Delhi District Court
State vs . : Yogender on 25 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST)07, SAKET, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 76/2012
U/s : 509 IPC
P.S : Sunlight Colony
State Vs. : Yogender
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 88/3/14
b The date of commission : 24.02.2012
c The date of Institution of the case : 25.02.2013
d The name of complainant : Ms. X
e The name of accused : Yogender S/o Late Sh. Sher
Singh R/o H. No. 96, Bhagwan
Nagar, New Delhi.
f The offence complained of : u/s 509 IPC
g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on : 25.07.2016
i The final order : Convicted
j The date of judgment : 25.07.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 At the outset it is pertinent to note that the name of the complainant is hereinafter is referred to as Ms. X as the offence disclosed in the present case is u/s 509 IPC and the nature of evidence being sensitive, it appears discreet to do so. The accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 24.02.2012 at about 7:30 am (hereinafter date and time of incident) near bus stand, Mathura Road Ashram towards Badarpur, New Delhi (hereinafter spot of incident), within the jurisdiction PS Sunlight Colony, made indecent obscene gestures with an intention to insult the modesty of complainant Ms. X and FIR No. 76/2012 1 of 6 thereby committed offences punishable U/s 509 IPC. After completion of investigation, IO has filed the chargesheet in the court on 25.02.2013. 2 Notice for commission of offences punishable u/s 509 IPC was framed upon the accused on 10.05.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 In support of its case prosecution examined 6 witnesses.
PW1 is HC Anil Giri, who being Duty Officer has proved the registration of FIR in the present case vide Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW1/B. PW2 is Ms. X (, who being the complainant/victim in the present case has deposed in her deposition that on 24.02.2012 at about 7:30 am in the morning, she was going from her house by foot towards Ashram bus stand to catch a bus for going to her college. When she was on her way, accused stopped his van bearing registration No. DL1K3067 besides her and started passing comments. She could not understand however, what he stated as the accused stammers. Accused also depicted sexually explicit signs to her as he "he opened his pant and zip to bring his penis out" looking and pointing towards her. He also opened the lock of the gate and door of the above mentioned van and step out from the said van. The complainant was so frightened that she went back to her home. After reaching home the complainant narrated the entire incident to her father and her father informed the police and she lodged a complaint against the accused vide Ex PW2/A. She has correctly identified the accused before the court. Complainant has also deposed that it has come to the notice from the other person of the locality that accused being a van driver ferrying school children of the locality.
PW3 is HC Ram Kumar, who being deputed alongwith the IO has proved regarding arrest of accused vide Ex. PW3/A. PW4 Ct. Ripul Kumar, who has deposed about handing over the FIR No. 76/2012 2 of 6 copy of FIR and original rukka received from Duty Officer to the IO of the case SI Surender at the spot.
PW5 is SI Surender Sharma, who being the IO of the case has deposed about investigation conducted by him during the course of investigation and exhibited the document like rukka Ex. PW5/A and site plan vide Ex. PW5/B. PW6 is SI Sandeep Kumar, who has deposed about filing the chargesheet of this case before the court.
All the PW(s) were duly cross examined by the defence counsel except PW1 and PW6.
4 Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused has denied all the allegation made against him and deposed that it is a false case and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused refused to lead any evidence in his defence.
5 I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused as well as also gone through case file very carefully.
6 The argument of Ld. APP is that there is enough material on evidence to prove the case against the accused.
7 Ld. LAC on the other hand have submitted that accused is being wrongly associated with the offence in question and as such he is entitled to acquittal in the present case.
8 I have perused the case file very carefully and have duly considered the respective arguments.
9 Relevant Law:
It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is FIR No. 76/2012 3 of 6 supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
Ingredients to be proved for offence u/s 509 IPC.
(i) The accused makes any sound or gesture or exhibits and object.
(ii) That sound is intended to be heard and gesture or exhibition of object to be seen by the complainant.
(iii) The intention behind these acts is that accused wants to insult the modesty of a woman or otherwise by such acts he is intruding upon the privacy of the woman.
10 Now I will discuss the reasons for the judgment in this case and for the said purpose it is necessary to find out whether the ingredients of the offence have satisfied by prosecution evidence or not.
(i) The accused makes any sound or gesture or exhibits and object.
It is clear from the evidence of complainant/PW2 that the accused exhibited his private part to the complainant. It is clearly stated by the complainant that when she was going to her collage from her home the accused was in his van midway and as soon as she passed by the van, he opened the zip of his pant to bring his penis out which was pointed out at the complainant. Thereafter, when the complainant ignored him and moved ahead, the accused drove the van and took it ahead of the complainant and stopped the van. He tried to come out of the van but the complainant got frightened and went back to her home. Hence, this ingredient is complete.
FIR No. 76/2012 4 of 6
(ii) That sound is intended to be heard and gesture or exhibition
of object to be seen by the complainant.
Obviously the accused intended his private part to be seen by the complainant and this fact is affirmed by the testimony of the complainant who stated that the accused after doing the indecent act for the first time, again moved his van to come in front of the complainant for the purpose of repetition of the indecent act. Hence, this ingredient is also complete.
(iii) The intention behind these acts is that accused wants to insult the modesty of a woman or otherwise by such acts he is intruding upon the privacy of the woman.
The defence has not been able to negate that these acts were not committed. There is nothing on the record to show that the accused has been falsely implicated and such indecent act of the accused have obviously insulted the modesty of the complainant who is a young girl aged, 21 years at the time of incident. That is why she narrated the incident afterwards to her father and she went to the PS alongwith her father and gave the complaint Ex. PW2/A on which the present FIR was registered. Thereafter, further investigation was done, accused was arrested on 12.05.2012 vide Ex. PW3/A because on the first visit by the IO on 24.2.12 the accused was not found at home. Only plea taken by the accused is that there is a contradiction in the evidence of PW2 who in her examination in chief has stated that she came to know the name of the accused as Yoginder from other persons of the locality while in cross examination dated 7.1.15 she stated that she came to know his name at the police station and in cross examination dated 4.6.15 she stated that she came to know the name of the accused from her father. In my view this contradiction does not go to the root of the matter as the defence counsel has not been able to find any flaw with the basic allegations of the complainant. Further as regard the other plea taken by the accused that other material witness i.e. father of the FIR No. 76/2012 5 of 6 girl was not examined by the prosecution due to a bad motive, this plea cannot be sustained because this question was not put to the IO as to why the father of the complainant was not cited as witness. Hence, this ingredient is also complete.
11 In view of the aforesaid, I convict the accused for offence u/s 509 IPC. Let the accused be heard separately on the point of quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (Ashok Kumar)
Court on 25.07.2016 MM(South East)07,
Saket, New Delhi.
FIR No. 76/2012 6 of 6