Delhi District Court
State vs . Murari Lal & Ors. on 31 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAHILA COURT,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
State Vs. Murari Lal & Ors.
FIR NO. 63/05
P.S : Prasad Nagar
Case ID No. 02401R0530482005
Date of institution of case : 31.05.2005
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 27.10.2010
Date of judgment : 31.10.2014
Advocates appearing in the case:-
Sh. P.K Ranga, Ld. APP for the state.
Sh. S.N Khanna, Ld. Counsel for accused.
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C:
a) Date of offence : Unknown
b) Offence complained of : 509 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Smt. Bimla and Asha
Jaiswal
d) Name of accused, his parentage,
local & permanent residence : 1.Murari Lal,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Avtar
R/o T-261, Baljeet Nagar
Near MCD School, Delhi.
2.Satish Gupta,
S/o Sh.Akshaybar Prasad
R/o F-27A, Hastsal Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-59
FIR No. 63/05 Page 1 of 14
3.Rajrani
W/o Sh. R.P. Singh
R/o RZE 674/A, Sadh
Nagar, Palam Colony,
Railway Road, New Delhi.
e) Plea of accused : Accused is falsely implicated
f) Final order : Accused is acquitted.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
1 Case of the prosecution is that on an unknown date and time at Hotel Sidharth, Rajendra Place, Delhi, all the three accused in furtherance of their common intention, abused the complainants Smt. Bimla Bhatt and Smt. Aisha Jaiswal in filthy language, sound gestures alongwith obscene remarks.
2 Charge under Section 509/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons on 21.10.2009 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 Prosecution, with a view to establish its case, has examined five witnesses. PW-1 Bimla Bhatt and PW-2 Aisha Jaiswal are the complainants. PW-1 has proved her complaint filed before CAW Cell, Nanak Pura Ex. PW-1/A. PW-3 ASI Ashok Kumar has proved the arrest memos vide which accused Murari Lal and Satish Gupta were arrested which were exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A and Ex.
FIR No. 63/05 Page 2 of 14PW-3/B bearing his signatures at point-A. PW-3 has also proved personal search memos of both the accused which were conducted vide memos Ex. PW-3/C and Ex. PW-3/D bearing his signatures at point A. PW-4 HC Meena has proved the arrest memo and search memo of accused Rajrani Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B respectively bearing his signatures at point-A. PW-5 SI Ranjan Kumar has proved the endorsement on the complaint received from CAW cell Ex. PW-5/A.
4. PE was closed on 29.05.2012 and thereafter, statements of accused persons were recorded after putting all the incriminating evidence on record to which, they pleaded innocence and stated that complainant has implicated them falsely in the present case as she had previous enmity with them. Accused Satish Gupta has stated in his statement that complainant has acted at the behest of management as he alongwith other accused Murari Lal was in the Union. Accused Murari Lal in his statement has stated that complainants used to abuse all the accused persons, therefore, he had filed complaint against the complainants with the SHO P.S. Prasad Nagar. Accused Raj Rani has stated in her statement that complainant had acted on behest of management as she was also one of the union members.
5 I have heard Ld. APP for the state, Ld. Defence Counsel FIR No. 63/05 Page 3 of 14 and perused the complete record file. I have also perused all the judgments relied on by the counsel for the accused in :
Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat Vs State of Maharashtra, Crl. No. 1513/2004 dated 17.12.2004, (SC), Ashok Kumar Nayyar Vs State of Delhi, Crl. Revision Petition No. 963/2002 dated 01.05.2007 (High Court of Delhi), State of M.P Vs Komal, Crl. Appeal No. 1296 of 1996 dated 15.09.2011 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh), Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa, Crl. Appeal No. 646:1994 dated 18.12.2002 (SC), Panchshil ALEAS Sagar Ramchandra Jain Jangale Vs Kalpana Sihvaji Jadhav, Crl. Appeal No. 1073 of 2005 dated 25.01.2007 (High Court of Bombay), Haridas Ajab Shinde Vs State Vs Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 120 of 1994 dated 23.02.1996 (High Court of Bombay) Santha Vs State of Kerala, Crl. Rev. Pet. 3157 of 2005 dated 16.12.2005 (High Court of Kerala).
It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that all the accused and both complainants are colleagues working in Siddharth Hotel and no such incident ever took place. Complainant has falsely implicated them in this case as she had some previous enmity with them on the behest of management.
6 Written submissions filed on behalf of the complainant also perused carefully. Counsel for the complainant has submitted in his written submission that PW1 and PW2 both have specifically and categorically stated in their statement before the court that how the accused persons have misbehaved with them. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel has argued that after perusing complete case file FIR No. 63/05 Page 4 of 14 and the whole series of events, it can be easily culled out that complainant has falsely implicated all the accused in this case.
7 PW-1 Smt. Bimla has deposed that she was working in the Hotel Siddhartha as guest attendant since 1992. All the accused persons were also working in the same hotel. Accused Murari Lal and she was having the same duty in the morning. Accused Murari Lal used to take shower in the hotel and used to stand in the towel only, wearing nothing else, and when she used to come, he used to drop his towel and call her near him through his gesture of his hands. Whenever, she happened to go to the pantry for some work, accused Murari Lal used to come in the pantry and used to open his zip and sometimes used to touch on her breast. It is further deposed by PW-1 that accused Murari Lal used to speak with her in filthy language and threaten her that he would not let her work there and would get her kidnapped from the bus stop. It is also deposed that whenever, she used to be alone in the pantry, accused Rajrani used to inform Murari Lal that she was alone. PW-1 has also deposed that accused Murari Lal used to say " teri maa behan chod du ga" and further used to say "jo bi ladies naukri karti he, randiya hoti hai" and whenever he used to see her, he used to remark "Randi aa gai". PW-1 has further deposed that she had made complaint to the management on 23.07.2004 but got no response from the management after which she had filed a written FIR No. 63/05 Page 5 of 14 complaint in CAW Cell, Nanakpura alongwith Aisha Jaiswal who was also working with her. On the basis of the said complaint, the present case was registered.
8 During her cross-examination, PW-1 admitted the fact that incharge was always present in the ladies health club. PW-1 has submitted that Murari Lal had got registered a first information report against her and Aisha in 2004 which was prior to her complaint. PW-1 has also accepted to be aware of the fact that Murari Lal had not registered any first information report against her but only a complaint. The present case was registered against all the accused persons later on. PW-1 has denied the suggestion given to her by the counsel for the accused that the present complaint is the counter-blast to the complaint given by accused Murari Lal to the police authority. PW-1 has submitted that she had filed a complaint against Murari Lal, with the union, a few days before filing of the complaint Ex.PW-1/A. Same has not been filed in the court record. PW-1 has voluntarily submitted that Murari Lal was in the habit of making the complaint against her, that she came late, not doing any work and used to sleep during work hours. PW-1 had specifically denied the suggestion that she had filed the present complaint at the behest of the management against all the accused.
9 PW-2 in her examination in chief deposed that in July, FIR No. 63/05 Page 6 of 14 2004, accused Murari Lal tortured her and in that act, accused Satish Gupta and Rajrani also accompanied him. PW-2 further deposed that accused Murari Lal used to threaten her that he would get her picked up from the bus stop regarding which, she had filed the complaint. PW-2 has also deposed that prior to that at least 5-6 months before she and Vimla had complained to the management as well as the union member of the hotel. It is also deposed by PW-2 that the accused present in the court used to abuse Bimla by saying " tu randi hei" and "ye kote par jati hei aur iske bahut yaar he"
and used to harass her intentionally. PW-2 has further deposed that accused used to mark her absence despite the fact that she used to reach before time at 10.15 A.M. Accused used to show her arrival time as 10.45 A.M. and thereby harassed her. PW-2 has further deposed that accused used to shout in the open cafeteria for Bimla by saying "ye randi hai" and thereby, harassed Bimla and used abusive language against her. PW-2 has also deposed that Bimla used to tell her about the harassment and misbehaviour by accused Murari Lal.
10 PW-2, in her cross-examination, submitted that she had not given any complaint in writing to the hotel management against any of the present accused. PW-2 has admitted the fact that hotel staff manning the male side of the health club was not allowed to enter the female section. PW-2 has also submitted that accused FIR No. 63/05 Page 7 of 14 Murari Lal used to made false complaint to manager regarding her and Vimla, regarding coming late. PW-2 has further submitted that accused Rajrani and Satish Gupta used to instigate Murari Lal against her and Vimla by telling him that they were sitting idle or coming late. PW-2 has denied the suggestion put to her by the counsel for accused that she had filed the present complaint at the behest of the management. Prosecution has also examined witnesses PW3 ASI Ashok Kumar, PW4 HC Meena and PW5 SI Ranjan Kumar, which have already been discussed herein before.
11 Accused has chosen to lead their defence evidence and have examined Sh. Ram Gopal as DW-1 and Sh. Suresh Kumar as DW-2. DW-1, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that he was working as room attendant in the hotel Sidhhartha since 1992. DW-1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the employees of hotel are not allowed to use any facility of the hotel that are available for the guests. DW-1 in his cross-examination has submitted that he used to meet occasionally with the complainants and the accused during duty hours.
12 Sh. Suresh Kumar has been examined as DW-2. DW-2 in his examination-in-chief deposed that he used to work as Messuer in the gents section of the health club of Hotel Sidhartha from the year 1982 till 2005. DW-2 has also deposed that no FIR No. 63/05 Page 8 of 14 employee was entitled to use the facilities meant for the guests. DW-2 has further deposed that gents used to enter the ladies area only after pressing the door bell which was installed outside the ladies segment. DW-2, in his cross-examination, submitted that arrival time of manager was not fixed.
13 Accused Murari Lal has consented to depose before the court as DW3. DW3 in his examination in chief deposed that he was appointed in the Health Club of Hotel Jay Pee Siddharth on 30.01.1990 as a senior attendant and his duty hours were 7.30 am to 2.30 pm for 15 days and 2.30pm to 9.30 pm for another 15 days. DW3 further deposed that he was the leader of Hotel Majdoor Manch and denied of saying anything against Vimla Bhatt and Asha Jaiswal. DW3 also deposed that it became routine for both complainants i.e. Vimla Bhatt and Aisha Jaiswal to report late on duty. DW3 also deposed that because of their coming late, it used to be very difficult in operating the health club. Many times Manager had also warned the employees of the Health Club to report the duty on time. Thereafter, one day Manager personally called him and reported the incident of late coming of both complainants to him and told him that if these ladies do not mend their ways, he would take action against them. Other members of the union then talked to Vimla Bhatt and Asha Jaiswal but they did not stop coming late and he had to inform the Manager regarding their late coming. DW-3 FIR No. 63/05 Page 9 of 14 further deposed that on 21.07.2004, Vimla and Aisha abused him in cafeteria. On the same day at around 6.35 pm, he received a call in the Health Club and caller abused him in very abusive language regarding which he filed a complaint to the Manager, which is Ex.DW3/1. DW3 further deposed that Manager of the hotel called him and gave a letter Ex.DW3/2 in view of which he went to Police Station Prasad Nagar and lodged a formal complaint on 22.07.2007 which is Ex.DW3/3. DW3 on the instance of police officials gave complaint in writing to MTNL office of the concerned area which is Ex.DW3/4. DW3 further deposed that on 25.07.2004, he also made complaint to the General Secretary of the Union about the threats extended to him by Asha and Vimla and the harassment he was facing because of the same, which is Ex.DW3/5. On 11.08.2004, he again informed the General Secretary of the Union about the threats extended by Asha and Vimla and the complaint they had made before the Women Cell, which is Ex.DW3/6.
14 DW3 in his cross examination submitted that it is the duty of the head of department to see whether the employees are coming on time for their duties or not. DW3 denied all the suggestion put to him by the Learned counsel for the complainant with respect to the facts mentioned by the complainant in her examination in chief. DW3 has voluntarily submitted that as he was the union leader, therefore, Manager had informed him about the FIR No. 63/05 Page 10 of 14 late coming of both Vimla and Aisha. DW3 has admitted the fact of having conflicting relations with the management of the hotel.
15 Satish Gupta, another accused has also got himself examined as DW4. DW4 in his examination in chief submitted that Vimla and Aisha came late everyday due to which guests used to complaint about them. DW4 further deposed that on the instance of Management, Murari Lal Sharma talked to Vimla and Aisha. Thereafter, he had received a phone call by which he was threatened to be picked from his home. DW4 further deposed that Management asked Murari Lal Sharma to report the matter to the police and Murari Lal Sharma lodged the complaint to police. DW4 also deposed that Vimla and Aisha told him, to ask Murari Lal Sharma, to take back his complaint being secretary in the union. They had also threatened him that they would see him as well as Murari Lal Sharma if the complaint was not taken back by Murari Lal Sharma. DW-4 in his cross examination submitted that he was having cordial relations with the management. DW4 submitted that he never saw the accused Murari Lal, Vimla and Aisha talking with each other. DW4 has specifically denied the suggestion put to him by Ld. APP for the state that he used to harass the complainant Vimla and Asha or abused them in the filthy language.
16 In the present matter, witnesses PW1 Vimla and well as PW2 Aisha Jaiswal, produced by the prosecution, are the FIR No. 63/05 Page 11 of 14 complainants who have filed the complaint Ex. PW1/A on the basis of which the FIR was registered and later on charge-sheet was filed. No other public witness despite the fact that the place of occurrence is a hotel and other employees working in the hotel must also be present at the time of incident on or around the occurrence has been examined by the prosecution. It is also an admitted fact that all the time approximately twenty workers must be present in and around the area. No person from the hotel management has been examined by the prosecution. It is an admitted fact that alleged incident occurred in hotel during duty hours. Though, no specific date and time has been mentioned. Complainant Vimla has admitted in her cross examination that she had not filed any written complaint to the Management of hotel Siddharth about any incident whatsoever.
17 The question which is for consideration is whether the testimony of both the complainants is of such credible nature that conviction can be based solely on their testimony. In the initial complaint Ex.PW1/A, both the complainants miserably failed to disclose any of the filthy words used by the accused persons, however, during examination in chief of PW-1, PW-1 has narrated some very obscene words. PW-2 who is the co-complainant in Ex.PW1/A has also later on narrated the incident in her examination in chief differently from her initial complaint. The reason for not FIR No. 63/05 Page 12 of 14 disclosing the said filthy words in the complaint Ex.PW1/A has not been explained by the prosecution. No date, time and exact place of occurrence of alleged incidents have been narrated by the complainant.
Further, the complainant has also miserably failed to specify as to which of the accused has acted in which manner. PW-1 in her examination in chief deposed that accused no.1 made obscene gestures towards her and used to touch her breast in the pantry area but no specific imputation has been made regarding the misbehaviour by the other two accused persons. PW1 and PW2 both have admitted that all these incidents have happened during the duty hours and other staff used to be present at the time but prosecution has miserably failed to examine any other staff from the premises. In the light of abovementioned discussion and further in the light of improvements made by PW-1 and PW-2 during their testimony in count, not much reliance can be placed on their testimony. Admittedly, accused persons were known to both the witness being the colleagues. It is also an admitted fact that accused Murari Lal Sharma has filed his complaint before the Manager as well as the formal complaint with SHO, PS Prasad Nagar which is Ex.DW3/3 much before the filing of complaint by the complainant in CAW cell. Thus, motive for false implication cannot be ruled out. Hence, benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused persons and they are acquitted for the offence under Section 509/34 FIR No. 63/05 Page 13 of 14 IPC. Previous bail bonds of accused persons are further extended for a period of six months as per Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today on this 31st day of October, 2014.
(MANU VEDWAN) Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Central-01, Delhi FIR No. 63/05 Page 14 of 14 FIR No. 63/05 PS Prasad Nagar State Vs Murari Lal & Ors.
31.10.2014 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, accused persons are acquitted for the offence under Section 509/34 IPC. Previous bail bonds of accused persons are further extended for a period of six months as per Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
(MANU VEDWAN) Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Central-01, Delhi FIR No. 63/05 Page 15 of 14