Delhi District Court
Fir No.478/07 State vs . Satish @ Chatru Ps:Rajouri Garden on 30 June, 2015
FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden
IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT03),WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
State Vs. Satish @ Chatru
FIR No : 478/07
P.S. Rajouri Garden
U/s 354 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Case Unique I.D. No. : 02401R1619352008
2. Date of complaint : 23.06.2007
3. Name, parentage & address of
the accused : Accused Satish @
Chatru S/o Deva Ram
R/o B3/969, 12½ Gaj,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
4. Offence complaint of : U/s 354 IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Acquitted
7. Date of order : 30.06.2015.
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION :
Accused has been forwarded by the SHO of PS Rajouri Garden to face trial U/s 354 IPC.
2. In a nut shell, the prosecution story is that complaint was made by the complainant PW victim that on 23.06.2007 at about Page No. 1 FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden 04:30 p.m. she was alone at her home and her Nandoi namely accused Satish @ Chatru came to her house and told her that there is no quarrel between them and she offered tea and snacks i.e. samosas to the accused. She further stated that the accused while having tea and the snacks i.e. samosas told her that she should call from her mobile phone on his mobile phone but she told that she is not having balance in her mobile phone, then accused took out certain amount and told her that he would maintain her and if her husband does not keep her then he would keep her and provide maintenance to her. She further deposed that on hearing this, she stood up, then accused caught hold of her hand and pulled her towards him, she was able to take her hand out from the grip of the accused then accused pulled her another hand and misbehaved with her. On this complaint, FIR was registered and after completion of remaining investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
3. Finding a prima facie case, the accused Satish @ Chatru is charged U/s 354 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution to prove its case examined four witnesses namely PW1 ASI Ram Avtar, PW2 complainant cum victim, PW3 Page No. 2 FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden Ct. Ramesh Kumar and PW4 SI Partap Singh. However, the further cross examination of PW2 Victim was not completed and it was deferred, so it shows that her evidence is not complete and hence, as per law, her entire evidence could not be read.
5. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C recorded separately wherein accused denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case because the complainant was in his relations as his wife's brother's wife i.e. the wife of his brotherinlaw and complainant was not having good relations with her husband and since his wife being the sister of her husband has tried to compromise the matter between them so that the family life of her brother and his wife i.e. the complainant could be saved and therefore, complainant has falsely implicated him to teach a lesson to his wife. He further alleged that at present, complainant has left her matrimonial house and ran away with some other person and got remarried to some other person inspite of the fact that she has not obtained divorce till date from her husband namely Babu Lal who is his brotherinlaw. Also, the accused chose not to lead defence evidence.
Page No. 3 FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State as well as the Ld. Counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and thoroughly.
7. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined formal witness namely PW1 ASI Ram Avtar and he stated that on 23.06.2007 at about 8.20 pm on the basis of rukka received from Ct. Ramesh, he registered the present FIR and copy of same is Ex.PW1/A and he made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B.
8. Prosecution to prove its case examined witnesses namely PW4 SI Partap Singh, Investigating Officer and PW3 Ct. Ramesh Kumar and they stated that on 23.06.2007, on receiving DD No.17 they reached at the spot where they met the complainant and the IO ASI Pratap Singh recorded her statement/tehrir and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ramesh Kumar. They further deposed that IO ASI Pratap Singh arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and conducted the personal search of the accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/C and they correctly identified the accused present in the Court. PW4 SI Pratap Singh further deposed that the complaint of the complainant recorded by him is already Ex.PW2/A Page No. 4 FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden and he prepared Site Plan at the instance of the complainant which is Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that he kept the accused in the lock up and on the next day, accused produced bail bonds with a surety and accused was released on the bail bonds Ex.PW4/B. He further proved that he moved an application Ex.PW4/C for checking the status of the involvement of the accused in other cases from CRO and in this respect, the finger prints of the accused obtained are collectively Ex.PW4/D (running in four pages) and as per the report, there was no previous conviction of the accused and as per record available in the police station, the accused was not involved in any other case and the report in this respect is Ex.PW4/E. He further proved that he collected the DD Entry No.17 connected to this case and placed the same on record and the same is Ex.PW4/F and he conducted the investigation and he prepared and submitted the police report/challan in the Court.
9. On the other hand, accused has raised the only defence that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case because the complainant was in his relations as his wife's brother's wife i.e. the wife of his brotherinlaw and complainant was not having good relations with her husband and since his wife being the sister of her husband has tried to compromise the matter between Page No. 5 FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden them so that the family life of her brother and his wife i.e. the complainant could be saved and therefore, complainant has falsely implicated him to teach a lesson to his wife. He further alleged that at present, complainant has left her matrimonial house and ran away with some other person and got remarried to some other person inspite of the fact that she has not obtained divorce till date from her husband namely Babu Lal who is his brotherinlaw. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant as there was a dispute between the complainant and her husband and complainant has filed the present case to harass the wife of the accused who is the sister of the husband of the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that although the relationship of being relatives,between the accused and the complainant was existing for the past around 10 years before the date of incident but there has been no prior complaint against the accused by the complainant and this fact proves the defence taken by the accused and this fact throws doubt on the prosecution story.
10. Ld. counsel for the accused further contended that although the matter was compromised between the parties before the Ld. Mediation Centre on 22.01.2014 but only due to the fact that the Page No. 6 FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden formal permission of this Court could not be taken as the complainant had become untraceable thereafter and therefore, the present matter could not be compounded. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that the compromise reached between the parties before the Ld. Mediation Centre on 22.01.2014 must also be taken in the judicial notice of the Court as the matter was sent for settlement before the Ld. Mediation Centre on the request of both the parties by the Court itself vide order dated 21.11.2013.
11. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that as per the law, part of the evidence cannot be read and in the present case, the further cross examination of the most crucial witness i.e. complainantcumvictimcumsole eye witness PW2 Victim was deferred and it could not be completed and therefore, the entire evidence of PW2 victim could not be read. Ld. counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of A.P. AIR 2012 SC 2242 wherein it has been laid down that "It is trite that the credibility of witnesses whether in a civil or criminal case can be tested only when the testimony is put through the fire of crossexamination. Denial of an opportunity to do so will result in a serious miscarriage of justice in the present case keeping in view the serious consequences that will Page No. 7 FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden follow any such denial". Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that as the incomplete evidence of PW2 victim is inadmissible as per law and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. counsel for the accused further contended that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused and therefore, all these facts throws doubt on the prosecution story and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused and accused should be accordingly acquitted.
12. Keeping in view the fact that vide order dated 21.11.2013, on the joint request of both the parties i.e. accused and the complainant, the present matter was sent to the Ld. Mediation Centre for compromise. Also, considering the fact that vide order dated 22.01.2014, the matter was settled between the parties before the Ld. Mediation Centre. However, no formal permission of the Court as required U/s 320(2) Cr.P.C. for the compounding of the offence U/s 354 IPC was sought by both the parties as the complainant did not appeared thereafter in the Court. Although, as per the date of incident i.e. 23.06.2007 the offence U/s 354 IPC could be compounded with the permission of the Court as per Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C.
Page No. 8 FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasoning and considering the fact that PW2 Victim i.e. complainant cum victim cum sole eye witness was examined and partly cross examined on 13.02.2012. Further cross examination of PW2 Victim was deferred as Ld. counsel for the accused wants to put some documents to the witness of which certified copies should be obtained by him. But, further cross examination of PW2 Victim could not take place for the past three years. Although, considering the fact that PW2 Victim settled the matter with the accused before the Ld. Mediation Centre on 22.01.2014 without seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence. Also, thereafter the complainant became untraceable as despite several notices to the complainant for the past one and half year, complainant has became untraceable as per the report of the DCP. So, it shows that the evidence of the most crucial witness PW2 Victim i.e. complainant cum victim cum sole eye witness is incomplete and so, the entire evidence of PW2 Victim could not be read as per law. Keeping in view Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the basic Canons of Criminal Jurisprudence which mandates that for the right of fair trial as a Fundamental Right, accused must be given the right of cross examination of the witness. Relying upon the Full Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Pepsu High Court in The State Vs. Baldev Page No. 9 FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden Kishan 1953 Cri.L.J.51 (Pepsu), and relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Juwar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. 1980 Cri.L.J.418 and also relying upon the latest Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of A.P. (Supra) wherein it has been consistently laid down that "Courts should not read the evidence of a witness if the opportunity to cross examine the said witness is not given to the accused and the Court should discard the evidence of said witness." Also, as per the criminal law, it is a clear preposition that the evidence of a witness should be read as a whole and not in parts. Since, in the present case the evidence of PW2 Victim is not complete as the further cross examination of PW2 Victim could not be completed. So, it proves that the evidence of PW2 Victim is incomplete and hence, could not be read and so the evidence of PW2 Victim is hereby discarded. This fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. Also, no other eye witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove its case. Thus, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Also, no specific role has been alleged against the accused. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused. All these aforesaid facts throws doubt on the prosecution story. The benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Hence, Page No. 10 FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden accused Satish @ Chatru is accordingly acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. His bail bonds and surety bonds stands discharged. Case property, if any, be dealt with as per law.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 30.06.2015.
(EKTA GAUBA ) Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court03/West/Delhi Page No. 11