Delhi District Court
State vs . Mahipal Singh & Ors. on 13 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ KUMAR SINGH: MM03(SOUTH) /
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Mahipal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. : 983/2000
U/S : 509/34 IPC
PS : Hauz Khas
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 02403R0025632003
b) Date of institution of the case : 06.06.2001
c) Date of commission of offence : 30.11.2000
d) Name of the complainant : Ms. Krishna Chawla,
e) Name & address of the 1. Ram Garib S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Lal,
accused person R/o : 9B, DDA Janta Flats,
Staff Quarter, Basant Enclave,
New Delhi.
2. Puran Singh S/o Sh. Dayal Singh,
R/O : 43, Savitri Nagar,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Mahipal Singh S/o Sh. Lekh Pal
R/o H16/258, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
f) Offence charged with : 509/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 07.04.2018
i) Final order : Convicted u/s 509/34 IPC.
j) Date of Judgment : 05.07.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, accused Ram Garib, Puran Singh and Mahipal Singh have been sent to face trial with the allegations that on 30.11.2000 at 3.15PM at DDA Office, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention insulted modesty of complainant Smt. Krishna Chawla by uttering vulgar words with intent to insult her modesty and thus committed offence u/s 509 / 34 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. A formal charge U/s 509/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses.
4. PW1 Smt. Krishna Chawla is the complainant in the present case who deposed that " on 30.11.2000, she was working with DDA at Khel Gaon as Sr. Stenographer, that at 3/3.15PM, she left her purse in almirah and went to take salary , that when she came back she found her purse in open condition and Rs. 2500/ were missing, that she called the accused persons namely Ram Garib, Puran Singh and Mahipal Singh and inquired the matter from them but all three accused instead of giving reply, started using filthy language against her which she cannot repeat at this time and cracked filthy jokes on her. The witness further deposed that accused used to cast filthy words against her, that she lodged a complaint to her Sr. Official regarding misbehaviour and filthy language but no action was taken, that all the accused correctly identified by witness, used to remain under the influence of liquor and misbehaved with her. The witness further deposed that on the day of incident accused Puran Chand was under the influence of liquor and all the accused were teasing her from the morning, that as she had informed to the police on the previous day regarding the misbehaviour of accused and the police had chided them not to behave like that but accused indulged in the behaviour on the next day i.e. on 30.11.2000, that she earlier lodged the complaint with police on 9.10.2000 despite that accused had misbehaved and used filthy language with her, that complaint dt. 9.7.03 is Mark A, that complaint dt. 20.5.03 is Mark B, complaint dt. 26.11.02 is Mark C. The witness further deposed that accused passed filthy gesture which ashamed even the male members and she cannot state at this state, that accused used to write filthy obscene words on the door and the wall of her room, that her complaint to the police is Ex PW1/A , that she caught the accused casting obscene remarks and calls which they used to make from intercom, that accused were arrested in her presence. During her testimony recorded on 28.11.2003 complainant deposed that words uttered were so vulgar and obscene that she chose to write them down instead of speaking before the court.
5. PW2 W/ SI Vandana Rai deposed that on 30.11.2000, she was posted at PS Hauz Khas and on that day on receipt of complaint of complainant from DO, she along with complainant went to her office and inquired about the accused who met her there and they denied for committing any offence, that accused were medically examined, that investigation was kept pending as accused felt sorry and compromised the matter with the complainant with the intervention of their superior, that her application regarding medical examination of accused Puran Singh is Ex PW2/A and accused was found under the influence of alcohol and that she conducted the inquiry only upto 30.11.2000 and later on case was transferred on 05.12.2000.
6. PW3 HC Govind Ram is duty officer who proved the copy of FIR Ex PW3/A and rukka Ex PW3/B.
7. PW4 is IO / SI Afsar Raza who deposed that on 05.12.2000, investigation of the present case was marked to him, that he met with the complainant and prepared site plan Ex PW4/A at the instance of the complainant , that accused persons arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW4/B, C and D, that all the accused were released on bail and that he recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the challan and same was filed in the court for judicial verdict.
8. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 CrPC, in which they all pleaded their innocence and intended to lead the defence evidence.
9. DW2 is N.S.Arora deposed that he knows the complainant since 1999 and accused Mahipal was working as Steno of Chief Engineer, that on 30.11.2000 he heard noise from outside and saw that complainant was very upset and was shouting that somebody as stolen money from her almirah, that he inquired from 1 or 2 persons and came to know that complainant is alleging that her money has been stolen, that complainant did not level specific allegations against Mahipal, meanwhile complainant went to PS , police came to their office, that complainant did not level allegations against any of the accused before the arrival of the police, that the complainant never made any complaint of any kind of misbehaviour against accused Mahipal and for that matter agaisnt any of the accused, that he can vouch that accused Mahipal throughout his tenure never uttered any bad words for any of the person since there was a staff of 6070 people including lady staff approx. 10 to 12, that accused Mahipal is very submissive, sincere, hard working and honest.
10. DW4 Pankaj Belwal placed on record the summoned record Ex DW4/A from page no. 1 to 13(OSR), Ex DW4/B at page no. 14(OSR), Ex DW4/C colly from page no. 15 to 18 (OSR), Ex DW4/D colly from page no. 19 to 20 (OSR)and Ex DW4/E from page no 21 to 24 colly (OSR) and documents Mark A from page no. 25 to 28.
11. Arguments heard and record perused.
12. From the testimony of complainant i.e. PW1, it is clear that she had made various complaints against the accused persons to the higher officers and police authorities regarding their abusive behaviour previously to the date of incident also. The version of the complainant qua incident that occurred on 30.11.2000 also inspires confidence as her testimony had remained unrebutted during the cross examination. Though, there is no other eye witness to support the case of the prosecution despite the fact that other staff persons were also present at the spot, the same cannot be a ground to absolve the accused persons from criminal liability as it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which has to be taken into consideration. Testimony of sole witness can be acted upon without corroboration if found unconcocted and totally reliable. Minor contradictions appearing in the testimony of the complainant regarding the matter which are not in issue in the present case does not render her version unreliable.
13. The concept of probabilities, and the degree of its, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of unit to be mathematically numerated as to how many such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubts. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on the robust, common sense and ultimately on the trained institution of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice.
14. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Vs. State of Kerala (2003) 2 SCC, 401 has held that "conviction can be based upon the testimony of sole witness if it is found completely reliable".
15. Testimonies of DW1 & DW3 cannot be read into evidence as they were dropped by the accused persons in the middle of their examination in chief and defence evidence was closed by the accused persons. DW2 N.S.Arora in his examination in chief had deposed that as per his knowledge accused Mahipal Singh was very submissive, sincere, hardworking & honest throughout and complainant never made any complaint of any kind of misbehavior against the accused Mahipal or any of the accused persons and in his cross examination, he denied that letter pertaining to disciplinary action were not marked to him. However, on confronting him with Ex. DW2/A , Ex DW2/B , Ex DW2/C and Ex DW2/D, witness had admitted that these were the letters regarding their disciplinary issues and were marked to him. He had also admitted that issues stated in the above said letters were regarding indiscipline of staff by playing of card in the office, absentee statement, harassment complaints by the ladies employee including present complainant. This cast shadow of doubt on the veracity of DW2.
16. DW4 had produced record Ex DW4/A to Ex DW4/E. However,the same cannot be read into evidence as the contents of the record have not been proved in accordance with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Further, accused have not been able to prove that in what manner the said record prove their innocence.
17. In view of the above discussions, all three accused persons are convicted u/s. 509/34 IPC. Let the parties be heard on the point of sentence.
ANUJ Digitally signed
by ANUJ KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2018.07.13
Announced in the open court SINGH 20:40:02 +0530
on 05.07.2018 (Anuj Kumar Singh)
MM03(SD)/New Delhi/ 05.07.2018