Delhi District Court
Kartar Singh vs State on 20 December, 2013
In the court of Ms. Ina Malhotra, District & Sessions Judge
South East : Saket Courts, New Delhi
Crl. Appeal No. 78/13
Kartar Singh
S/o Sh. Ayodhya Dass
R/o H. No. 327, Gali No. 2,
Surya Vihar, Near PT. Gyasi Lal Lothi,
Sector91, Faridabad, Haryana. .... Appellant
V E R S U S
STATE .... Respondent
Appeal presented on : 26.11.2013
Arguments concluded on : 11.12.2013
Judgment on : 20.12.2013
J U D G M E N T
This appeal impugns the order of Ld. Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 12 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/. Fine is stated to have been paid. Copy of receipt is on record.
2 As per the prosecution's case, the accused was charged with offence under Section 354 IPC for outraging the Crl. Appeal No. 78/13 Kartar Singh V. State Page ....1 of 6 modesty of the complainant Smt. Sapna. As per the facts on record, on 18.06.2009 at about 1.30 a.m. the complainant was sleeping along with her husband and a child on the common terrace of her tenanted premises. She realized that someone was sleeping besides her whom she thought was her husband. The said person held her hand and put it into his underwear, upon which the complainant woke up and found that the person was her landlord, the accused herein. She raised an alarm and the accused was apprehended by her husband. The police was called and on the basis of the complainant's statement, an FIR was registered. The Ld. Trial Court on appraisal of entire evidence on record concluded that the testimony of Smt. Sapna was clear, consistent and cogent.
3. Ld. counsel for appellant has impugned the said order on grounds of various discrepancies, viz the timing of the police arriving at the seen of crime. He has argued that it was approximately 4 hours after the incident thereby denting and fracturing the investigation. He has also pointed out that there were other tenants sleeping on the terrace who were not examined. While the complainant has stated that the accused was Crl. Appeal No. 78/13 Kartar Singh V. State Page ....2 of 6 drunk, the IO has stated to the contrary. He further seeks to demolish the conviction on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has not taken his defence into consideration that there was bitterness between the parties. The complainant and her husband were in arrears of rent and the husband of the complainant had also been admonished on various occasions for opening the gate by pushing it with his motorcycle. It is also argued that given the fact there there were other people sleeping on the same terrace, it was incomprehensible that such an offence could have been committed. Further none of these people were examined by the police.
4. The defence witness who was also a tenant has stated that he was sleeping on the terrace at the time of alleged incident. He woke up only on hearing the commotion when the police arrived. He has also admitted that prior to the date of offence he was not aware about any arrears of rent etc.
5. The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has stated that the statement of the complainant is clear and categorical. In offences such as the present one, there is hardly any requirement for any other neighbour to be examined. The Crl. Appeal No. 78/13 Kartar Singh V. State Page ....3 of 6 witness has clearly stated that the others were sleeping on the terrace at that time and woke up after the incident. The husband of the complainant has fully corroborated the sequence of evidence.
6. I have gone through the testimony of the complainant PW1 Smt. Sapna. Her testimony rings a bell of truthfullness. In such like cases, the prosecution rests its case solely on the testimony of the complainant and none of the neighbours is required to be examined. Given the facts of the case, the story of arrears of rent appears to be an afterthought to raise some sort of a defence. I do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised on behalf of the appellant. Assailing the conviction only on grounds of discrepancies or inconsistencies in the statements of the formal witnesses or whether the accused was drunk or not, cannot be the ground for the accused to have the conviction set aside nor does it give rise to any reasonable doubt about the incident.
7. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order either on the point of conviction or sentence.
8. Appeal disposed of in terms of the above. Crl. Appeal No. 78/13 Kartar Singh V. State Page ....4 of 6
9. Copy of Order along with TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
10. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced.
(Ina Malhotra) District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts New Delhi 20.12.2013 Crl. Appeal No. 78/13 Kartar Singh V. State Page ....5 of 6 Crl. Appeal No. 78/13 Present : Counsel for the appellant Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State Vide separate Judgment, the appeal is dismissed in terms thereof. The accused is taken into custody. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC, if any, be given to him. Bail bond and surety cancelled. Documents, if any, be released.
Copy of order sent to the Trial Court.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Ina Malhotra) District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts New Delhi 20.12.2013 Crl. Appeal No. 78/13 Kartar Singh V. State Page ....6 of 6