Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh @ Raj Kumar @ on 19 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. RITU SINGH,
MM, (MAHILA COURT NO. 1), SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD, DELHI
FIR NUMBER 247/2005
UNIQUE I.D. NO. 02402R0716782005
PS M.S. Park
U/SEC. 354/506/509 IPC
STATE VS. RAJESH @ RAJ KUMAR @
RAJU
1.Name of the complainant : Ms. Geeta Rani d/o Late Shri Bhram Singh, R/o D791/8, Gali No.9, Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
2. Name of the accused, his : Ms. Rajesh @ Raj Kumar @ parentage and address. Raju, S/o Bhagwan Dass r/o 279/1, Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
3. Offence complained : U/S 354/506/509 IPC
4. The date of order : 30.01.2015
5. The final order reserved : 19.01.2015
6. Acquitted or convicted : Acquitted THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The challan was filed in the present case on 29/10/2005 on the basis of FIR under sections 354/506/509 IPC registered on 20/06/2005 on the basis of complaint made by the complainant Ms. Geeta Rani.
2. The case of prosecution is that the on 19/20062005 at 06:00 PM & 11:00 PM at Gali Number 9, Ashok Nagar, Delhi accused Rajesh @ Raj Kumar @ Raju assaulted and used criminal force against complainant Ms. FIR No. 247/05 Page no. 1 of 8 Geeta Rani and he threatened the complainant to kill her if she reported the matter to the police or anyone and he having intended to insult the modesty of complainant Ms. Geeta Rani, used certain abusive words intending that the same shall be heard by complainant.
3. On complaint of complainant Ms. Geeta Rani FIR under sections 354/506/509 IPC was registered. Challan was filed and cognizance of the offences was taken. Accused person was summoned and after hearing arguments, charge of having committed offence punishable under sections 354/506/509 IPC. The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for evidence.
4. To prove its case prosecution had examined seven witnesses.
Complainant Ms. Geeta Rani was examined by prosecution as PW1, Ashok Kumar was examined by prosecution as PW2, Ms. Rajni was examined by prosecution as PW3, ASI Devender Singh duty officer was examined by prosecution as PW4, Constable Rakesh was examined by prosecution as PW5, Inspector Anil Kumar was examined by prosecution as PW6 and HC Satpal Tyagi was examined by prosecution as PW7.
5. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused opted to lead evidence. In his defence accused examined his mother Smt. Rajrani W/o Sh.
FIR No. 247/05 Page no. 2 of 8 Bhagwan Dass as DW1 and thereafter defence evidence was closed. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties.
6. Prosecution version as detailed in FIR as well as Chargesheet is that accused had been misbehaving with complainant since more than 6 months before filing of FIR and had been threatening the complainant that he would throw acid on her face if she refused to marry him and it is stated that information was received vide DD entry No.9A at PS M.S. Park on 20.06.05 at about 12.45 during daytime (12.45 p.m) regarding quarrel near DBlock, Gali no. 9, Ashok Nagar. Thereafter statement of complainant was recorded who stated that on evening of 19.06.06, when complainant was on terrace of her house with her friend Rajni, accused came on terrace of his house and shouted to complainant, "Hey Chandni, Hey Darling" and made vulgar gestures. She has stated in her statement that accused Raju had also misbehaved with complainant at 11 O'clock on same day on which her statement was recorded by police (i.e. 20.06.2005) and that complainant narrated it to her family who went to talk to Raju's mother, she started fighting on which complainant's brother made call to police. Prosecution has examined three public witnesses including complainant as PW1, brother of complainant Sh. Ashok Kumar as PW2 and Rajni (friend of complainant) as PW3 to establish prosecution case.
FIR No. 247/05 Page no. 3 of 8
7. PW1 Complainant Ms. Geeta Rani had deposed that she was pursuing a private job. The incident had occurred in the month of June, 2005 at that time she was busy in her examination of B.A. third year. She further deposed that one person namely Rajesh @ Rajkumar @ Raju who use to reside infront of her house was harassing her for the past six months. He use to pressurized her to marry him and also threatened her that he will throw acid on her face if she refused to marry him. She further deposed that in the evening of 19/06/2005 she was sitting alone with her friend Rajni on the roof of hear house accused present in the court came upstairs roof of his house and started passing comments and states "Hi Chandni!, My darling" he also made ishra "he made gestures of flying kiss". He also stated "Tu mujha se shadi kar la nahi to tujha pata ha me kya karugaa". She further deposed that one week prior to the incident he had caught hold her hand when she was passing through the corner of the Gali and due to fear had not stated these facts to her family. She further deposed that in morning at about 11:00 am of the same day the accused did "charekhani" with her the accused had caught hold of her hands and pulled her towards himself and when she resisted he put his hand on her back and also pushed her, on account of which she also felt very ashamed of the act and had stated the fact to her mother and her mother and her brother raised objection to the mother of the accused but FIR No. 247/05 Page no. 4 of 8 instead of apologizing she started quarreling with them. Later on her brother called the Police, and by the time Police came, the accused had already fled from his house. Police also advised them to visit the Police Station next day to register her case next day in the Police Station.
8. Complainant has been examined as PW1 who has deposed in her examinationinchief that in evening of 19.06.2005 she was sitting with Rajni on roof of her house and at that time accused came to roof of his house and commented "Hi Chandni, my Darling" and made gestures of flying kiss and also stated that "Tu mujhe se shadi karle nahi to tujhe pata hai mai kya karunga" and one week prior to incident he had caught hold of her hand in gali. Apparently there is maternal contradiction and inconsistency in her statement. Complainant has deposed in her testimony before that in morning of same day (i.e. 19.06.2005) at about 11.00 a.m., accused did cherkhani with her and had caught her hand and pulled her towards him and had put his hand on her back and pushed her thereafter she narrated this fact to her mother and her mother and brother raised objection to mother of accused who started quarreling and then her brother called police at number 100. This testimony of PW is in contradiction to her statement recorded by police which is Ex. PW1/A wherein she had stated that incident of "cherkhani" in which accused had caught hold of her hand had taken place on morning of FIR No. 247/05 Page no. 5 of 8 20.06.2005 at about 11 O'clock while in her testimony of complainant she has stated that this incident occurred on 19.06.2005 At 11 O'clock.
9. Sh. Ashok Kumar (brother of complainant) was examined as PW2 who has deposed that on 19.06.2005 when he returned to house after 11.30 p.m., complainant had told him that Raju had misbehaved with her at about 11.00 a.m. on same day and in evening she had misbehaved with her when she was standing on roof of house and had threatened her that he would throw acid on her face, if she did not marry him and on hearing this from complainant PW2, he alongwith his mother went to mother of accused to tell her, but she stated quarreling and then PW2 called on 100 number. In crossexamination, PW2 has admitted that he has made call at 100 number after 11.30 p.m on that day after returning from office.
10. However the testimony of PW2 contradicts the DD no. 9A dt. 20.06.2005 PS M.S. Park which was received at 12.45 p.m. in daytime regarding "scuffle" (jhagda) at DBlock, Gali no. 9, Ashok Nagar ASI Devender Singh who was posted as DO for 08.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. at PS M.S. Park was examined as PW4 and he has deposed that he received information at about 12.45 p.m. on 20.06.2005 during day time about quarrel at DBlock, Gali no. 9, Ashok Nagar which was reduced to DD no. 9A and has been exhibited as Ex. PW4/A. The testimony of PW2 is contradictory to FIR No. 247/05 Page no. 6 of 8 documentary evidence Ex. PW4/A regarding time at which information was given to police. Further PW2 is only a hearsay witness and as pointed out above oral testimony of PW2 contradicts the documentary evidence on record.
11. PW3 Rajni has deposed that on 20.06.2005 in evening hours when she and Geeta were standing on roof of their house accused, who was standing on roof of his house did "Isharebaji" to Geeta and said "Hey Chandni, Hey Darling" and also threatened Geeta that if Geeta did not marry him, she would face dire consequences. PW3 has deposed that they told her immediately came down stairs and Geeta had that one week prior to the incident, the accused had caught hold of her hands in the gali, but due to fear she had not stated the fact to anybody and earlier also the accused had threatened to throw acid on her face. Evidently testimony of PW3 who was an eyewitness of alleged incident of "cherkhani" which occurred when complainant & PW3 were on terrace of complainant house, suffers from material contradictions specifically on point of date of incident, as according to PW1 the incident of "cherkhani" on terrace of complainant's house had occurred in evening of 19.06.2005 and not on 20.06.2005 as deposed by PW3.
12. The account of two eyewitness to the incident, PW1 & PW3 FIR No. 247/05 Page no. 7 of 8 suffers from material contradictions and variations. Thus weakening the prosecution case. Moreover there are substantial contradictions in oral testimony of PW2 and documentary evidence placed on record as outlined herein above. Thus prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence of the court.
13. In view of aforesaid lacuna in prosecution evidence this court is of opinion that prosecution has failed to prove case against accused U/s 354/506/509 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and in absence of any cogent and consistent evidence, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused Rajesh @ Raj Kumar is acquitted of offence U/s 354/506/509 IPC.
14. Bail bond of accused persons furnished at the time of court bail, shall remain in force for a period of six months. Sureties of the accused persons shall not be discharged for a period of six months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (RITU SINGH)
ON 30.01.2015 MM/MAHILA COURTS No. 1
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
FIR No. 247/05 Page no. 8 of 8
In The Court Of Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court No. 1) Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Presided by : Ms. Ritu Singh FIR NO. 247/05 PS M.S. Park 30.01.2015 Present: Ld. APP for State.
Accused in person.
Vide separate judgment of even date, accused Rajesh @ Raj Kumar is acquitted of offence U/s 354/506/509 IPC.
Bail bond of accused persons furnished at the time of court bail, shall remain in force for a period of six months. Sureties of the accused persons shall not be discharged for a period of six months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RITU SINGH) MM(Mahila Court)1 Shahdara/KKD Courts/Delhi 30.01.2015.
FIR No. 247/05 Page no. 9 of 8