Delhi District Court
State vs . Krishan Kumar on 12 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Krishan Kumar
FIR NO: 111/03
P. S. Kapashera
ID No. 02405R6305162004
Date of institution of case : 10.02.2004
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 05.12.2012
Date of judgment : 12.12.2012
Advocates appearing in the case :-
Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Ld. APP for State
Sh. V.K. Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for accused
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 15.06.2003
b) Offence complained of : 354/341 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Ms. Rekha Devi
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : Krishan Kumar
local & permanent residence S/o Sh. Mange Ram
R/o RZ-240, Sayyed village
Paschim Vihar
New Delhi
e) Plea of accused : Accused is falsely implicated.
f) Final order : Accused is convicted
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In th present case, accused Krishan Kumar had been charged for offence u/s 341 and 354 IPC on the ground that on 15.06.2003 at about 4 pm within jurisdiction of PS Kapashera, he wrongfully restrained the complainant Rekha Devi and assaulted / used criminal force against her with intention to outrage her modesty. The prosecution has examined five PWs on its behalf.
FIR no. 111/03 ; PS: Kapashera St vs. Krishan Kumar Page no. 1/5
2. PW1 is HC Ravinder, the DO who exhibited copy of FIR no. 111/03 PS Kapashera as Ex.PW1/A and the endorsement made by him as Ex.PW1/B. PW2 is Ct. Surender who had joined investigation with IO on receipt of DD no. 23A on 15.06.2003 and after recording statement of complainant, he got the FIR registered.
3. PW3 is complainant Smt. Rekha W/o Sh. Hardwari who stated in her examination-in-chief that she resides at Muradabad, UP in June 2003, she alongwith her husband came to Delhi in search of work and started residing at Jain Farm, Bamroli. She stated that in the month of June 2003 at about 4 pm, she was coming to her home after getting her earthen pot (matka) filled with water and she requested her neighbour Smt. Geeta to help her in order to remove Matka from her head, but she did not come and sent her husband Krishan Kumar to help her but instead of helping her, Krishan Kumar grabbed her breast and she forcibly removed her hand and in that process the matka fell down and broke. She stated that she tried to run but he restrained her from running but she managed to go away from there and in the evening, she disclosed the whole incident to her husband and her husband called the police and police recorded her statement which is Ex.PW3/A and arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW3/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/C. She stated that accused was threatening her even on the date of examination-in-chief. She correctly identified accused in court.
4. PW4 is Sh. Hardwari Lal, husband of complainant who stated that in the month of June 2003, he had gone for work in the morning and when he FIR no. 111/03 ; PS: Kapashera St vs. Krishan Kumar Page no. 2/5 came back home in the evening, his wife Rekha told him that accused Krishan Kumar had molested her and thereafter, he called the police and police recorded the statement of his wife and arrested the accused. The cross- examination of both the public witnesses was treated as nil but on the application of accused u/s 311 Cr.P.C. PW3 Rekha and PW4 Sh. Hardwari Lal were again summoned for cross-examination on 02.03.2012. In her cross- examination, PW3 Rekha denied the suggestion that she used to fight with Kalawati i.e. the sister of accused and she had falsely implicated accused in this case. She further denied the suggestion that no incident of molestation had happened and accused had not indulged in any misbehaviour with her. No material inconsistency was found in cross-examination of PW3. PW4 Sh. Hardwari admitted in his cross-examination that the incident of molestation had not taken place before him and it was told to him by his wife. PW4 admitted that he used to live in Jain Farm on the asking of Jija and father of accused because they used to take contracts for work. He stated that they left the Jain Farm permanently on the same day of the incident since the accused had threatened them.
5. PW5 is IO HC Hawa Singh who stated that on 15.06.2003 on receipt of DD no. 23A, he alongwith Ct. Surender reached at the spot at Jain farm Bamdoli and met complainant Rekha and her husband and got her statement recorded which is already Ex.PW3/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW5/A and handed it over to Ct. Surender for registration of FIR and after the registration of FIR, he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex.PW5/B and searched the accused but he was not found, so on FIR no. 111/03 ; PS: Kapashera St vs. Krishan Kumar Page no. 3/5 16.06.2003, he arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW3/B and after completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet. In his cross-examination, PW5 stated that he had found one broken matka at the spot but he had not seized the matka. He denied the suggestion that there was no matka at the spot. He admitted that he has not shown the broken matka in his site plan. He denied the suggestion that all the writing work was done in police station. He denied the suggestion that accused was implicated in false case at the behest of complainant and her husband.
6. After closure of PE, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which accused stated that he is innocent. Accused availed many opportunities to lead defence evidence, but he did not bring any defence evidence due to which his opportunity was closed and case was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were head on last date and case was fixed for order for today.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF:
7. Perusal of above stated evidence of eye-witness PW3 Rekha reveals that there is no inconsistency in her examination and she has withstood the test of cross examination. She has correctly identified the accused in court and it is clear from her evidence that accused had assaulted / used criminal force against her with intention to outrage her modesty.
8. PW4 Hardwari has clearly stated that they left the Jain Farm on the FIR no. 111/03 ; PS: Kapashera St vs. Krishan Kumar Page no. 4/5 same day of incident as accused had threatened them. The Ld. Defence Counsel has failed to raise doubt in mind of court even after thorough cross- examination of witnesses. The testimony of witnesses inspires confidence and is trust worthy. Prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for conviction of accused. Hence, accused stands convicted for offence u/s 354 IPC and 341 IPC. Fix for hearing of quantum of sentence on 13.12.2012.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 12nd DECEMBER, 2012 MM-01(SW), Mahila Court FIR no. 111/03 ; PS: Kapashera St vs. Krishan Kumar Page no. 5/5