Delhi District Court
State vs . Arti Aggarwal on 7 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAGANDEEP SINGH,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DELHI
FIR NO: 568/01
U/S: 8 ITP ACT
P.S: TIMAR PUR
STATE VS. ARTI AGGARWAL
:JUDGMENT:
Sl. No. of the case 483/3
Date of commission of offence 11.12.2001
Name of the complainant Sh. Yogender Verma
S/o Sh. Rajender
Singh, R/o H. No.
2/21. Jharoda Dairy,
Delhi.
Name, parentage and address Arti Aggarwal
of the accused. W/o Shri Anil Kumar
R/o H. No. 6, Gali No.
1, Nehru Gali, West
STATE VS. ARTI AGGARWAL 1
FIR NO.568/01
Sant Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained off U/s 8 ITP Act.
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
Date of order 07.02.2011
Date of final arguments heard 07.02.2011
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :
1. The facts in brief are that on 11.12.2001 at about 4.40 pm near Timar Pur Bus Stand, Timar Pur Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Timar Pur, accused was found soliciting the public persons by making gestures towards them for the purpose of prostitution. She also gave an offer to the complainant namely Yogender Verma. Thereafter, she was booked U/s 8 of ITP Act. The accused was then arrested for an offence punishable U/s 8 of ITP Act.
2. That after completion of investigation the challan against STATE VS. ARTI AGGARWAL 2 FIR NO.568/01 the accused was filed on 10.05.2002 and accused was summoned. The charge u/s 8 of ITP Act was framed against the accused on 08.05.2006, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses namely PW1 Yogender Verma and PW2 Inspector Jaibir Singh in the present case.
4. PW1 Yogender Verma is the complainant/star witness who turned hostile. He did not remember anything about the incident. No complaint was ever made by him to the police. He was also cross examined at length by Ld. APP for the State.
5. PW2 Inspector Jaibir Singh is also the material witness who has deposed that on 11.12.2001 he was posted at Police Station Timar Pur as Additional SHO. On that day he was on patrolling duty alongwith SI Gajender Singh and Ct. Suraj Bhan. At about 4.30/4.45 pm they were present at Tikona Park, Timar Pur, Delhi. There one person who introduced STATE VS. ARTI AGGARWAL 3 FIR NO.568/01 himself as Yogender met them, who told them that one lady was standing at Timar Pur Bus Stand who was making vulgar gesture for the purpose of soliciting the passersby for prostitution and she had also tried to seduce him. He recorded the statement of Mr. Yogender Verma which is already Ex. PW1/A. Tehrir was prepared which is Ex. PW2/A and was sent to Police Station through Ct. Suraj Bhan for getting the case registered. Further, investigation was conducted by SI Gajender Kumar.
6. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed on 15.01.2011. As the matter was pending since the year 2001, on 01.10.2010 the prosecution was granted last opportunity for concluding PE. But even then the prosecution failed to secure the presence of witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded today only and she has denied all the allegations levelled against him. She stated that no gesture for the purpose of soliciting the passersby was ever made by her. She preferred not to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard the parties and gone through the record. The STATE VS. ARTI AGGARWAL 4 FIR NO.568/01 accused has been charged u/s 8 of ITP Act.
8. The only allegation which has been levelled against the accused was found soliciting the public persons for the purpose of prostitution. The material witness in the present case are PW1 and PW2. The PW1 is the star witness on whose complaint the present FIR has been registered. The said witness in his deposition before the court turned hostile and denied all the facts which has been alleged by the prosecution. The said witness was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State. All the leading questions which were put to the said witness, were denied by him. He also denied that his statement was recorded by police.
9. The second witness is PW2 Inspector Jaibir Singh who recorded the statement of complainant. He was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the Court. Thereafter, on leading questions were put to him, then he corroborated the story of the prosecution. Apart from his evidence there is no other evidence which connects the accused with the offence charged. Further, the STATE VS. ARTI AGGARWAL 5 FIR NO.568/01 witness PW2 in his cross examination stated that no efforts were made by them to inquire from any other public persons regarding the activity of accused. This also creates doubt on the story of the prosecution.
10.The main and independent witness in the present case was PW1 who is the complainant and on whose complaint the present FIR was lodged. He has not stood by story of prosecution and has turned hostile. In these circumstances, the accused cannot be held liable for the offence charged merely on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of Inspector Jaibir Singh. Further, no efforts were made by him to join public persons apart from the complainant in the investigation. As per the story of prosecution itself, the accused was making gestures to public persons for prostitution, so it was their duty to examine other persons present at spot, so as to verify the allegations of complainant. But the IO failed to perform his duty in a fair manner. All these facts creates doubt in the story of prosecution.
STATE VS. ARTI AGGARWAL 6 FIR NO.568/0111.It is a cardinal principal of criminal law that the prosecution has to prove their case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. All these facts leads to one conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove their case against the accused.
In view of the same, accused Arti Aggarwal is acquitted u/s 8 of ITP Act. Bail bond and surety bond stands discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court)
Dated: 07.02.2011 (GAGANDEEP SINGH)
MM01/NORTH
TIS HAZARI : DELHI
STATE VS. ARTI AGGARWAL 7
FIR NO.568/01
CC/FIR No. 568/01
P.S. TIMAR PUR
STATE VS. ARTI AGGARWAL
07.02.2011
Present: Ld. APP Sh. J S Malik, for the State.
Accused Arti Aggarwal in person.
Statement of accused Arti Aggarwal has been recorded. She does not want to lead any evidence in defence.
Final arguments heard. Vide my separate detailed judgment of the even date accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 8 of ITP Act. Previous bail bond and surety bond adopted for the purpose of Section 437A of Cr.PC. They shall remain valid for period of six months from today. Original documents returned as per rules. File be consigned to Record Room.
(GAGANDEEP SINGH) MM01/NORTH DELHI 07.02.2011 STATE VS. ARTI AGGARWAL 8 FIR NO.568/01