Delhi District Court
Fir No. 46/2017; Ps Amar Colony ; State vs . Sonu 1 Of 14 on 4 May, 2019
In The Court of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan: Metropolitan
Magistrate02 (Mahila Court), SouthEast, Saket Courts:New Delhi
State v. Sonu
FIR No. 46/2017
U/s: 354/354A/509 IPC
P.S Amar Colony
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution : 02.05.2017
Criminal Case No. : 2070/2017
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet
Name & address of the accused : Sonu
S/o Sh. Bajrang
R/o H. No. S198/69, JJ Indra Camp,
Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 354/354A/509 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 354/354A/509 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Convicted
Date of arguments : 03.05.2019
Date of announcing of order : 04.05.2019
FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 1 of 14
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.01.2017 when the complainant was returning from office and reached outside her house, one person (one boy) came towards her and started holding her and pulling her towards himself. He misbehaved with the complainant and touched her inappropriately.
2. Pursuant to this complaint dated 30.01.2017, FIR was registered on the same day and accused was summoned. Charge was framed against the accused Sonu for the offences punishable under section 354/354A/509 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined four (04) witness during trial: PW1 complainant/victim deposed that on 30.01.2017, at around 10.00 PM while she was coming back from her office situated at Patel Nagar and reached in front of her house. Suddenly, accused Sonu came from behind and caught hold her hand and started misbehaving with her by using filthy language. She shouted for help and called her brother namely Deepak and her father Sh.Dharambir by calling them who were inside the house. Upon calling for help, her brother and father came out from the house and apprehended the accused Sonu from his house as accused ran away while she FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 2 of 14 was shouting for help and calling to her brother and father. Thereafter, accused Sonu was taken to the police chowki Sriniwaspuri by her father and brother. She also accompanied them to the police chowki. When accused caught hold her hand at the spot, he was saying that "chut de do". She had given her written complaint to the police which was Ex.PW1/A. She had given her statement u/s 164 CrPC before the Magistrate. Thereafter, statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC of witness was shown to the her to which she identified her signature at point A and B which was Ex.PW1/B. During cross examination complainant deposed that she was working as a beautician. House of accused was situated back to her house. She had no friendly relation with accused prior to the present incident and not thereafter. While she was shouting for help, accused started to run away and she tried to apprehend him by holding his wearing jacket but he succeeded to run away. Upon her shouting, only her father and brother came there and no neighbour came there at that time.
PW2 Dharamvir (father of the complainant) deposed that he did not remember the exact date and month but it was in the year 2017. On the day of incident, at around 10.00 PM, he was standing in the balcony and he heard sound of shouting of his daughter for help from outside the house. He immediately rushed there and his son namely Deepak also reached there and he saw that one person was misbehaving with his daughter and after seeing them, he tried to escape from there. His daughter/complainant tried to apprehend him by holding his wearing jacket but he succeeded to run away.
FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 3 of 14 His neighbourer apprehended the accused, he did not remember his name. Someone called at 100 number after which police official reached at the spot and they handed over the accused namely Sonu. His daughter made a complaint to the police regarding the aforesaid incident. His daughter told him that when she reached in front of her house, accused Sonu came from behind and caught hold her hand. Police official inquired him about the incident. Upon being asked by Ld. APP for the State, witness stated that it was correct that the day of incident was 30.01.2017.
During cross examination PW2 deposed that he was working as Safai Karamchari in Cabinet Secretariat. His duty hours were from 8.00 AM to 5.00 PM. Accused Sonu was apprehended from his house, by his neighbours. Accused Sonu was not known to him prior to the present incident. Witness denied the suggestions put to him.
PW3 ASI Rajbir Singh deposed that on 30.01.2017, he was posted at PS Amar Colony, PP Sriniwaspuri as ASI. He received a PCR call vide DD No.65B. Upon receiving the same at around 10.45 PM in which the information was received regarding misbehaviour with the woman. Thereafter, he alongwith Const. Hawa Singh reached the spot at G494, Sriniwaspuri. Upon reaching the spot, they met the complainant and her brother and her father. Aforesaid person had already apprehended accused Sonu. Thereafter, the complainant gave her written complaint to him in writing. Upon the complaint of the complainant, he made endorsement vide FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 4 of 14 Ex.PW3/A and handed over the same to Const. Hawa Singh for registration of FIR. Thereafter, Const. Hawa Singh came to PS for registration of FIR and after sometime returned back and handed over to him the original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter, at the instance of the complainant, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter, he conducted the inquiry and gave notice u/s 41(a) CrPC to the accused vide Ex.PW3/C. Thereafter, he interrogated the accused on 07.02.2017 at PS vide DD No.60PP and the same was Ex.PW3/D and thereafter accused went alongwith his father. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of all the witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was got recorded u/s 164 CrPC. After preparation of chargesheet, same was filed before the court.
During crossexamination PW3 deposed that he was on night duty from 8.00 PM till 8.00 AM. The call of 100 number was made by the family of the complainant, might be her brother and the number was mentioned in the said DD number. He received information from Duty Officer upon which, he made a call at the said number of DD No.65B dated 30.01.2017. He met the accused at the spot on the date of incident. The house of the accused was situated near the house of the complainant at a distance of about 200 metres. He was not knowing the previous antecedents of the accused Sonu prior to the date of incident. He did not know if the complainant was knowing the accused prior to the incident and had friendly relations. He did not know if accused was in the habit of consuming drugs.
FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 5 of 14 PW4 Ct. Hawa Singh deposed that on 30.01.2017, he was posted at PS Amar Colony on emergency duty and his duty hours were from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM. On that day, a 100 number call was received vide DD No.65B regarding the misbehaviour with the woman. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present matter with the IO SI Rajbir Singh and reached the spot at G494, Sriniwaspuri. Upon reaching the spot, they met the complainant, her brother and father. At that time, they also had apprehended the accused Sonu and informed them that accused Sonu had misbehaved with the complainant. Thereafter, complainant gave written complaint to the IO and the same was endorsed by the IO and handed over to him for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he went to PS and got the FIR registered and thereafter, came back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan, recorded the statement of witnesses. His statement was recorded by the IO. Accused joined the investigation and was interrogated and thereafter, accused left alongwith his father.
During cross examination PW4 deposed that It was wrong to suggest that the accused had been falsely implicated at the instance of complainant. It was wrong to suggest that he never visited the spot alongwith IO on the date of incident. It was wrong to suggest that all the proceedings were conducted at PS. It was wrong to suggest that he was not on duty on the date of incident.
FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 6 of 14
4. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 294 CrPC and copy of FIR was Ex. A1, Rukka was Ex. A2.
5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
6. Accused examined two witnesses in his defence.
DW1 Arti (sister of the accused) deposed that she did not remember the date of incident but the quarrel took place between the brother of the complainant and her brother (i.e the accused). Thereafter, her brother was falsely implicated in the present matter by the complainant. Her brother had not misbehaved with the complainant but he had been implicated as they wanted to take revenge from the accused.
During cross examination on behalf of Ld. APP for State DW1 deposed that on the date of incident, she was present in her house. She was informed regarding the quarreling of accused with the brother of the complainant by her children as the incident took place outside her house. She was living in the same vicinity as that of the accused. Accused was not present at that time. She did not remember the time when the incident took place. Witness denied all suggestions put to her.
FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 7 of 14 DW2 Ashish (cousin brother of the accused) deposed that he was also the neighbourer of the complainant and his house was in the same vicinity where he was residing. He did not remember the exact date of the incident. When the incident occurred in the present matter, he was present in his office. Complainant and her family members were in the habit of quarreling with him and his family members for one reason or the other like water supply etc. On the date of incident, accused Sonu had not committed any offence but has been falsely implicated by the complainant and her family members due to the previous quarrels between his family and the family of the complainant and accused has been falsely implicated being his brother. Accused Sonu was also suffering from mental ailment as he had suffered an injury in his brain when he was small, due to which he even gets aggressive sometime.
During cross examination on behalf of Ld. APP for State DW2 deposed that he was in the business of supplying watter and do not have any fix working hours. But, he usually go in the morning and come back late in evening. The distance between his house and the house of accused was around 6 kms. He was not knowing the complainant personally but she lives in his neighbourhood. He did not have any medical record regarding the medical ailment of the accused. He did not remember the place where he was present at the time of incident.
7. Final arguments were advanced.
FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 8 of 14
8. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. APP for the State that in the present matter the guilt of the accused have been proved. It is further argued that the complainant has clearly deposed the manner in which the accused misbehaved with the complainant on 30.01.2017 when the complainant was returning home from work and therefore the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged. Ld. APP for the state has argued that in the present matter all the witnesses have corroborated the story of the prosecution and there is no contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses and therefore accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged.
9. However, on the other hand Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant and it is an admitted fact that the complainant and the accused are residing in a same locality for several years and the complainant had cordial relations with the accused. Further, the allegations against the accused are false and fabricated and the complainant being influenced by her family members filed a false case against the accused. Further, the present complaint was filed by the complainant after having spoken to her family members and therefore, the same is false as the allegations are an after thought. It is further argued that there is no corroboration in the testimony of the witnesses and the statement of the complainant. It is also argued that the complaint is vague and the allegations are fanciful and do not inspire confidence and therefore, accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 9 of 14 Court Observation:
10. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:
The prosecution case finds its genesis in complaint dated 30.01.2017 Ex.PW1/A, upon which the FIR was registered vide Ex.A1. In the present matter, the complainant has leveled allegations against the accused of having misbehaved with her when she reached near her house and accused touched her inappropriately and used filthy language "chut de do"
against her and made explicit sexual overtures towards the complainant. To the case of prosecution, accused has raised manifold defences. Firstly, that the complaint Ex.PW1/A is vague and bereft of details and the complaint is devoid of merit. It is further argued that the chargesheet does not disclose the exact manner of commission of offence and further the complainant did not depose on the lines of her complaint Ex.PW1/A.
11. Ld. APP for the State has argued that there is complete corroboration in the testimony of the witnesses and the complainant has supported the story of prosecution and there is no contradiction. The veracity of the witness is not doubtful as she had withstood the crossexamination conducted on behalf of the accused. She has further argued that being an educated woman, complainant cannot be expected to implicate the accused falsely and only minor discrepancy is not fetal and the story of the FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 10 of 14 prosecution stands on its own legs. Further, the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and he is liable to be convicted.
12. In the present matter, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses among which PW1 was the complainant, PW2 was the father of the complainant and all remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal in nature. In the present matter, the star witness of the prosecution is the complainant, who is also the victim in the present matter. Further, PW2 is also the eye witness to the entire incident. If we carefully peruse the complaint Ex.PW1/A, statement of complainant recorded u/s 164 CrPC Ex.PW1/B and her testimony before the court, there are no contradictions and there is complete corroboration in the testimony. In the present matter, complainant being the victim had suffered criminal sexual assault upon her, at the hands of the accused. Further the accused abused her in filthy language by using unparliamentary language like "chut de do" and the same fact is also narrated by the complainant in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC Ex. PW 1/B. The complainant being aggrieved immediately made a call at 100 number and police officials reached the spot upon which she gave her complaint on the same day and narrated the manner of commission of offence and corroborated the same during her testimony recorded before the court and in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC Ex.PW1/B.
13. In the present matter, accused Sonu has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 354/354A/509 IPC and to prove the guilt of accused for the aforesaid offences, it was required for the prosecution to prove that the FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 11 of 14 complainant was subjected to assault or criminal force by the accused Sonu with an intention to outrage her modesty and the accused knew that her modesty would be outrage thereby. Further, the accused Sonu had intentionally committed the aforesaid act in front of the house of complainant and by using filthy language, insulted the modesty of the complainant.
14. In the present matter, the complainant has deposed on the lines of her complaint and has specifically narrated the manner in which the incident had occurred. She has also narrated the facts of her complaint in corroboration with her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC and reiterated the same during her testimony before the court. PW2 has corroborated the complainant in material aspect. Accused has failed to shake the credibility of the complainant by means of crossexamination or by way of leading any probable defence. The factum of the complainant and accused being on spot is corroborated by the fact that the same has not been disputed by the accused persons and when 100 number call was made police officials reached the spot and accused was handed over toe the police from the spot.
15. It is settled law that "modesty" is defined as a quality of being modest and in relation to a woman "womenly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". It is reserve or essence of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions, the essence of a women's modesty is her sex and the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty of a woman has been outrage is whether the FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 12 of 14 action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. For an offence u/s 354, intention to outrage the modesty of a woman or knowledge that the act of the accused would result in outraging her modesty is the gravamen of the offence. By evaluating the evidence, the court must remain alive of the fact that in the cases relating to sexual assault, no self respecting women from any strata of society would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which had no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such as are of fetal nature, be allowed to throw out and otherwise reliable prosecution case. Further, it was held in State Vs. Gurmeet Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 that "the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation."
16. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and in the present facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the accused had on the date of incident outrage the modesty of the complainant having knowledge and intention for doing so. Further, the accused abused her in filthy language to insult her modesty.
FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 13 of 14
17. Therefore, in my considered view the guilt of accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, accused Sonu is convicted for the offences charged u/s 354/354A/509 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan) On 04.05.2019 (Metropolitan Magistrate02,(Mahila Court), SouthEast, Saket, New Delhi.
Digitally signed by SHEETAL SHEETAL CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY PRADHAN PRADHAN Date:
2019.05.04 14:28:31 +0530 FIR No. 46/2017; PS Amar Colony ; State Vs. Sonu 14 of 14