people in vicinity. PW-4 deposed in his cross examination that the place of occurrence comprises of rooms and vacant area and on an enquiry, he came to know that accused Raju Raikwar was living in one of those rooms as a tenant alongwith his family. He further deposed that he could not tell the number of persons whom he had enquired from regarding the occupants of those rooms and that he had not recorded name, addresses and statements of the persons from whom he had made an enquiry. In this manner, PW-4 gave an evasive explanation regarding the person from whom he had allegedly made an enquiry. Also, regarding availability of public witness at the spot, he deposed that no public witness was found there.
13. The site plan Ex. PW2/C is defective and appears to be only a formality. PW-4 deposed in his cross examination that the same had been prepared at instance of the complainant however, the same does not even bear signature of the complainant.
14. Considering the vague, evasive and baseless allegations, inconsistent stand of the complainant, shoddy prosecution case and State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 15 of 16 in light of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove any of the allegations leveled against the accused persons, let alone proving them beyond reasonable doubts. In light of the above stated analysis, the prosecution has poorly failed to establish that the accused persons had caused simply injury to the complainant, extended threats to her or had abused her during the alleged incident. Accordingly, the accused persons namely, Chatar Singh s/o Late Sh. Ganga Das, Milind Singh @ Appu s/o Sh. Chatar Singh and Raju Raikwar s/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal stand acquitted for the offences punishable under section 323/506(II)/509 IPC.
15. Announced in open court on 20.08.2024. Digitally signed by TARUNPREET TARUNPREET KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.08.20 15:11:33 +0530 (Tarunpreet Kaur) JMFC-07/New Delhi District PHC/N.D./20.08.2024 State Vs. Chatar Singh Ken & Ors FIR No. 251/15 Page No. 16 of 16