Delhi District Court
State vs Vikram Etc on 29 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 340/2022)
FIR No. 27/2022
Police Station Narela Industrial Area
Charge sheet filed Under Section 306/34 IPC
Charge framed Under Section 354/354A/306/201/34
IPC
State V/s (1) Vikram
S/o Sh.Swantantra Kumar
R/o H.No. 516, Panna Udyan,
Narela, Delhi.
(2) Suresh Gautam
S/o Sh. Kishori Lal
R/o H.No. C-772,
Metro Vihar, Phase-I,
Holambi Kalan, Delhi.
......Accused Persons
Date of institution 30.04.2022
Dates of arguments 15.04.2024, 20.04.2024 &
25.04.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 29.04.2024
Decision Accused Suresh Gautam
convicted U/s 306/201/
354/354A IPC
Accused Vikram convicted
U/s 201 IPC and acquitted
under Section 306 IPC
SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area
State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 1 of 51
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion are that on 05.01.2022, a DD entry bearing no.66A was received at PS Narela regarding hanging of a girl. She was taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela and was decalred brought dead. The deceased was identified as victim 'S', who was working in Delhi Civil Defence Services and was posted at Vaccination Centre/ SDM Office, Naya Bans, Delhi. Her mother/ complainant had alleged that her daughter deceased 'S' was being sexually harassed by accused Suresh Gautam, who was working in the same centre as her superior and because of his conduct, she was upset for the past 7 to 8 days prior to her death. The complainant also alleged that the accused Suresh Gutam, who was Incharge of the Vaccination Centre, one day, deliberately sent the remaining staff from the office to Mangal Bazar but detained the deceased 'S' alone with him and outrage her modesty and tried to forcibly kiss her. That the deceased had written the entire incident and conduct of accused Suresh Gautam in a letter and had kept it in a register at the SDM Office, which came in the hand of co-accused Vikram.
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Vikram had ensured the deceased that he would give this letter to the SDM concerned about the misconduct of accused Suresh Gautam, however, in connivance with co-accused Suresh Gautam, accused Vikram tore the said paper and disclosed this fact to the deceased. That before committing suicide, the deceased had told SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 2 of 51her mother about the alleged acts of accused Suresh Gautam and that of co-accused Vikram had torn the letter written by her and soon thereafter, she committed suicide.
In the backdrop of this factual matrix, the present FIR had been registered initially under Section 306/34 IPC and after the recording the statement of the complainant and other witnesses and on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet had been filed under Section 306/34 IPC.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 28.07.2022 charge under Section 306/201/34 IPC was framed against both accused Suresh Gautam and Vikram and in addition charge under Section 354/354A IPC was framed against accused Suresh Gautam. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 14 witnesses in all.
PW1 is complainant Smt. Sangeeta. She is the mother of the deceased and deposed as under:
"Now, I have two children i.e. daughter Swati and son Satender. My daughter 'S' aged about 20 years, who was working in Delhi Civil Defence. 'S' had expired. She was working in SDM Office, Naya Bans. My daughter 'S' was working in Vaccination Centre and performing duties in the SDM Office due to Corona. Suresh Gautam was Incharge of the said SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 3 of 51
Vaccination Centre. My daughter informed me that Suresh Gautam had ill eye or bad intention for her for the last 7-8 days. On Tuesday, Suresh Gautam had sent all the staff to Mangal Bazar for removing rehri/thela. My daughter along with Suresh Gutam remained in the Vaccination Centre. Suresh Gutam tried to kiss my daughter, who pushed him away and she came out of the said Vaccination Centre. My daughter 'S' wrote a letter against Suresh Gautam narrating this incident and put the said letter in one of the register of the said office. The said register used to be sent and seen by the SDM. The said register was put in the bag of Vikram. 'S' had written in letter the indecent behaviour of Suresh Gautam and her personal matters. My daughter 'S' intend to take leave on the next day. My daughter came to our house. On the next day, at about 1.30 p.m. when my daughter at our home, she received a call from Vikram, who informed her that he received a letter in the register and he also informed her that she had named seven persons in the said letter. Vikram also threatened her that he would viral the said letter through social media and Whatsapp group etc. My daughter requested Vikram to torn the said letter and not to show the said letter to anyone. It was rainy day. My daughter made a call to her friend Aftab, who came to our house on motorcycle and my daughter accompanied him. I do not know what was discussion between Vikram and my daughter when she went to the office of SDM. My daughter had gone to the SDM Office for getting the letter torn. My daughter returned to our house from SDM Office with Aftab. At that time, I was sleeping. My daughter hanged herself in her house at the second floor. My daughter committed suicide. The said letter has been torn off by Vikram in the SDM Office.
I gave written complaint to the police Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. Accused Vikram and Suresh Gautam are present in the court today (correctly identified SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 4 of 51
by the witness).
On the date of incident when I went to the second floor for sweeping/cleaning, I found the door of the room was bolted from inside and I pushed the same. The door of the said room was opened and I saw that my daughter was hanging. I called my daughter Swati and we cut the rope and took the body of Swati on the ground of the said floor. I called the neighbours and neighbours also helped us. We took my daughter to hospital.
I pointed out the scene of crime to the police who prepared site plan at my instance which is Ex. PW1/B."
She had been thoroughly cross-examined ld. Counsels for accused persons.
PW2 is Mr.Aftab Alam. He has deposed as under:
"On 05.01.2022, in the morning hour at about 12 noon, the mother of 'S' made a telephone call to me and requested me to take 'S' at her office of SDM, Naya Bans Delhi. I went to the house of 'S' where I met with her mother who informed me that 'S' had left the house. The mother of 'S' requested me to make a call on the mobile of 'S'. I made a call on the mobile of 'S' who informed me that she is standing near mother dairy situated Holumbi Kalan. I was on motorcycle. I reached at the mother dairy Holumbi Kalan where I met 'S'. I alongwith 'S' went to SDM office Naya Bans on my motorcycle. Surpiya went inside the office and requested me to stand in the park near the SDM office. When 'S' came out of the office, she seemed to be sad. On my asking, as to why she is disturbed and sad, she informed me that on 04.01.2022 on Tuesday, Suresh Gautam Incharge had sent all the staff of the office to the market for removing unauthorised shopkeepers. She also informed that she alongwith Suresh Gautam alone remained in the said office as all the staff were directed to leave the office and went to the market for SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 5 of 51
removing unauthorised shopkeeper. She also informed that Suresh Gautam forcibly tried to kiss her when she was alone in the office with him. She also informed me that she had written this whole incident on a page of a register against Suresh Gautam who tried to kiss her when she was alone. She also informed me that the said register came in the possession of Vikram. Vikram is working in the office of SDM Naya Bans, Delhi with 'S'. Vikram had gone through the contents of the letter written by 'S' on a page in a register and he had torn the said page of the register. She informed all these facts to me. She further informed me that Vikram had threatened 'S' that he would inform all the staff of SDM regarding the contents of the letter written by her on a page in register and she was under
fear of Vikram. 'S' informed all these facts to me when I alongwith 'S' were returning to her home on my motorcycle. I dropped 'S' outside her house. Thereafter, I left for my home on my motorcycle. After about 1-1/2 hours, when I dropped 'S' outside her house on 05.01.2022, I received a call of my friend Ajay who informed me that 'S' had committed suicide at her house. I immediately went to the house of 'S' where I came to know that she has been taken to the hospital.
I know 'S' for the last 3-4 years. She was my close friend. Ten days prior to her death, she started working in the office of SDM, Naya Bans, Delhi in vaccination Center. She informed me that Incharge of the vaccination center namely Suresh Gautam had ill/bad eye on her. She was disturbed for the said reason for the last 7-8 days. Both Suresh Gautam Incharge and Vikram were working with 'S' in the office of SDM Naya Bans, Delhi. I never personally met with Suresh Gautam and Vikram."
He had been thoroughly cross-examined ld. Counsels for accused persons.
PW3 is SI Surender. He has deposed that on SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 6 of 5105.01.2022 at about 06:50 pm, a call was received from control room and accordingly, he alongwith his staff consisting of ASI Gulbir (photographer) reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 1073, JJ Colony, Metrol Vihar, Holami Vihar, Delhi, where they met ASI Ravinder and other police officials and found that dead body of 'S' aged 21 years had already been sent to BSA Hospital and found one blue colour plastic rope with three parts.
He further deposed that at the spot, he had inspected the said place of occurrence and on his instructions, photographer ASI Gulbir took photographs from different angles. That after inspection, he had prepared crime team report which is now Ex.PW3/A and handed over the said report to the IO.
PW4 is ASI Gulvir Singh. He has deposed that on 05.01.2022, he along with Incharge Crime Team, SI Surender and another staff reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 1072, JJ Colony, Metro Vihar, Holami Kalan, Delhi, there ASI Ravinder and other staff of PS NIA met them and they found dead body of 'S' aged about 21 years had already been sent to BSA Hospitala and found blue colour plastic rope in three parts. That he took 13 photographs from different angles on the directions of ASI Ravinder and SI Surender through digital camera. That thereafter, a CD was prepared from memory card and he developed the 13 photographs and handed over the said photographs Ex.PW4/A1 to PW4/A13 to IO.
He has also proved the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW4/B to authenticate the correctness of the photographs and CD.
SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 7 of 51PW5 is Sh. Rohit. He has deposed that on 04.01.2022, he was performing his duty in the office of SDM/DCD (Naya Bans). That a girl namely 'S' was also working in DCD Office Vaccination Centre and on that day, he along with other staff were going to remove the weekly market stalls in Mangal Bazar. That when he was sitting inside the car and about to go to the place of Mangal Bazar, then he asked Ms.'S', why were she not accompanying us. Thereafter, she told him that she was asked by their senior Suresh Gautam not to go for removal of the Mangal Bazar and that she should stay back for some other work. Thereafter, he left from that place.
He further deposed that on the next day when he went to office, he was informed by Vikram that 'S' had written some letter which was torn by Vikram. He further deposed that he do not know the contents of the letter.
He has identified both the accused persons in the court. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and has drawn his attention to his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW5/A. PW6 is Govind Sonkar. His deposition is as under:
"On 04.01.2022, I had been performing my duty in Delhi Civil Defence SDM-Naya Bans, Delhi, for the past few days. A girl namely 'S' was also working in DCD Office Vaccination Centre. On that day, I along with other staff were going to remove the weekly market stalls in Mangal Bazar. Thereafter, I asked Ms.'S', why were you not accompanying us. She told me that accused Suresh Gautam had asked her not to go for removal of the Mangal Bazar stalls and that she should stay back for some other work.
SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 8 of 51
Thereafter, I left from that place. When I returned back to my office i.e. SDM Naya Bans, I found that 'S' was weeping when I asked reason for her weeping she did not say anything and she said papa ke yaad aa rahi hai. Thereafter, I left from there.
On the next day when I went to office, there was a register on which a letter had been written bearing the name of 'S'. I could not read the contents of the letter but the name of 'S' was read by me. Thereafter, accused Vikram was called in the office room of Suresh Gautam and they had some conversation. Soon thereafter, 'S' came to the office along with her another friend (male) as it was raining that day and inquired about her letter from Vikram, she asked mera letter kaha hai and in my presence, accused Vikram told her that the same is in the dustbin now. She saw the torn letter lying in the dustbin and left the office without saying anything. Accused Vikram is present in court today (correctly identified by the witness).
Accused Suresh Gautam produced from JC and is present in the court (correctly identified by the witness).
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for State seeks permission to ask one leading question. Heard and allowed.
It is correct that on the next day Vikram informed me that accused Suresh Gautam had tried to molest (jabardasti) 'S' after all the staff went to remove the Mangal Bazar weekly market and the said facts mentioned in a letter."
PW7 is Dr. Munish Wadhawan. He has deposed that on 06.01.2022 on receiving the request from ASI Ravinder Singh PS NIA for postmortem of deceased 'S' d/o Sh. 'SH' aged around 21 years, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased 'S'. That the detailed PM report bearing No. 22/2022 of BJRM Hospital dated 06.01.2022 at about 11:45 AM is Ex.PW7/A. He further deposed that the cause of death was SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 9 of 51opined as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.
PW8 is ASI Chander Pal. He has deposed that On 06.01.2022 at about 09:55 PM HC Manveer came with the rukka sent by SI Manoj Kumar for registration of FIR. He got fed the contents of rukka in computer through computer operator and computer generated copy of FIR is Ex. PW8/A (OSR). He further deposed that he made endorsement Ex. PW8/B on the rukka and gave certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex. PW8/C. That he handed over the copy of FIR and copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Manveer for handed over the same to SI Manoj Kumar for further investigation.
PW9 is HC Manveer Malik. He has deposed that On 06.01.2022 he was posted at PS NIA as HC and on that day, he had received the PCR call vide DD No. 62A & 69A and he shared the information regarding the said DDs to the SHO of PS. SHO had referred the above-said DDs investigation to the police incharge SI Manoj Kumar. That on that day, he was on emergency duty. He alongwith SI Manoj Kumar/IO reached at the spot i.e. H. No. A/1073, Phase-II, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Delhi, where they met the family members of the deceased. IO met the complainant Sangeeta who was the mother of deceased and recorded the statement of complainant Sangeeta. That IO prepared the tehrir on the basis of above said complaint of the complainant and handed over him for registration of FIR. That thereafter, he went to PS and handed over the original tehrir to the DO. That after registration of FIR, he returned back to the spot and handed over original tehrir and copy of FIR to IO and IO SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 10 of 51prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant. He further deposed that IO recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant. That IO called the accused Suresh Gautam at the police post and after interrogating him, IO arrested accused Suresh Gautam vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/A. He further deposed that he conducted the personal search of accused Suresh Gautam vide personal search memo Ex.PW9/B. That IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Suresh Gautam vide disclosure statement Ex. PW9/C. He further deposed that in the morning on 07.01.2022, IO called accused Vikram at the police post and interrogated accused Vikram. Thereafter, IO arrested accused Vikram vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/D and he conducted the personal search of accused Vikram vide personal search memo Ex. PW9/E. That IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Vikram vide disclosure statement Ex. PW9/F. He further deposed that after medical examination, of both accused IO put the accused persons behind the lock up.
He further deposed that on 06.01.2022, mother of deceased handed over the mobile phone make VIVO of deceased 'S' to the IO and IO seized the said mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/G. He has identified the mobile phone make VIVO with its cover as Ex. P1.
PW10 is Dr. Kaushlander Singh. He has deposed that he was posted at SDM Office, Nayabas, Testing and Vaccination Center, Delhi as a Medical Officer. He deposed that SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 11 of 51he do not remember the date of conversation between me and 'S'. That on that day he was leaving the SDM Officer and returning back to his home then he saw 'S' DCD Volunteer was standing in the SDM office. Thereafter, he was taking with 'S' DCD Volunteer and he asked why was she standing there, then she replied that Suresh Sir asked her to remain there. Thereafter, he left from there.
On a leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State he deposed that month of conversation was January and year was 2022, however, he cannot say the exact date was 04.01.2022. He denied the fact that police official did not inquire anything from him in this matter or that police official did not record his statement.
PW11 is Ms. Swati, sister of deceased 'S'. Her deposition is as under:
"Deceased 'S' is my sister and she was working at SDM Office, Vaccination Center, Nayabas, Delhi. Even just her joining of 15 days accused Suresh Gautam used to call her even on holidays and asked her to remain in the SDM Office in the late hours. Firstly, my sister 'S' was working at Vaccination Center, Primary School, C-Block, Holambi Kalan, Delhi but later on accused Suresh Gautam had managed to get transfer of 'S' to SDM Office, Vaccination Center, Nayabas, Delhi. On 04.01.2021, accused Suresh Gautam had directed the staff of SDM office to visit the market for removal of stalls installed in the Mangal Bazar Market, but accused Suresh Gautam had asked deceased 'S' to remain in the office and not directed her to go with the staff who were going for removal of stalls in the Mangal Bazar Market. On 04.01.2021 when my deceased sister 'S' was alone inside the SDM office then accused Suresh Gautam tried to molest SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 12 of 51
(jabardasti) with my deceased sister. But accused Suresh Gautam did not succeed in his ill desires and somehow my sister managed to escape from there clutches of accused Suresh Gautam when he was trying to molest her. When she came out from the place where the incident had occurred, my sister deceased 'S' had mentioned about the facts regarding the molestation which had been committed by accused Suresh Gautam against her on one letter and she also mentioned some personal details/baatain on the said letter and put the said letter inside one register which used to be produced in front of SDM Madam. When all the staff members came to the SDM office, Nayabas, Delhi after removal of stalls in Mangal Bazar Market then accused Vikram saw my sister 'S' who was weeping inside the SDM office and accused Vikram asked her about the reason why she was weeping but she did not say anything and came back to home. Somehow, accused Vikram found the said letter. On 05.01.2021 my sister 'S' was present inside the house and she did not go to her place work may be it was a holiday or she had taken leave, then accused Vikram telephonically called her and he stated to her "isme jo bhi likha hai tujhe pata hai ki kya ho sakta hai, isse hum log suspend bhi ho sakete hai". Thereafter, accused Vikram asked her to visit SDM office otherwise he would circulate the information in the letter to whole the office staff and in the public. Thereafter, deceased 'S' became afraid and visited the SDM office along-with Aftab and when she reached the office then she asked Aftab to remain present in the main gate and she alone went inside the SDM office. Thereafter, later on Aftab narrated to me that he had seen from the main gate of the SDM office that hot talks or confrontation were going on between accused Vikram and my sister 'S' in respect of the said letter and he further stated that he could not heard the conversation but he could analysis from the actions/gestures of both the persons. Accused Vikram had torn the said letter and throw it in the dustbin. Aftab told me that deceased 'S' also tried to trace out/search the abovesaid torn letter. After the conversation between deceased 'S' and SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 13 of 51
accused Vikram then Aftab and 'S' returned back to home. Thereafter, she did not say anything to me and my mother and she was remained silent. Thereafter, she went to the 3rd floor of the without saying anything. Later on my mother found deceased 'S' hanging inside the 3rd floor room and she committed suicide.
On the day when my sister 'S' got expire and her dead body was in the hospital then my cousin namely Arvind telephonically called accused Vikram and asked him reasons why was 'S' taken such a step. Then accused Vikram replied "jo 'S' ne letter mai likha hai usse 5 log suspend ho sakte hai aur unko 5-7 saal ki saza ho sakti hai aur last mai yeh likha tha ki agar ispe koi kanuni karwai nahi hui to mai suicide kar lungi". I have the recording of the said conversation. I do not have the recording of personal telephonic conversation between accused Vikram and Arvind in the mobile phone and therefore I could not give it to the IO but I am aware as some media reporters had put a video/of the conversation on social media (youtube)."
She was re-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and deposed that incident took place in the year 2022 and stated that she inadvertently deposed dated as 04.01.2021 instead of 04.01.2022.
She was thoroughly cross examined by ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
PW12 is Sh. Arvind. His deposition is as under:
I am the neighbour of Smt. Sangeeta. Deceased 'S' was her daughter and the name of her other daughter is Swati who is married now and the name of her son (brother of the deceased) is Satender. I am residing in the abovesaid premises for about 15 years. Copy of my Aadhar Card is marked as Mark A (OSR). Deceased 'S' was working in the Civil Defence at SDM Office.
On the day of incident, I suddenly heard loud SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 14 of 51
weeping noises and saw some people gathered outside the house of Smt. Sangeeta. I immediately rushed to her house and when I entered the house I saw 'S' had committed suicide and her body was brought down and lying on the bed and Smt. Sangeeta and her family were all crying. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital by the family members. I thereafter came back to my house.
Q. How do you know accused Vikram and Suresh Gautam?
Ans. I had come to know of these persons at the time of the incident and they are not personally known to me. I had spoken to Vikram also at request of Smt. Sangeeta when he had called on that day and he disclosed the name of Suresh Gautam. I had seen the accused persons subsequently during the course of investigation. On the same day in the late evening hours, I had gone to the house of my neighbour Smt. Sangeeta and I was told by the family members that accused Virkam was calling them and Smt. Sangeeta requested me to talk to accused Vikram who was calling on the phone of 'S'. I started speaking to accused Vikram he said I want to talk to 'S' (mujhe 'S' se baat karni hai) in order to extract the truth as requested by Smt. Sangeeta and to know what happened in the SDM office after which 'S' committed suicide, I deliberately told Vikram that 'S' is upset after coming from the SDM office and is crying in her room and you tell me what happened in the SDM Office, although by that time 'S' had already committed suicide. After few seconds in the telephonic conversation Vikram told me that accused Suresh Gautam had misbehaved with her and tried to outrage her modesty and she had mentioned about the incident and few names in the letter including the names of the accused Suresh Gautam who has misbehaved with 'S', accused Vikram and some more officials of the SDM office names of whom were told to me by Vikram on the phone but I cannot recollect. Vikram told that he had deliberately torn the said letter in order to save himself and others from any legal implication and to save his job.
SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 15 of 51
I had recorded the abovesaid conversation with accused Vikram parallelly in my phone by putting accused Vikram on speaker and on recorded the same on my phone and thereafter I had sent to the same to media persons. I do not remember the news channel. I am aware that thereafter the said conversation was made viral on social media i.e. youtube. I do not have that recording with me.
Q. Can you produce your phone or the original recording in the court?
Ans. I cannot produce the said phone as my phone had been misplaced.
Accused Vikram is present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness. Accused Suresh Gautam produced through VC from jail, however, the witness has not identified him as he has stated that he had only heard about his name and the incident of the letter in the telephonic conversation with the accused Virkam and had never seen accused Suresh Gautam personally.
I do not know anything else about the present case.
PW13 is ASI Ravinder. He has deposed that on
05.01.2022, he was posted at P.P. Metro Vihar, P.S. NIA as ASI. That on that day, he along with Ct. Rakesh was on emergency duty. On that day, he had received DD No. 66 A regarding suicide of a girl. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Rakesh reached at Raja Harish Chandra Hospital where he collected the MLC of the deceased 'S'. That thereafter, he shifted the dead body of deceased 'S' to BJRM Hospital through Ct. Rakesh. The maternal uncle of deceased 'S', Ambika Singh and Amar Singh identified the dead body of 'S' and he prepared the dead identification memos Ex.PW-13/A and Ex.PW-13/B. Thay he went to the spot and called the crime team at the spot i.e. A-1073, Phase-2, Metro SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 16 of 51Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Delhi. He further deposed that he had not recovered any suicide note at the spot. That he recorded the statement of mother of the deceased Sangeeta and that of Swati He further deposed that the mother of deceased 'S'priya handed over him plastic rope in three parts by which deceased hanged herself and he seized the said plastic rope by preparing a pulanda of ligature mark. The seizure memo of the same is Ex.PW-13/C. He further deposed that on 06.01.2021, postmortem of the deceased was got conduct and after postmortem, he handed over the dead body of deceased to maternal uncle of the deceased. The dead body handing over memo is Ex.PW-13/D. He further deposed that he deposited the sealed case property in the malkhana of P.S. and thereafter, investigation of present case had been marked to SI Manoj Kumar and he deposited the case file to MHC(R) of the P.S. He has identified the three pieces of blue colour rope/ rassi as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 PW14 is SI Manoj Kumar. He has deposed that on 06.01.2022, he was posted at PP Metro Vihar, PS NIA as SI. That on that day, he had received the PCR call DD No. 62A and 69A. Accordingly, he alongwith HC Manvir and beat staff reached at the spot i.e. A-1073, Phase-II, Metro Vihar, Holmabi Kalan, Delhi where they met the mother of the deceased Smt. Sangeeta. During inquiry, Smt. Sangeeta informed them that office staff where her daughter 'S' was working molested her and she was under
depression due to this she had committed suicide. Smt. Sangeeta SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 17 of 51
had given him complaint addressed to SHO PS NIA Ex.PW1/A. That thereafter, he prepared the tehrir Ex. PW14/A. He handed over the tehrir to HC Manveer for registration of FIR. Thereafter, HC Manveer went to PS for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, he returned back to the spot and handed over him the copy of FIR and original tehrir. That he prepared the site plan at the instance of Smt. Sangeeta i.e. complainant. He further deposed that he had seized the mobile phone of deceased 'S' vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/G. He further deposed that on 07.01.2022 he had recorded the statement of Aftab, neighbour of the complainant. After that he alongwith HC Manveer came to PP Metro Vihar and deposited the case property in the PS NIA. That he called both the accused persons namely Suresh Gautam and Vikram in the PP Metro Vihar. That he interrogated accused Suresh Gautam and after interrogation, arrested the accused Suresh Gautam and personally searched vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/A and personal search Ex. PW9/B respectively. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Suresh Gautam which Ex. PW9/C and thereafter, interrogated accused Vikram and after interrogation, arrested the accused Vikram and personally searched vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/D and personal search memo Ex. PW9/E respectively. That he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Vikram Ex. PW9/F and thereafter, produced both accused persons before the court and obtained 01 day PC remand of accused Suresh Gautam for the purpose of recovery of suicide note. He further deposed that SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 18 of 51
despite his best efforts, he could not trace out the suicide note as it was already torn by accused Vikram. Thereafter, the Court had sent both the accused in the judicial custody. He further deposed that he went to the Vaccination Center, SDM Office, Naya Bans, Delhi and met the Incharge Dr. Kaushlender and conducted inquiry from him regarding the deceased 'S' and recorded his statement U/s 161 CrPC. That he had recorded the statement of other staff of Vaccination Center, SDM Office, Naya Bans, Delhi. He further deposed that after completion of all the investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed before the Court through senior officers.
On a specific question put to him regarding mobile phone of deceased 'S', he deposed that "I checked the seized mobile phone of deceased 'S' and did not find anything relevant pertaining this case".
He has identified the case property i.e. mobile phone make VIVO with its cover Ex.P1.
He was thoroughly cross examined by ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
4. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused person Vikram under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.03.2024 wherein he denied all the evidence put to him and has stated that he is innocent and has been implicated by the police officials. That all the proceedings were conducted by the IO while sitting at PS and that he never gave any disclosure statement, SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 19 of 51
rather his signatures were obtained by the police forcibly on several blank papers which were later converted into indiscriminate documents against him to falsely implicate him in the present case. He further stated that he was never arrested at the place and manner as shown by the prosecution and that no such incident ever took place and he is not involved in any manner in the present case and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Statement of accused Suresh Gautam under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 04.04.2024, wherein he denied all the evidence put to him and has stated that he is innocent and haas been implicated by the police officials at the instance of the complainant and her family members. That all the proceedings were conducted by the IO while sitting at PS and that he never gave any disclosure statement, rather his signatures were obtained by the police forcibly on several blank papers which were later converted into indiscriminate documents against him to falsely implicate him in the present case. He further stated that he was never arrested at the place and manner as shown by the prosecution. That no such incident ever took place and he has not involved in any manner in the present case. That he was falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent.
Accused persons opted not to lead evidence in their defence.
5. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 20 of 51ARGUMENTS
6. I have heard Sh. Nishant Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Anuj Jain, Ld. Counsel for accused Suresh Gautam and Mr. M. Hasibuddin, ld. Counsel for accused Vikram.
It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that the allegations levelled against the accused persons are of serious nature and the prosecution has proved its case vide the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW11 duly corroborated by the testimony of PW6 and PW12, whose testimonies are consistent, cogent and corroborate each other. That the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel Mr. Anuj Jain for accused Suresh Gautam has argued that accused has been falsely implicated. It has been argued that complainant PW1 and the sister of deceased 'S'/PW11 in their initial statement to the police had stated that they had no doubt on anyone in relation to the death of 'S' and infact requested that no legal action be taken against anyone, however, there is a major improvement in their supplementary statement, upon which accused had been arrested. It is argued that main allegation against accused Suresh Gautam is that he forcibly tried to kiss 'S' after sending remaining officials at the SDM office to Mangal Bazar for some work, however, such a SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 21 of 51story of the prosecution is highly improbable as the area was an open area and no such incident could have taken place there. It is further argued that there was not eye witness to incident, there was no dying declaration nor even the said letter which allegedly contained the name of accused and other persons which could be seized by the IO. There are no CCTV footage of the workplace nor any call details record or any other incriminating against accused Suresh Gautam. It is further argued that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not made out against him as there is no overt act which can be contributed to the said accused. Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that there was contradiction in the testimony of PW1, PW11, PW2 and PW6 as mentioned in the separate written submission filed by him, which are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity, however, the same have been duly considered.
Ld. Counsel has also relied upon certain case laws along with written arguments i.e. Velladurai Vs. State MANU/ SC/0644/2021, Gurcharan Vs. state of Punjab MANU/SC/ 0731/2020, M. Arjunan Vs. State MANU/SC/1469/2018, Atul Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/1724/2021, Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of UP MANU/SC/0659/2021 and Rekha Murarkar Vs. state of WB MANU/SC/1600/2019, which have bee duly considered.
It is argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and no such incident had happened at the behest of accused Suresh Gautam.
It was further argued that all the paper work was prepared by the police officials in consonance with prosecution SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 22 of 51story. That all the proceedings were conducted by the IO while sitting at PS and case property planted upon him. That accused never gave any disclosure statement. That accused was never arrested at the place and manner as shown by the prosecution. Accordingly, accused deserved acquittal.
Ld. Counsel Mr. M. Hasibuddin for accused Vikram has argued that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. That there is delay in lodging in instant FIR and main vital piece of evidence i.e. mobile phone of deceased which was lying next to the deceased was not procured by the prosecution. Material witnesses PW1 and PW2 are hearsay witnesses. That testimony of PW6 could not be relied upon as he was not present at the time when deceased 'S' allegedly left the SDM office which as such an open space. No public witness has been procured as witness by the prosecution. The main allegation against accused Vikram is that he had allegedly tore the letter which was regarding the incident and name of co-accused Suresh Gautam, however, neither such letter or any register has been procured by the prosecution. There is no connecting piece of evidence against accused Vikram, who has been falsely implicated on behalf of family members of deceased.
7. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
8. The accused Suresh Gautam and Vikram had been SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 23 of 51charged for the offence punishable under Section 306/201/34 IPC. In addition, accused Suresh Gautam is also charged for the offence punishable under Section 354/354A IPC.
9. The relevant Sections are reproduced as under for ready reference:
SECTION 306 IPC "Abetment of suicide.-- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.".
SECTION 201 IPC "Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender-
if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment.-- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-
fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. "
SECTION 354 IPC "Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.-- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 24 of 51
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."
SECTION 354A IPC "354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment-
(1) A man committing any of the following acts-
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
10. I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
SECTION 306/354/354A IPC
11. Brief case of the prosecution is that on 05.01.2022, a DD entry bearing no.66A was received at PS Narela regarding SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 25 of 51hanging of a girl. She was taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela and was decalred brought dead. The deceased was identified as victim 'S', who was working in Delhi Civil Defence Services and was posted at Vaccination Centre/ SDM Office, Naya Bans, Delhi. Her mother/ complainant had alleged that her daughter deceased 'S' was being sexually harassed by accused Suresh Gautam, who was working in the same centre as her superior and because of his conduct, she was upset for the past 7 to 8 days prior to her death. The complainant also alleged that the accused Suresh Gutam, who was Incharge of the Vaccination Centre, one day, deliberately sent the remaining staff from the office to Mangal Bazar but detained the deceased 'S' alone with him and outrage her modesty and tried to forcibly kiss her. That the deceased had written the entire incident and conduct of accused Suresh Gautam in a letter and had kept it in a register at the SDM Office, which came in the hand of co-accused Vikram.
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Vikram had ensured the deceased that he would give this letter to the SDM concerned about the misconduct of accused Suresh Gautam, however, in connivance with co-accused Suresh Gautam, accused Vikram tore the said paper and disclosed this fact to the deceased. That before committing suicide, the deceased had told her mother about the alleged acts of accused Suresh Gautam and that of co-accused Vikram had torn the letter written by her and soon thereafter, she committed suicide.
SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 26 of 51PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
12. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 27 of 51
above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In this backdrop, I proceed to analyse the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
13. PW1 Sangeeta, complainant/mother has deposed as under:
"Now, I have two children i.e. daughter Swati and son Satender. My daughter 'S' aged about 20 years, who was working in Delhi Civil Defence. 'S' had expired. She was working in SDM Office, Naya Bans. My daughter 'S' was working in Vaccination Centre and performing duties in the SDM Office due to Corona. Suresh Gautam was Incharge of the said Vaccination Centre. My daughter informed me that Suresh Gautam had ill eye or bad intention for her for the last 7-8 days. On Tuesday, Suresh Gautam had sent all the staff to Mangal Bazar for removing rehri/thela. My daughter along with Suresh Gutam remained in the Vaccination Centre. Suresh Gutam tried to kiss my daughter, who pushed him away and she came out of the said Vaccination Centre. My daughter 'S' wrote a letter against Suresh Gautam narrating this incident and put the said letter in one of the register of the said office. The said register used to be sent and seen by the SDM. The said register was put in the bag of Vikram. 'S' had written in letter the indecent behaviour of Suresh Gautam and her personal matters. My daughter 'S' intend to take leave on the next day. My daughter came to our house. On the next day, at about 1.30 p.m. when my daughter at our home, she received a call from Vikram, who informed her that he received a letter in the register and he also informed her that she had named seven SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 28 of 51
persons in the said letter. Vikram also threatened her that he would viral the said letter through social media and Whatsapp group etc. My daughter requested Vikram to torn the said letter and not to show the said letter to anyone. It was rainy day. My daughter made a call to her friend Aftab, who came to our house on motorcycle and my daughter accompanied him. I do not know what was discussion between Vikram and my daughter when she went to the office of SDM. My daughter had gone to the SDM Office for getting the letter torn. My daughter returned to our house from SDM Office with Aftab. At that time, I was sleeping. My daughter hanged herself in her house at the second floor. My daughter committed suicide. The said letter has been torn off by Vikram in the SDM Office.
I gave written complaint to the police Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. Accused Vikram and Suresh Gautam are present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness).
On the date of incident when I went to the second floor for sweeping/cleaning, I found the door of the room was bolted from inside and I pushed the same. The door of the said room was opened and I saw that my daughter was hanging. I called my daughter Swati and we cut the rope and took the body of Swati on the ground of the said floor. I called the neighbours and neighbours also helped us. We took my daughter to hospital.
I pointed out the scene of crime to the police who prepared site plan at my instance which is Ex. PW1/B."
She has categorically proved that her daughter had informed her that accused Suresh Gautam was having an evil eye on her and she was upset for the past 7 to 8 days prior to her death and that particularly on one day (Tuesday) Suresh Gautam had send the entire staff to Mangal Bazar for SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 29 of 51removing rehri/thela but had detained her daughter 'S' alone with him in the Vaccination Centre where the accused Suresh Gautam outraged her modesty and tried to forcibly kiss her daughter 'S'. That she pushed him away and came out of the center. She further proved that her daughter had written a letter against accused Suresh Gautam narrating the entire incident and put the said letter in one of the registers of the office which used to be seen by the SDM. The said register was found by co- accused Vikram. That on next day her daughter went back to the office of the SDM with her friend Aftab Alam to get back the torn letter and came back home upset. Soon therefore, her daughter hanged herself at the second floor of the house. She categorically identified the accused persons present in the court.
Her testimony is duly corroborated by the testimony of PW2 Aftab Alam, who proved that he had received a call from the mobile phone of 'S' to go to the office of SDM. He further proved that deceased 'S' had informed him that on 04.01.2022 (Tuesday) accused Suresh Gautam, who was Incharge of the centre sent the entire staff to Mangal Bazar and wrongfully detained the deceased 'S' with him and thereafter, tried to forcefully kissed her. He duly corroborated the testimony of PW1 and further proved that deceased 'S' informed him that she had written the entire incident on a page of register against Suresh Gautam which came in possession of accused Vikram and after going through the contents of the said letter, accused Vikram torn the said letter and threatened deceased 'S' and that she was under the fear of accused Vikram. The said witness SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 30 of 51further proved that the all said facts were narrated to him by deceased 'S' while they were returning back home on his motorcycle PW11 Swati/sister of deceased reiterated the said facts in her testimony and supported the story of prosecution.
PW11 Swati has proved that even just her joining of 15 days accused Suresh Gautam used to call her even on holidays and asked her to remain in the SDM Office in the late hours. Firstly, my sister Supriya was working at Vaccination Center, Primary School, C-Block, Holambi Kalan, Delhi but later on accused Suresh Gautam had managed to get transfer of Supriya to SDM Office, Vaccination Center, Nayabas, Delhi. On 04.01.2021, accused Suresh Gautam had directed the staff of SDM office to visit the market for removal of stalls installed in the Mangal Bazar Market, but accused Suresh Gautam had asked deceased Supriya to remain in the office and not directed her to go with the staff who were going for removal of stalls in the Mangal Bazar Market. On 04.01.2021 when my deceased sister Supriya was alone inside the SDM office then accused Suresh Gautam tried to molest (jabardasti) with my deceased sister. But accused Suresh Gautam did not succeed in his ill desires and somehow my sister managed to escape from there clutches of accused Suresh Gautam when he was trying to molest her. When she came out from the place where the incident had occurred, my sister deceased Supriya had mentioned about the facts regarding the molestation which had been committed by accused Suresh SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 31 of 51Gautam against her on one letter and she also mentioned some personal details/ baatain on the said letter and put the said letter inside one register which used to be produced in front of SDM Madam. When all the staff members came to the SDM office, Nayabas, Delhi after removal of stalls in Mangal Bazar Market then accused Vikram saw my sister Supriya who was weeping inside the SDM office and accused Vikram asked her about the reason why she was weeping but she did not say anything and came back to home. Somehow, accused Vikram found the said letter. On 05.01.2021 my sister Supriya was present inside the house and she did not go to her place work may be it was a holiday or she had taken leave, then accused Vikram telephonically called her and he stated to her "isme jo bhi likha hai tujhe pata hai ki kya ho sakta hai, isse hum log suspend bhi ho sakete hai". Aftab told me that deceased Supriya also tried to trace out/search the abovesaid torn letter. After the conversation between deceased Supriya and accused Vikram then Aftab and Supriya returned back to home. Thereafter, she did not say anything to me and my mother and she was remained silent. Thereafter, she went to the 3rd floor of the without saying anything. Later on my mother found deceased Supriya hanging inside the 3rd floor room and she committed suicide.
She clarified later, the year was 2022 and not 2021.
14. Moving forward, I shall now delve upon the testimony of other material witnesses.
SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 32 of 51OTHER MATERIAL WITNESSES
15. PW5 Rohit and PW 10 Dr. Kaushlender Singh were both posted as officials at SDM Office at the relevant time.
Both have proved the factum of accused Suresh Gautam asking the deceased 'S' to stay back alone with him and had sent the remaining staff to Mangal Bazar.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Suresh Gautam has failed to explain as to why he had detained the deceased 'S' and for what work when he had sent the remaining staff to Mangal Bazar. No defence evidence had been led by the accused despite due opportunity being given to him and his counsel.
PW6 Govind Sonkar proved the factum of accused Suresh Gautam asking the deceased 'S' to stay back alone with him and had sent the remaining staff to Mangal Bazar. He further proved that he had seen the register in the office which had been written bearing the name of deceased 'S' although, he could not read the contents of the letter but categorically proved that he had seen the name of deceased 'S'.
PW6 further proved that accused Vikram was called in office room of accused Suresh Gautam and they had some conversation. Soon thereafter, deceased 'S' came to the office with another friend and inquired about her letter from accused Vikram (mera letter kaha hai) and said witness categorically proved that in his presence accused Vikram told her that the said letter is in dustbin now and after seeing her torned letter lying in the dustbin, the deceased 'S' left the office without saying SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 33 of 51anything. He further proved that on the next day, accused Vikram had informed said witness that accused Suresh Gautam tried to molest (jabardasti) 'S' after all the staff went to remove the rehari at the Mangal Bazar weekly market and that he had mentioned all these facts in the letter which was torned by accused Vikram.
The argument raised by ld. Counsels for accused persons was that both the said witnesses had admitted in their respective cross examination that the Vaccination Centre Office was made on temporary basis under an open tent/open area and all the DCD workers and other staff used to work there and everyone was visible to each other and thus the possibility of accused Suresh Gautam sexually abusing the victim does not arise.
This court is not in agreement with ld. Counsels for accused persons since all the prosecution witnesses have deposed that on the given date, the accused Suresh Gautam had sent the staff to Mangal Bazar for removing the encroachment/rehri/thela etc. but have wrongfully detained the victim 'S'. All the prosecution witnesses, including PW5, PW1, PW2 and PW11 had proved the said fact and thus, there was ample opportunity and time for the accused Suresh Gautam to commit the said offence. Infact, PW1 has proved that accused Suresh Gautam was sexually harassing her daughter and had ill eye on her for past 7 to 8 days and PW11 further proved that he used to call her sister even on holidays and asked her to remain in office even in late hours.
It was further argued by the ld. Counsels for the accused persons that being family members and closed friend, the SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 34 of 51testimony of the said witnesses could not be relied upon as they are interested witnesses.
This Court is not in agreement with ld. Counsels for the accused persons. This a peculiar and unfortunate case where the victim of the crime of sexual harassment has died and even her letter where the details of the persons and incident had been mentioned, which could have been her dying declaration was allegedly torned and destroyed. In such a scenario, unless contrary is proved, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of her family members who had last seen the conduct and emotions of the deceased after she narrated the entire incident to her mother/complainant. There must be number of other male employees in the office where the deceased was working but there appears to be no reason proved as to why only the accused Suresh Gautam or Vikram had been implicated in this case as was alleged by the ld. Defence counsels. On the contrary, no defence evidence has been led by the accused persons despite due opportunity.
16. Moving forward, another witness is PW12 Arvind. It is pertinent to mention that during the testimony of PW11 Swati, a name of material witness one Arvind has been mentioned. It was stated that there is a video on social media suggesting about some conversation between accused Vikram and Arvind about the incident, although, the same was refuted by the accused.
A video which may be on social media and since not SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 35 of 51seized nor went to FSL, could not be put in evidence, however, since, it transpired that one Arvind S/o Sh.Parshu Ram residing at A-Block, Phase II, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, Delhi - 110082, was material to the present case as his testimony would facilitate in effective adjudication of the present case, in view of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 165B of Indian Evidence Act, he was summoned vide order dated 16.01.2024 and due opportunity had been granted to the Ld. Defence counsels for his cross-examination.
PW12 proved deposed that he was the neighbour of deceased and her family and on the day of incident he heard loud weeping noises and saw some people gathered outside the house of deceased and when he rushed to her house and entered to her house, he saw 'S' had committed suicide and her body was brought down and lying on the bed and Smt.Sangeeta and her family were all crying. He has further deposed that :
"After few seconds in the telephonic conversation Vikram told me that accused Suresh Gautam had misbehaved with her and tried to outrage her modesty and she had mentioned about the incident and few names in the letter including the names of the accused Suresh Gautam who has misbehaved with 'S', accused Vikram and some more officials of the SDM office names of whom were told to me by Vikram on the phone but I cannot recollect. Vikram told that he had deliberately torn the said letter in order to save himself and others from any legal implication and to save his job."
He categorically proved that in the telephonic SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 36 of 51conversation, accused Vikram confirmed that accused Suresh Gautam misbehaved with the deceased and tried to outrage her modesty and that she had mentioned about the said incident in the letter and that accused Vikram had deliberately torned the said letter. He further proved that he had recorded the said conversation in his phone by putting the accused Vikram on speaker and had given the said conversation to the media persons.
17. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have vehemently argued that since the phone in which the said conversation was recorded was not produced in the court or sent to FSL, it cannot be considered as a piece of evidence. This Court is in agreement with ld. Counsels for accused persons that since any such conversation or the audio video recording which may be on social media but not seized by the IO nor sent to FSL for further investigation, cannot be considered as evidence, however, the oral testimony of an independent witness who is not related to either of the parties and was summoned as court witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 165 Evidence Act vide order dated 16.01.2024, cannot be brushed aside completely. It is pertinent to mention that neither of the accused challenged the order dated 16.01.2024 and have in fact availed due opportunity of cross examining the said witness PW12. The said witness withstood the rigors of cross-examination and his testimony is unrebutted and unfettered on the aspect of the accused Vikram having called on the phone of Smt. Sangeeta, mother of the deceased and at request of Sangeeta, he started SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 37 of 51speaking to accused Vikram who was insisting to speak to deceased 'S' and that accused Suresh Gautam had misbehaved with her and accused Vikram had deliberately torn the letter in which the deceased 'S' had mentioned about the said incident. There is no reason to disbelive the testimony of said independent witness nor the credibility of his testimony could be shattered during the course of cross-examination conducted by both the respective counsels for accused persons.
OTHER EVIDNECE
18. PW7 Dr.Munish Wadhawan. He has proved the postmortem report of deceased 'S' Ex.PW7/A and as opined cause of death as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.
PW13 ASI Ravinder is the initial IO of the present case. He has deposed regarding the manner of investigation done by him in the present case. He has proved dead identification memos Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B. He has also proved the seizure memo of pullanda of ligature mark Ex.PW13/C. He has also proved the dead body handing over memo Ex.PW13/D. PW14 is second IO SI Manoj Kumar. He has deposed regarding the manner of investigation conducted by him in the present case. He has proved tehrir Ex.PW14/A and making of various documents proved in the statement of PW9.
POLICE WITNESSES
19. PW3 is SI Surender, was posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, at the relevant time. He has proved the crime team SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 38 of 51report Ex.PW3/A. PW4 is ASI Gulvir Singh, who was working as photographer at Mobile Crime Team, at the relevant time. He has prepared CD from memory card and developed 13 photographs. He has proved 13 photographs Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A13 and certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/B. PW14 is second IO SI Manoj Kumar. He has deposed regarding the manner of investigation conducted by him in the present case. He has proved tehrir Ex.PW14/A and making of various documents proved in the statement of PW9.
The said witnesses proved the manner of investigation which further complete the chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
It was argued by ld. Counsels for the accused persons that police witnesses have falsely implicated the accused.
Merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelived and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625.
20. At this stage, it is imperative to analyse the law on point.
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Abetment is defined in Section 107 IPC and it reads SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 39 of 51as follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing. --A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
In a recent judgment of Kamalakar vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2011 decided on 12.10.2023, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are explained.
Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted in the person's suicide.
SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 40 of 51
In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2001 9 SCC 618, the Court has analysed different meanings of "instigation". The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan Singh v. State of Gujrat (2010) 8 SCC 628, as under:
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment.
The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 41 of 51
straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
In the latest judgment of Prabhu Vs. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police & Anr. SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 39981/2022 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.01.2024, it is held as under:
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide." 8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 in the following paragraphs:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.Page No. 42 of 51
the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC." 8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord between the deceased and the appellant and her subsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has not committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased."
10. On a perusal of the above, and relying upon this Court's previous judgments discussing the elements of Section 306 IPC, the following principles emerge:
10.1 Where the words uttered are casual in nature and which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people, and nothing serious is expected to follow from the same, the same would not amount to abetment of suicide.
[Swami Prahaladdas v. State of M.P 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, Paragraph 3;
Sanju v. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371, Paragraph 12] 10.2 In order to constitute 'instigation', it must be shown that the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The words uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the consequence Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, Paragraph 20] 10.3 Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 43 of 51meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, Paragraph 20] 10.4 There must be direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, Paragraph 1214] 10.5 The accused must have intended or known that the deceased would commit suicide because of his actions or omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628
21. Applying the above yardstick as laid in the case law of Prabhu Vs. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police & Anr. SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 39981/2022 (Supra) to the facts of the present case, the prosecution witnesses have categorically proved that accused Suresh Gautam sexually harassed the deceased 'S' and she had written about the incident in a letter. The above prosecution witnesses have categorically proved that accused Suresh Gautam had deliberately sent away the other staff to Mangal Bazar and had also detained deceased that day. Not only the accused Suresh Gautam had ample opportunity but his act of allegedly trying to kiss her and sexually harassing the victim created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to take the extreme step since even her attempt to narrate the incident in a letter and trying to complaint about the same had failed. Different individuals in a same situation react and behave differently. Sexual harassment of woman at workplace is also violation of fundamental rights of a SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 44 of 51woman to equality under Article 14 & 15 of the Constitution and her right to life and dignity under Articles 21 of the Constitution. The protection against sexual harassment and right to work with dignity are Universally recognized Human Rights. Any denial of these rights by a positive act and an active role played by the accused, by making physical contact and advances as in the present case, not only is an offence against her body but defiles the soul of the victim. Even, our own Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases has deliberated on this issue and raised concerns.
The case of Tukaram Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 185 (Mathura rape case), was monumental in context of both social and legal perspective which sparked huge protest and public out cry for the very first time and eventually led to reforms in the Indian Rape Laws vide Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983.
Then, came the landmark judgment of Vishakha Vs. State of Rajasthan in 1977 (7) SC 384, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized sexual harassment of woman at workplace as a violation of her fundamental rights.
The infamous Nirbhaya Rape Case shook the entire nation whereby a 23 old Physiotherapist was brutally raped by 05 men in a moving bus and she later succumbed to her injuries which eventually led to various amendments in the Indian Penal Code and the act of sexual harassment was specifically incorporated under Section 354A IPC vide amendment w.e.f. 13.02.2013 and also led the framing of Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (prevention and prohibition and redressal) SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 45 of 51Act, 2013.
22. In the present case, the prosecution has been successful in proving that the accused Suresh Gautam made physical contact and advances which was a direct cause of the deceased in committing suicide as she felt helpless and hapless. PW1, the complainant, whose testimony is duly corroborated with that of PW2, PW11 and PW6 have proved that accused Suresh Gautam deliberately sent entire staff to Mangal Bazar for removing rehris and had wrongfully detained deceased 'S' and thereafter committed sexual harassment upon her.
Ld. Counsels for the accused persons had tried to raise a sham defence that the deceased wanted to marry someone else and therefore under that pressure, she committed suicide as her marriage was fixed by her family members with someone else. However, no cogent evidence was led by the accused persons in defence in this regard and infact the prosecution witness, who were the mother and sister completely denied that this was any such reason which was emotionally effecting the deceased. Every woman has a right to protect her person along with a corresponding right to be protected by law in case her privacy is violated (as laid in the case of State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, AIR 1991 SC
207) and there is no force in the arguments raised by ld. Counsel for the accused persons in the absence of any evidence proved on record in this regard.
Accordingly, accused Suresh Gautam is convicted SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 46 of 51for the offence punishable under Section 306/354/354A IPC.
As regards accused Vikram, the allegation was that he had torned a letter which was written by the victim narrating the incident of molestation done by accused Suresh Gautam. Accused Vikram was on friendly terms with the deceased and known to her family. The very act of tearing a letter alone cannot be a proximate link between the death of the deceased and the cause or that he did with the intention or knowledge that merely by tearing a letter the deceased would commit suicide. The genesis was act of sexual harassment done by accused Suresh Gautam and there appears to be no overt act on his part to abet the suicide, although, he had destroyed the evidence.
Accordingly, accused Vikram stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 201 IPC
23. It is the case of the prosecution that after allegedly outraging the modesty of the deceased 'S', the accused Suresh Gautam along with co-accused Vikram in furtherance of their common intention after a conversation, caused the evidence of the commission of offence i.e. the letter/page in register written by the victim to be torned and destroyed it with the intention of screening themselves from legal consequences.
It was argued by ld. Counsels for accused persons that neither any such letter of register could be recovered by the Investigating Agency.
PW6 proved that accused Vikram was called in SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 47 of 51office room of accused Suresh Gautam and they had some conversation. This prima facie suggests prior meeting of minds. Soon thereafter, deceased 'S' came to the office with another friend and inquired about her letter from accused Vikram (mera letter kaha hai) and said eye witness PW6 categorically proved that in his presence accused Vikram told her that the said letter is in dustbin now and after seeing her torned letter lying in the dustbin, the deceased 'S' left the office without saying anything. He further proved that on the next day, accused Vikram had informed said witness that accused Suresh Gautam tried to molest (jabardasti) 'S' after all the staff went to remove the rehari at the Mangal Bazar weekly market and that he had mentioned all these facts in the letter which was torned by accused Vikram.
PW12 further proved that after few seconds in the telephonic conversation Vikram told me that accused Suresh Gautam had misbehaved with her and tried to outrage her modesty and she had mentioned about the incident and few names in the letter including the names of the accused Suresh Gautam who has misbehaved with 'S', accused Vikram and some more officials of the SDM office names of whom were told to me by Vikram on the phone but I cannot recollect. Vikram told that he had deliberately torn the said letter in order to save himself and others from any legal implication and to save his job."
Thus, from the testimonies of material and independent prosecution witnesses PW6 and PW12, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt qua the offences under Section 201 IPC against both the accused SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 48 of 51persons.
CONCLUSION
24. This a peculiar and unfortunate case where the victim of the crime of sexual harassment has died and even her letter where the details of the persons and incident had been mentioned, which could have been her dying declaration was allegedly torned and destroyed. In such a scenario, unless contrary was proved, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of her family members who had last seen the conduct and emotions of the deceased after she narrated the entire incident to her mother/complainant.
In view of the above said discussion, from the testimonies of material witness, PW1, PW2 and PW11, which are consistent and cogent and corroborate each other, as discussed above, prosecution has been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that accused Suresh Gautam had deliberately sent the remaining staff away with an evil intention to sexually harass deceased 'S' and had been harassing her because of which she was upset even 7 to 8 days prior to her death and that accused Vikram in furtherance of his common intention with accused Suresh Gautam tore the letter containing the details of the said incident with the intention to screen themselves from legal consequences. The testimony of PW6 and PW12, who were independent witnesses further corroborate the testimonies of other material witnesses as above.
As per the postmortem report Ex.PW7/A, the cause SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 49 of 51of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and the death was a direct consequence of the act of outraging the modesty of the deceased 'S' by accused Suresh Gautam and thus there was a proximate link between the act and the subsequent death of victim 'S' and further the eye witness PW6 categorically proved that it was in his presence, the accused Vikram, after having some conversation with accused Suresh Gautam, tore the letter, which contained all the facts of molestation done by accused Suresh Gautam and threw it in dustbin.
No defence evidence had been led by the accused persons despite a due and fair opportunity.
Thus, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt qua the offences under Section 306/201/354/354A IPC against accused Suresh Gautam and offence under Section 201 IPC against accused Vikram.
Accused Suresh Gautam is accordingly convicted for the offences punishable under Section 306/201/354/354A IPC. Accused Vikram is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Accused Vikram is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
25. Copy of the judgment running into 51 pages be provided to the accused persons free of cost.
26. Also, since accused Suresh Gautam has been convicted for the offence under Section 354/354A IPC for committing sexual harassment at workplace and consequently SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 50 of 51under Section 306 IPC since his act led to abetment of suicide of a young innocent girl, copy of this judgment be sent to the Concerned Employer for necessary intimation and initiating appropriate independent Departmental action, if any, as per rules and in accordance with law under the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (prevention and prohibition and redressal) Act, 2013, although without being prejudiced by the findings of this Court, affording accused due right to be heard.
27. Matter be listed for arguments on the quantum of sentence on 16.05.2024. In the meanwhile, the convict and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State are directed to file their respective affidavits in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Karan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020 decided on 27.11.2020.
Dictated and announced in the open (Shefali Sharma) Court on 29.04.2024 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 51 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 340/22, FIR No. 27/22, PS Narela Indl. Area State Vs. Vikram & Anr.
Page No. 51 of 51