Delhi District Court
State vs . : Ram Chayan @ Rajesh on 26 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. NITI PHUTELA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02
(MAHILA COURT) SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. : Ram Chayan @ Rajesh
FIR No. : 303/09
U/S : 451/354 IPC
PS : Hauz Khas
DETAILS OF THE CASE
a) SI. No of the case : 303/09
b) Date of commission of offence : 1718.08.2009
c) Date of institution of the case : 04.05.2010
d) Name of the complainant : Ms. Sunita
e) Name, Parentage & Address : Ram Chayan
of the accused S/o Sh. Vishwanath Chauhan
R/o Village Itehaia,
Mukampur, PS Tanda, District
Ambedkar Nagar, UP.
f) Offence complained of : 451/354 IPC
g) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 26.09.2014 (prelunch)
i) Date of judgment : 26.09.2014 (Postlunch)
j) Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No. 303/09 Page No. 1 of7
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of prosecution that in the intervening night of 1718.08.2009 at around 12:15 Am at House no. 18, Green Park Extension, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Hauz Khas accused Ramchayan @ Rajesh Chauhan touched the body parts of complainant ٍSumita with intention to outrage her modesty by unlawfully entering into the above said house with intention to commit above said offence.
2. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed in the court. Copy was supplied to the accused. Thereafter charge U/s 354/451 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. However, as the victim/complainant was unserved even through DCP concerned, therefore, examination of PW2 and PW3 was completed. PW1 i.e. Sumita Kapil also appeared only for her examination in chief but failed to appear for her crossexamination. She was therefore dropped from the list of witnesses and her testimony as PW1 is not to be read. PW4 IO/SI Inderjeet was examined in chief but as per accused there was no requirement of cross examination of said witness. Hence, after completion of evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 PE stands closed.
4. The gist of deposition of the prosecution witnesses is discussed in the paragraphs that follows: FIR No. 303/09 Page No. 2 of7
5. PW2 Prachi Kapil deposed that on 1718.08.2009 she had gone for a family dinner with her mother and sister. As per her at around 12:20 AM when they reached their house they saw that the latch of the iron door of the house was broken. Their maid i.e. complainant informed them that accused had forcibly entered the premises by breaking the latch and had pinned her to the floor and kept hand on her mouth so that she could not shout. As per the witness the victim informed them that he had even tried to molest her. As per the witness they saw the latch and the lock of the gate broken and saw the accused running towards the drawing room. It is further stated by the witness that she alongwith her mother and sister started searching the accused in drawing room and immediately her mother dialed 100 no. to call the police and she at the same time called her clerk Rajkumar who used to reside on the third floor of the same premises. The witness thereafter apprehend the accused who was hiding under the dining table and also took help of their guard Mumtaz and clerk Rajkumar and thereafter handed over him to the police which arrived after few minutes. She correctly identified the accused present in the court. She was cross examined and discharged.
6. PW3 Rajkumar deposed that he was working as clerk with Ms Sumita Kapil and used to reside on third floor of house no. 18, Green Park Extension. He deposed on the same lines as PW2 and stated that he was called by Ms Sumita Kapil as somebody had entered their house. As per him when he reached the FIR No. 303/09 Page No. 3 of7 ground floor he saw Ms Prachi Kapil holding the accused by her hands. He deposed that the accused was handed over to police by them. He also deposed that he had informed to Ms Sumita Kapil that accused was working as labourer at the adjacent house i.e. house no. 19, where construction work was going on. As per him he came to know later that accused had misbehaved with complainant Ms Sumita. The said witness was crossexamined and discharged.
7. PW4 IO/SI Inderjeet deposed that on the above said date he was posted on emergency duty at PS Hauz Khas and he received DD entry no. 38. He thereafter reached the spot alongwith Ct Dinesh and met the complainant, Prachi Kapil, Sumita Kapil who handed over the accused to them. As per him the accused was caught by Rajkumar and she Smt Sumita Kapil informed him that accused had trespassed into their house and had misbehaved with their maid namely Sunita. He recorded the statement of complainant Sumita ExPW4/A bearing his signature at point A. He also prepared the rukka Ex PW4/B bearing his signatures at point A and sent the same through Ct Dinesh for registration of FIR. As per him after lodging of the FIR he received the copy of FIR and original rukka. He then got conducted the MLC of complainant and that of the accused. The pullanda of exhibits of medical examination of complainant which were seized by seizure memo are ExPW4/C, the seizure memo of broken latch is ExPW4/D. The arrest memo of accused is ExPW4/E bearing his signatures at point A and personal search FIR No. 303/09 Page No. 4 of7 memo is Ex PW4/F. He thereafter deposed that he investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet.
8. The accused in his statement U/s 294 Cr PC admitted the factum of registration of FIR which is Ex.P3, lodging of DD no. 38B dated 18.08.2009 which is Ex.P4, MLC no. 68055/09 which is Ex.P1, his own MLC no. 68056/09 which is Ex P2. He also admitted his arrest memo, search memo and seizure memos.
9. The statement of accused U/s 281 CrPC was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused and he stated that though he was working as labourer in the neighboring house and as one brick had fallen therefore he went to the premises of complainant to pick the same. He stated that he was falsely implicated and was even beaten up by the guard and driver of owner of the house. The accused stated that there was no requirement of leading any defence evidence.
10. Final arguments addressed. Heard. Record perused.
11. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution because it is on the evidence of prosecution and its strength that the fate of this case depends. As it is mentioned above that the complainant herself who had the first hand information regarding the present case and was in the best position to explain the chain of events which took place in her presence was not traceable, therefore, no other eye witness was available to explain the events if any which took place on the spot. Only the complainant was in the best position to explain FIR No. 303/09 Page No. 5 of7 the manner in which the offence was committed and the acts committed by the accused, if any. The other witness who reached later on i.e. PW2 and that of PW3 are also not much help to the prosecution because the said witnesses were not present at the time of incident. Moreover, there is an improvement in the statement of PW2 because in her statement U/s 161 CrPC she stated that on hearing the shouting of the complainant she alongwith other family members went to the room of complainant. Whereas, in her testimony as PW2, she stated that in the porch itself she saw accused running towards the dining room. Further there is no mention regarding the fact that she had gone to the room of complainant and she personally saw the accused molesting the complainant. Moreover, in her statement U/s 161 CrPC she stated that complainant shouted loudly whereas in her testimony as PW2 she stated that complainant informed her that the accused had pressed his hand on her mouth so that she could not shout which is a clear contradiction. PW2 also admitted that she was not present when alleged molestation took place with the complainant. PW3 also admitted that he was not present at the time of alleged molestation.
12. Therefore, nothing has come on record to prove the guilt of accused U/s 354 IPC. As regards the offence U/s 451 IPC is concerned it is not disputed that accused was not present on the premises of Smt Sumita Kapil but it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he entered the premises to commit an offence punishable under law. Hence, even the basic requirements of FIR No. 303/09 Page No. 6 of7 Section 451 IPC are not made out against the accused. The formal documents such as arrest memo, search memo, seizure memos are also not material to establish the guilt of accused in the absence of testimony of the complainant herself. Hence, in the absence of the sole eye witness the offence with which the accused is charged remains unproved.
13. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused Ramchayan @ Rajesh Chauhan. He stands acquitted of the offence U/s 354/451 IPC. He is directed to furnish bail bond as per the provision of Section 437A CrPC.
Announced in the open Court (NITI PHUTELA)
dated 26.09.2014. MM02, Mahila Court,
South Distict, Saket Courts,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 303/09 Page No. 7 of7