Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Narayan Samal on 9 January, 2019
State v. Ravi Narayan Samal
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) 05,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Ravi Narayan Samal
FIR No. 254/13
PS Mehrauli
U/s 506/509 IPC
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 2033110/2016
2 Date of commission : 13.02.2013
3 Date of institution of the case : 07.06.2013
4 Name of complainants : Poonam Negi & Rajesh
Singh Negi
5 Name of accused : Ravi Narayan Samal S/o
Sh. B. C Samla, R/o H. NO.
A96/97, Paryavaran
Complex, New Delhi.
Digitally
6 Offence complained of : U/s 506/509 IPC signed by
VAIBHAV
7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty VAIBHAV
MEHTA
MEHTA
Date:
2019.01.10
8 Arguments heard on : 18.12.2018 15:46:16
+0530
9 Final order : Acquitted u/s 427/506II
and convicted u/s 509 IPC.
10 Date of judgment : 09.01.2019
FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 1 of 12
State v. Ravi Narayan Samal
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 13.02.2013 at about 11.20 pm, in front of H. No. B53, Paryavaran Complex, Saidullajab, New Delhi, accused intending to insult the modesty of the complainant Ms. Poonam Negi utter words, made gestures, intending that such words shall be heard by her and also threatened to get the other complainant Rajesh Singh Negi murdered by paying Rs.12 lacs to henchmen with intention to cause alarm to the complainants and also caused damage to the vehicle i.e. Nano Car of complainant. Accordingly the FIR u/s 506/509 IPC was registered against the accused.
CHARGE
2. Prima facie case of commission of offences under Section 506 (II)/509/427 IPC was made out against accused. Charge u/s 506 (II)/509/427 IPC was framed upon the accused on 23.07.2014 wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 2 of 12 State v. Ravi Narayan Samal EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION
3. The prosecution has examined six witnesses.
PROSECUTION WITNESS
PW1 Poonam Negi Complainant
PW2 Rajesh Singh Negi Brother of complainant
PW3 SI Arvind Initial IO of the case
PW4 HC Rakesh Kumar Duty Officer
PW5 HC Santosh Kumar Assisted the IO
PW6 HC Ashok Kumar 2nd IO of the present case
4. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents: Exhibit Contents Exhibited by PW3/A Rukka SI Arvind PW4/A and PW4/B Fir and endorsement on HC Rakesh Kumar rukka PW5/A and PW5/B Site plan and arrest memo HC Santosh Kumar PW6/A and PW6/B Handing over memo and HC Ashok Kumar certificate u/s 65B
5. PW1 Ms. Poonam Negi deposed that on 13.02.2013 at about 11.30 pm, she noticed that accused was damaging her Nano Car bearing no. DL -2425 and when she asked accused about it the accused started threatening her and here sister namely Raji Negi FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 3 of 12 State v. Ravi Narayan Samal shifted her car to some other place. PW1 further stated that despite shifting the car, the accused did not calm down and continuously abused her and used filthy language and dirty abuses to her and also showed his genitals to her after which her sister called at 100 number. PW1 further deposed that after hearing abuses, her brother namely Rajesh Singh Negi came to balcony and objected to it but accused also threatened to kill him by some goons. After which police came and she gave her statement.
6. PW2 Rajesh Singh Negi deposed on same lines which was deposed by PW1.
7. PW3 SI Arvind deposed that on 04.05.2013, he prepared rukka as Ex. PW3/A and got the FIR registered.
8. PW4 HC Rakesh proved the FIR Ex. PW4/A and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW4/B.
9. PW5 HC Santosh Kumar deposed that on 09.05.2013 he went to the house of the complainant and prepared site plan Ex. PW5/A at the instance of complainant and on 31.05.2013 he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/B. FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 4 of 12 State v. Ravi Narayan Samal
10. PW6 HC Ashok Kumar that on 5.03.2014 he recorded the statement of Ms. Poonam Negi and Rajesh Singh Negi and Poonam Negi also handed over to him one CD pertaining to the case vide memo Ex. PW6/A and also proved certificate u/s 65 of Evidence Act as Ex. PW6/B.
11. Thereafter, PE was closed on 29.09.2018 EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
12. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 31.10.2018 separately wherein he opted to lead evidence in his defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
13. Defence examined only one witness.
DW1 Sh. Balraj Sejwal Neighbour of accused as well as complainant
14. DW1 Sh. Jai Prakash deposed that there was a dispute between complainant and accused w.r.t parking and no such incident as stated by the complainant had taken place.
15. Thereafter DE was closed on 03.12.2018 and matter was FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 5 of 12 State v. Ravi Narayan Samal listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
16. The Ld. APP has submitted that prosecution witnesses have given consistent statements and the testimony of the complainant Ms. Poonam Negi finds corroboration from the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused beyond doubt.
On the other hand, ld. Defence counsel has argued that there are material inconsistencies in the deposition of the complainant and the testimony of all prosecution witness put together is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of proof and accused should be acquitted and be given the benefit of doubt.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
17. Section 425 Mischief defines as under: Whoever with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or an such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 6 of 12 State v. Ravi Narayan Samal Section 427 IPC Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees: Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 503 defines criminal intimidation as under Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to commit to do any act which that person is legally to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Ingredients of section 503 IPC:
(I) Threatening a person with any injury:
(i) To his person, reputation, or property; or
(ii) To the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
(II) Threatening a person with any injury:
(a) to cause alarm to that person, or
(b) to cause the person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the any act which he is not FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 7 of 12 State v. Ravi Narayan Samal legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. Or
(c) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
Whoever threatens another The gist of the offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened, and it is clear that before it can have any effect upon his mind it must be either made to him by the person threatening or communicated to him is some way. The threat referred to in this section must be a threat communicated, or uttered with the intention of its being communicated to the person threatened for the purpose of influencing his mind.
Section 506 IPC defines punishment for criminal intimidationWhoever 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.
Section 509 IPC defines as Word, Gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman: Whoever, intending to insult FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 8 of 12 State v. Ravi Narayan Samal 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 be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
COURT OBSERVATIONS
18. I have considered the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and of Ld. Defence counsel. I have also gone through the evidence on record very carefully and after assessing it the court makes the following observations:
(a) PW1 Poonam Negi is the complainant and main witness of the prosecution who stated that on 13.02.2013 at about 11.30 pm, she entered into an argument with the accused as he was damaging her car and thereafter accused in a drunken stage abused her and used filthy language against her and her sister. It is further alleged by the complainant that accused threatened to kill her brother and as a result thereof, she lodged the present complaint.
(b) PW2 Sh. Rajesh Negi is the brother of the complainant and he corroborated the testimony of the complainant on the point FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 9 of 12 State v. Ravi Narayan Samal of offensive language and abuses being hurled at her by the accused.
PW2 Rajesh Negi has not stated anything about damage to the vehicle (Nano Car) of the complainant being inflicted by the accused and has nowhere even mentioned the Nano car in his examination in chief, let alone it be damaged by the accused.
(c) PW2 Rajesh Negi in his examination in chief has made a general statement that the accused threatened to kill her by hiring local goons, however, he has not given the specified date and time when the said threat was conveyed to him by the accused.
(d) It is the case of the accused that the complainant has lodged false and fabricated case against the accused as there is personal enmity between the complainant and accused. It is further submitted by the defence counsel that there is no photograph of the damage vehicle of Nano car and there is serious contradictions in the testimonies of PW2 Rajesh Negi and PW1 Poonam Negi.
(e) After going through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and perusing the material on record, this court is of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused as far as offence u/s 427 IPC is made out as the prosecution FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 10 of 12 State v. Ravi Narayan Samal has not been able to show that damage was caused to the vehicle by the accused.
(f) As far as offence u/s 506II IPC is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of he accused beyond doubt as the testimonies of prosecution witnesses including the complainant is not sufficient to prove that the accused had threatened to kill the brother of the complainant as PW2 Rajesh Negi has not specified the exact date and time and circumstances under which the threat was conveyed to him. Therefore, this court giving the accused benefit of doubt and acquit him for offence u/s 506II IPC.
(g) As far as offence u/s 509 IPC is concerned, the testimony of the complainant is unambiguous as she has clearly stated that the accused used offensive language and hurled abuses at her and the said testimony is corroborated by PW2 Rajesh Negi. This court is of the view that prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused for offence u/s 509 IPC.
19. For the reasons mentioned above, this court acquits the accused for offences u/s 427/506II IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. However, this FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 11 of 12 State v. Ravi Narayan Samal court convicts the accused Ravi Narayan Samal for offence u/s 509 IPC.
20. Let accused Ravi Narayan Samal be heard on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA)
court on 09.01.2019 MM5 (South), Saket Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 254/13, PS Mehrauli 12 of 12