Delhi District Court
3. Title Of The Case : State vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky on 13 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU GOEL KHARB
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, (MAHILA COURT)-03,
Distt. SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
1. Case No. : 9/1/15
2. Unique I.D. No. : 02405R0010922015
3. Title of the case : State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky
FIR No. 1020/14, PS Bindapur
4. Date of institution : 30.01.2015
5. Date of reserving Judgment : 07.01.2016
6. Date of pronouncement : 13.01.2016
J U D G M E N T :
(a) The date of commission 20.09.2014
(b) The name of complainant Deepika D/o. Sh. Ghanshyam
R/o. H.No.C31, Nanhe Park, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi.
(c) The name of accused Amit Kumar @ Vicky,
S/o Sh. Satender Kumar,
R/o H.No. 31, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
(d) The offence complained of 354/ 323/506 IPC
(e) The plea of the accused "Not guilty"
(f) The final order ACQUITTED
(g) The date of such order 13.01.2016
FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 1/16
Brief facts for the decision of the case:
1. The facts in the present case are that the accused Amit Kumar @ Vicky S/o Sh. Satender Kumar was put to trial for the offence Under Section 354/323/506 Part(II) IPC on the allegations that on 20.09.2014 at about 10.30 PM, in front of Metro Pillar no.691, Dayal Sar Road, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, accused assaulted/used criminal force against the complainant Deepika with intention to outrage her modesty and voluntarily caused hurt to her and criminally intimidated her to cause her death or grievous hurt.
2. After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offences Under Section 354A/323/506 Part(II) IPC was prepared against the accused.
3. The aforesaid chargesheet was filed before the court on FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 2/16 30.01.2015, whereupon the cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused. The provision of section 207 Cr.PC. was complied.
4. After hearing the arguments, charge was framed against the accused for the alleged commission of the offence under section 354/323/506(PartII) IPC to which the accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and instead claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. During the course of trial, prosecution examined 6 witnesses to substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused.
6. PW1 is the complainant/ Deepika. She deposed that on 21.09.2014 at about 10.30 pm, she was coming back from her sister's house alongwith her daughter on a scooty and when she FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 3/16 reached at Metro Pillar No.691 near Gali, then the accused Amit Kumar, who was on his bike was following her and banged his scooty from behind. Accused started abusing her and slapped her. He tried to tear her clothes and further put his hand on her breast. She resisted him but he threatened to kill her and left the spot after misbehaving with her. Thereafter, PW1 went to the house of accused's Bua namely Guddo and told her about the said incident. Accused was also present at his house and his house is adjacent to her bua's house, who started fighting and beating her. PW1 immediately called at 100 number and police came at Guddo's house. IO recorded the statement of the complainant which is Ex. PW1/A. PW1 further deposed that accused has many times misbehaved with her earlier and tried to stop her way and threatened her to kill her and her daughter. She further deposed that she knows accused for past 4 years as accused is Bhatija of her muhboli bhabhi.
FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 4/16 In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 stated that she did not make a call from the spot and straightway went to the house of Guddo who, after hearing the incident, suggested the complainant to call 100. PW1 deposed that she went to the police station on the same night. She denied all the suggestions given to her .
7. PW2 Ct. Suman Kumari deposed that on 21.09.2014 she along with IO Jagbir Singh and Ct. Hari Singh went to the spot i.e. Dayalsar, Om Vihar and recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW1/A and made her endorsement at Point B. Thereafter, Ct. Hari Singh was sent to PS for registration of FIR. Complainant refused to get her medical examination done. PW2 further deposed that complainant told them that her clothes are not torn that is why she did not hand over the clothes to them.
8. PW3 Guddo @ Mithlesh was the bua of the accused and FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 5/16 the later part of the incident allegedly took place at her house. However, her evidence is not of much relevance as she turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.
9. PW4 ASI Roop Singh deposed that on 21.09.2014 he registered the FIR no. 1020/14 Ex. PW4/B on the basis of rukka send through Ct. Hari Singh and made endorsement on it vide Ex. PW4/A.
10. PW5 Ct. Hari Singh deposed on the lines of PW2 Ct. Suman Kumari & PW4 ASI Roop Singh. He further deposed that after registration of FIR he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to IO and notice u/s 41 A was given to the accused Amit Kumar.
11. PW6 HC Jagbir Singh deposed that on 2021.09.2014, DO handed over DD no. 7B dated 21.09.2014 Ex. PW6/A to him. FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 6/16 He deposed about the proceedings conducted by him in the presence of PW2 and PW5. He deposed on the lines of PW2 Ct. Suman Kumari & PW5 Hari Singh. PW6/ IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW6/B at the instance of complainant Deepika and gave notice Ex. PW6/C to accused u/s 41A. Thereafter, he recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant along with statement of witnesses. PW6 called the complainant at Dwarka Courts and her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded on 07.10.2014. IO prepared the chargesheet and filed it in the court.
12. Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed on 28.10.2015.
13. Statement of accused Amit Kumar Pandey @ Vicky under Section 313 CrPC r/w Section 281 CrPC was recorded on 01.12.2015, in which all the incriminating evidence brought on record against the accused was put to them. Accused submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present and he has not FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 7/16 committed any offence and wants to lead DE. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for Defence Evidence.
14. In his defence, accused Amit Kumar @ Vicky examined himself as DW1. He deposed that. he was with his father at the other house at RZB112, Nand Ram Park, Uttam Nagar. He received a call from PS Bindapur and was told to come to the police station and he went there with his father at around 1212:30 in the night. In his crossexamination, DW1 denied all the suggestions given by Ld. APP.
15. Thereafter, Defence Evidence was closed on 17.12.2015 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and counsel for the accused person and have perused the record of the case.
FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 8/16
17. First of all let us quickly go through the relevant sections and the necessary ingredients.
Section 354 of IPC defines Assault or Criminal Force to a Woman with the Intention to outrage her modesty : "Whoever, assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 506 defines Punishment for Criminal Intimidation: "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; FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 9/16 If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt etc. : and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine or with both." Coming to the essentials of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Section 323 IPC is the punishing section for the commission of offence of Hurt under Section 319 IPC. Section 319 of IPC defines HURT as : "Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. So, for an offence under Section 323 of IPC, it is necessary to prove that : I) Hurt is caused.
II) Hurt is caused voluntarily.
III) Hurt is simple in nature.
FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 10/16
18. Now let us examine the prosecution evidence brought on record against the accused.
19. In order to prove the offence under Section 354/323/506 IPC against the accused Amit Kumar @ Vicky, prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the day accused Amit Kumar assaulted and used criminal force against complainant Deepika with intention to outrage her modesty and caused simple injuries to her and also criminally intimidated the complainant to cause death or grievous hurt to her.
20. In the present case, PW1 Complainant Deepika and PW4 Guddo@ Mithlesh are the main witnesses of the prosecution on whose version the prosecution was relying upon, however, PW4 Guddo @ Mithlesh did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile and hence her testimony is not of any relevance. FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 11/16
21. PW1 Deeepika levelled the allegations and testified in the court that on the date of incident, she was accompanied by her daughter on the scooty and when she reached at Metro Pillar No. 691 near Gali, accused Amit Kumar banged his bike into his scooty from behind and started abusing her and slapped her. He tried to tear her clothes and put his hand on her breast and when she resisted, he threatened to kill her and left the spot after misbehaving with her.
In the entire incident, the daughter of the complainant was present but prosecution has not cited and examined the daughter of the complainant as a witness. Furthermore, if the accused has hit scooty of the complainant with his bike, there must have been certain impact on both the vehicles but IO has not even mentioned the number of the vehicles or filed the photographs of both the vehicles. Moreover, complainant did not even get herself medically examined to prove that the accused had FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 12/16 caused hurt to her.
22. Apart from this, PW1 testified that she went to the house of accused's Bua namely Guddo and told her about the said incident. Accused was also present at his house which is adjacent to the house of Guddo. She further testified that accused again started fighting and beating her and as suggested by Guddo, PW1 immediately called at 100 number and police came at Guddo's house.Thereafter, so many inconsistencies can be seen in the statements of prosecution witnesses:
i) PW1 deposed that after the PCR call, IO first came to Guddo's house and thereafter, complainant and the police went to the place of first incident i.e. Dayalsar road, near Metro Pillar no. 691. But PW6 deposed that he went to the place of incident directly from the police station.
FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 13/16
ii) PW 6/ IO HCJagbir Singh deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant however the site plan Ex. PW6/A does not bear the signatures of the complainant or any other witness which show that IO must have prepared the same in the police station.
iii) Thirdly, PW6 testified that the complaiant Deepika never visited the police station but the complainant deposed that from thee site of incident, she went to the police station where she remained for around ½ hour to one hour.
iv) Fourthly, PW2 Ct. Suman Kumari deposed that she reached the house of Guddo alongwith IO/ PW6 and Ct. Hari Singh in police vehicle (ERV). PW 5/ CT. Hari Singh deposed that he went to the spot on private motorcycle of IO and does not know hoe Ct. Suman Kumari reached the spot. PW6/ IO HC Jagbir Sigh deposed that he alongwith Ct. Hari Singh and W/Ct. Suman FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 14/16 reached the spot on two motorcycles.
23. So from the above discussion, a lot of inconsistencies can be seen in the statements of prosecution witnessses and hence, much reliance cannot be placed upon the deposition of PW1 because of contradictions and absence of any corroborative evidence.
24.The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused has committed the offence and at no point of time it shifts to the accused. Once the prosecution has discharged its burden, the onus to prove innocence shifts to the accused. In the present case, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and hence the need for the accused to prove his innocence does not arise.
25. Hence, it can be safely observed that sufficient evidence is not brought on record and prosecution has not been able to prove its FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 15/16 case against accused Amit Kumar @ Vicky beyond reasonable doubts, hence, the accused Amit Kumar @ Vicky is acquitted from the charges framed against him.
26. At this stage, accused Amit Kumar @ Vicky seeks some time to furnish fresh bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C.
At request, bail bond already furnished by the accused Amit Kumar @ Vicky is extended till NDOH & one day time is granted to the accused to furnish fresh bail bonds as per the requirement under section 437A CrPC along with his latest passport size photograph and residential proof.
27. Renotify for furnishing fresh bail bonds under section 437A CrPC on 14.01.2016.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (MANU GOEL KHARB) TODAY ON 13th January, 2016. MM(MAHILA COURT) 03 DWARKA: NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 1020/14 State Vs Amit Kumar @ Vicky 16/16