Delhi District Court
State vs . Sudhir Kumar Page No. 1 Of 7 on 25 April, 2022
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN GUPTA, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. 307/18
FIR NO. 75/13
PS Kanjhawala
U/S. 354/354A IPC
STATE
Vs.
Sudhir Kumar
CNR NO. DLNW01- 005287-2018
a. Session Case No. 307/17
b. Date of offence 13.03.2013
c. Accused Sudhir Kumar
S/o Sukh Lal
R/o H No. 177, Rana Poli Wala
Panna, Qutub Garh, Delhi-
110039
d. Offence U/s. 354/354A IPC
e. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
f. Final order Accused Sudhir Kumar is
convicted for the offence u/S.
354 IPC.
g. Date of Institution 15.05.2018
h. Date when judgment 22.11.2021
was reserved
i. Date of judgment 25.04.2022
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2022.04.25
13:15:41
+0530
State Vs. Sudhir Kumar Page no. 1 of 7
2
JUDGMENT
1. The accused is facing trial for the offence U/s. 354/354A IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.03.2013 at about 8 am in front of Gate no. D 117, Paliwala Rana Pana, Gautabgarh, Delhi, accused Sudhir Kumar used criminal force against complainant Monika by holding her breast with intention to outrage her modesty. He also made sexually colored remarks to her.
3. On the basis of the complaint of Ms. Monika present FIR was lodged u/S 354A IPC. After investigation the chargesheet was filed against accused u/S 354 A IPC.
4. Since there is a cross case filed by the accused against the complainant and her family members with respect to the same incident, for which FIR No. 73/13 u/S 308/452/323/324/341 IPC has been lodged, the present chargesheet has also been transferred to the present court.
5. After hearing arguments on point of charge and finding a prima facie case against the accused, requisite charge U/s. 354/354A IPC was framed on 23.05.2018 against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2022.04.25 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar 13:15:46 +0530 Page no. 2 of 7 3
6. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined four witnesses. During evidence accused admitted the FIR as Ex.PA1.
7. PW1 Ct. Satbir who was posted at PS Kanjhawla on 13.03.2013 took the rukka and copy of FIR from duty officer to the spot and handed it over to SI Paramjeet.
8. PW2 is Ms. Monika. She is the complainant. She proved her complaint Ex.PW2/1, her statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/2. Her testimony in detailed shall be discussed in detail in later part of the judgment.
9. PW3 ASI Ajay Kumar proved the arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW3/1. He deposed that he formally arrested the accused on 14.04.2013 and after completion of the chargesheet, filed the same in the court.
10. PW4 SI Paramjeet Singh deposed that on 13.03.2013 further investigation of the case was marked to him. He attested the complaint and prepared the rukka as Ex.PW4/A and got the FIR registered. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/B and recorded the statement of mother in law of the complainant and supplementary statement of the complainant. On 15.03.2013 he got recorded the statement of complainant u/S 164 Cr.P.C.
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2022.04.25 13:15:52 +0530 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar Page no. 3 of 7 4 vide application Ex.PW4/C. Thereafter, he was transferred from the police station.
11. After completion of prosecution evidence, all incriminating material as appearing in the evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. He pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as the husband of complainant alongwith his family members gave beatings to him and he got registered FIR against them. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.
12. PW2 Monika deposed that on 13.03.2013, in the morning, Shabbo mother of accused Sudhir had some quarrel with her chacha Laxman. Thereafter Shabbo came outside their house and started uttering foul words. It was around 8 am. Sudhir came outside their house and started urinating there. Her mother in law at that time was in the fields and her husband had gone to brick kiln and she was alone at home. She confronted Sudhir and told him that he could go and urinate in his house and asked him, whether he does not have a bathroom at his house. By that time, her mother in law came back home. She also told the accused that he should urinate at home and not outside their house. Upon this Shabbo and Sudhir started quarreling with her mother. When she intervened, Sudhir misbehaved with her. He put his hand on her breast and her navel. She went inside her house and gave call to her chacha. After some time, her chacha and his son Yudhish Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA State Vs. Sudhir Kumar GUPTA Date:
2022.04.25 Page no. 4 of 7
13:15:58
+0530
5
came there. Quarrel took place between Sudhir and his mother on one side and her chacha and Yudhish on the other. By that time, her husband and elder son of her chacha came to the spot and got everyone separated. She then called at number 100. She was taken to the police station and her statement Ex.PW2/1 was recorded. Since, she did not disclose complete facts, she was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP by putting leading questions. She on cross examination by ld.Addl. PP admitted the suggestion that during course of incident, accused had caught hold of her breast and he had tried to break nada of her salwar.
12.1 She during her cross examination admitted that Sudhir had got registered an FIR against her family members. She had handed over her written complaint to police around 11- 12 noon. She deposed that she cannot say if she made complaint to the police in the evening on 13.03.2013. She denied the suggestion that her complaint is a counter blast to the FIR registered by accused Sudhir against her family members.
13. From the testimony of PW2 it is evident that when the accused urinated, the mother in law of complainant had also reached the house and she told the accused that he should urinate at home. Thereafter, Shabbo and accused Sudhir started quarreling with her mother in law. When she intervened, Sudhir misbehaved with her by putting his hand on her breast and navel.
Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2022.04.25 13:16:03 State Vs. Sudhir Kumar +0530 Page no. 5 of 7 6
14. The eye witness Saroj Bala could not be examined by prosecution as she expired during the pendency of trial. I have perused the testimony of PW2. She had remained consistent in her testimony that when she objected to the accused, he used criminal force against her and touched on her breast and also on her navel, probably when he was trying to break the naada of her salvar. The minor contradictions in the testimony of PW2 as pointed out by Defence counsel is immaterial. In the initial complaint and in her statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C, she has categorically stated that the accused caught hold of her breast and tried to break the naada of her salvar. Even during her testimony before the court, she deposed that he put his hand on her breast and also on her navel. The cross examination by ld. APP is more clarificatory in nature and does not creates dent in her testimony which is otherwise consistent.
15. The two necessary ingredients of Section 354 IPC are 'assault' or 'use of criminal force' to any woman and with the intention to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. Thus when the modesty of a woman is outraged or it is likely to be outraged coupled with an assault or criminal force, Section 354 IPC would be attracted. Though assault can be by mere gesture or preparation intending or knowing that it is likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend use of criminal force. This is an act more than mere physical contact with advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. S. 354A IPC Digitally signed by State Vs. Sudhir Kumar KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA Date: Page no. 6 of 7 GUPTA 2022.04.25 13:16:09 +0530 7 is mere physical contact with advances. The term "explicit sexual overture" is relevant for the purpose of offence u/S 354A IPC. Hence, the prosecution to make out a case u/S. 354A IPC has to show that the act of accused was embedded with explicit sexual overtures. Every kind of physical contact cannot be covered under S. 354A IPC. The use of word "and" in S. 354A IPC requires that there should be a physical contact with sexual advances / overtures. S. 354A IPC is applicable where the accused does not stop after committing a single isolated act of criminal force but rather goes on to commit several other similar acts which end up converting his actions into advances of sexual overture.
16. In the present case, the allegations proved against the accused are that he caught hold / touched the breast of the complainant and naval while he was trying to break the naada of her salvar and used criminal force against her. Thus, the offence committed by the accused fulfills the ingredients of S. 354 IPC.
Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offence u/S 354 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2022.04.25
13:16:15
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE (KIRAN GUPTA)
OPEN COURT ON 25.04.2022 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 NORTH WEST DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Sudhir Kumar Page no. 7 of 7