Delhi District Court
Ms. Heena vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 18 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
CA No.214/2019
MS. HEENA
D/O BABUDDIN
R/O WARD NO. 08
KASBA PINGAVA
NEAR LAL DASS MANDIR
PUNHANA (HARYANA)
......APPELLANT
Versus
1. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
2. MOHD. LATIF
S/O SUMER KHAN
R/O HOUSE NO. BCP69,
BADHKAL COLONY
FARIDABAD NIT,
HARYANA
3. MEENUDIN
S/O SH. BABU KHAN
R/O HOUSE NO. 209
KANGAR MOHALLA
TUGHALKABAD VILLAGE,
NEW DELHI.
......RESPONDENTS
CA No. 214/19 Heena vs The State & Ors. Page 1 of 6 pages
Date of filing : 16.04.2019
First date before this court : 16.04.2019
Date of Decision : 18.01.2020
Appearance : Shri Akash Bansal & Shri A. Banerjee, ld. counsel for appellant
Shri Zenul Abedeen, ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State / respondent no. 1
Shri Gaurav Garg, ld. counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 22.01.2019 vide which the respondents no. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges under Section 354B/323 IPC.
2. It is submitted in the appeal that the appellant is the wife of respondent no. 3 Meenudin having got married with him on 20.12.2015. Respondent no. 2 Mohd. Latif is the brotherinlaw of her husband / respondent no. 3. On 24.06.2017 at about 4.00 pm, respondent no. 2 Latif came to her room and used criminal force against her by holding her thigh. He tried to disrobe her by pulling her clothes and tried to compel her to be naked. She raised an alarm, on hearing which, her motherinlaw threatened her to keep quiet. The appellant informed respondent no. 3, her husband telephonically; he on returning back gave her beatings and left her at the bus stand near her residence. On her complaint, FIR under Section 354/323 IPC was registered on 09.08.2017 against respondents no. 2 and 3 and the chargesheet was filed in the court.
CA No. 214/19 Heena vs The State & Ors. Page 2 of 6 pages The charges under Section 354B/323 IPC were framed against respondents no. 2 and 3 on 29.10.2018 to which they pleaded not guilty. It is submitted that in the month of February 2019, appellant came to know that the two respondents have been acquitted without recording her evidence.
3. It is submitted that the address of the appellant is Ward No. 8, Kasba Pingava near Lal Dass Mandir, Punhana, Haryana which is already mentioned in the chargesheet. However, the process server went to Punhana instead of Pingava because of which the summons could not be served upon her and the evidence of the prosecution was closed and benefit extended to respondents no. 2 and 3. It is submitted that the summons were never served at her address as Pingava and Punhana are two different localities; while Pingava is a kasba and Punhana is a Tehsil. The statement of one Aas Mohammad son of Ibrahim Khan was recorded who was residing near Lal Dass Mandir, Punhana PS Punhana, Dist. Nuh, Mewat but he is not a resident of Pingava.
4. It is thus, submitted that the summons were never served upon the appellant and the respondents have been wrongly acquitted. A prayer is made that the acquittal order dated 22.01.2019 be set aside and retrial be directed.
5. The respondents no. 2 and 3 appeared through the CA No. 214/19 Heena vs The State & Ors. Page 3 of 6 pages counsel and asserted that the complainant / appellant was served at the correct address as was given by the prosecution in the list of witnesses and there is no ground for setting aside the acquittal.
6. Learned Chief Public Prosecutor has also argued on similar lines.
7. I have heard the submissions and perused the record. My observations are as under :
8. The charge under Section 354B IPC was framed against respondent no. 2 Mohd. Latif and charge under Section 323 IPC was framed against respondent no. 3 Meenudin vide order dated 29.10.2018. On the said date, the appellant was directed to be served through DCP for 22.01.2019. The learned MM on 22.01.2019 observed that the complainant was untraceable in the present case and thus dispensed with the other witnesses, while some documents were admitted on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3. The prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with and on the same date i.e. 22.01.2019, both the accused / respondents were acquitted.
9. The perusal of the summons that were sent to the complainant show that ASI Rajbir Singh had reported that he along with the local police, tried to trace the complainant in Ward No. 8, CA No. 214/19 Heena vs The State & Ors. Page 4 of 6 pages near Lal Dass Mandir and also took with him a local person namely Aas Mohammad but the complainant could not be traced and the report was submitted. The statement of Aas Mohammad was also recorded who stated that there is no lady by the name of complainant residing in Punhana near Lal Dass Mandir. The summons have been taken only once and the report was given that the complainant was not traceable.
10. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that Pingava and Punhana are different localities and there are temples located in each of these areas. It is claimed that in fact the summons never went to the correct address.
11. In view of the submissions on behalf of the appellant that Pingava and Punhana are two different localities and the summons never reached her and also considering that the summons had been sent only once and no further efforts were made for tracing the complainant, it would be in the interest of justice, to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 22.01.2019 and one opportunity be given to the prosecution to examine the complainant especially in the light of serious allegations made by her against respondents no. 2 and 3.
12. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside with the directions to the prosecution to examine the complainant and also CA No. 214/19 Heena vs The State & Ors. Page 5 of 6 pages lead other prosecution evidence and to decide the case on merits. The appellant may also appear before the learned MM on 03.02.2020 for recording of her statement for decision of the case as per law.
13. A copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on this 18th day of January 2020 (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts New Delhi CA No. 214/19 Heena vs The State & Ors. Page 6 of 6 pages