Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/303983/2016 on 13 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT) -02 CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURT, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Sonam Singh
State v. Mohan Lal Verma and another
FIR No. 932/15
Police Station : Sarai Rohilla
Under Sections: 354/506(II)/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short "IPC")
CIS No. 47107/16
Date of institution : 23.03.2016
Date of reserving : Oral
Date of pronouncement: 13.04.2018
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 80/2/16
b) Date of commission of : 19.07.2015 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Ms. P (In view of the decision dated 31.08.2016 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manoj v. State GNCT of Delhi, Crl Appeal no 647/2015, the name of the complainant is not being disclosed herein, as the case involves offence of a sexual nature. The complainant shall be referred to as "Ms. P".)
d) Name, parentage and : 1. Mohan Lal Verma address of the accused S/o Late Sh. Ganga Sharan R/o H.No. 2626/194, Onkar Nagar, State v Mohan Lal Verma FIR no. 932/15 PS: Sarai Rohilla 1/7 Tri Nagar, Delhi.
2. Johney Verma
e) Offence complained of : Sections 354/506(II)/509 of the IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Accused persons pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Accused Mohal Lal Verma stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506(II) IPC.
Accused Johney Verma stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 354/509 IPC.
h) Date of final order : 13.04.2018 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, the accused Mohal Lal Verma is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506(II) IPC and accused Johney Verma is being acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 354/509 IPC.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is that on 19.07.2015 at about 02.30 pm at B-1474, Shastri Nagar, within the jurisdiction of police station Sarai Rohilla, the accused Johney Verma used criminal force against the complainant State v Mohan Lal Verma FIR no. 932/15 PS: Sarai Rohilla 2/7 Ms. P with an intention to outrage her modesty and committed an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. It is also alleged that on the said date, time and place, accused Johney Verma also uttered insuting words to the complainant Ms. P and her sister-in-law Ms. U with an intention to insult their modesty, therefore, accused Johney Verma also committed an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. The case of the prosecution against accused Mohan Lal Verma is that outside the police station Sarai Rohilla, he criminally intimidated Ms. P and her sister-in-law Ms. U and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 (II) IPC.
3. The investigation was done by the IO ASI Yashwant Singh, who filed the police report under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 354A (1)(i)/506/509/34 of the IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. The learned predecessor of this court took cognizance upon the said police report on 23.03.2016. On 21.07.2016, the accused persons were supplied with the copies of police report and documents.
State v Mohan Lal Verma FIR no. 932/15 PS: Sarai Rohilla 3/7 CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 04.02.2017, the learned predecessor of this court framed the charge against the accused Mohal Lal Verma for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part II IPC and accused Johney Verma for the offences punishable under Section 354/509 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
6. The prosecution has not examined any witness in the present case. Summons were issued to complainant/ PW Ms. P through the investigating officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned. However, despite several opportunities granted to the prosecution to trace the complainant/victim/eye witness Ms. P in order that summons issued by the court could be served on her, the complainant/victim/eye witness has remained untraceable and could not be served. Accordingly, the opportunity of the prosecution to examine Ms. P as a witness was closed vide detailed order dated 22.03.2017. Further, summons were issued to PW Ms. U, who is also cited as material witness by the prosecution, through the SHO concerned. However, despite opportunity granted to the prosecution to ensure service of summons upon the said witness, the said witness has remained untraceable State v Mohan Lal Verma FIR no. 932/15 PS: Sarai Rohilla 4/7 and could not be served. Accordingly, the opportunity of the prosecution to examine PW Ms. U was closed vide detailed order of even date. Prosecution evidence has been closed vide separate detailed order of even date.
THE STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.PC. / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
7. Since, there was not an iota of incriminating evidence/material on record which may be put and confronted to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C, Consequently recording of statement of accused persons u/s 313Cr.P.C was dispensed on the even date.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. The Court heard the final arguments on the even date itself.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
9. I have heard the submissions of Sh. Vikas, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State as well as that of Sh. S.C. Verma, Ld. counsel for both accused persons. The court has also diligently gone through the charge- sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
State v Mohan Lal Verma FIR no. 932/15 PS: Sarai Rohilla 5/7 CONCLUSION
10. In order to prove the charge under Section 506(II) I.P.C. against the accused Mohan Lal Verma and the charge under Sections 354/509 I.P.C against the accused Johney Verma, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the relevant date, time and place, the accused Mohan Lal Verma had criminally intimidated the complainant Ms. P and her sister-in-law, Ms. U and the accused Johney Verma used criminal force upon the complainant with an intention to outrage her modesty and uttered insulting words to the complainant and her sister-in-law, Ms. U with an intention to insult their modesty. However, all the alleged eye witnesses/material witnesses namely Ms. P and Ms. U remained untraceable during the trial and the opportunity of the prosecution to examine them was accordingly closed. The remaining witnesses are either formal in nature or are police officials.
11. In view of the facts that the only eye- witnesses/material witnesses to the alleged incident cited by the prosecution have not been examined by the prosecution, having remained untraceable during trial, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons.
State v Mohan Lal Verma FIR no. 932/15 PS: Sarai Rohilla 6/7
12. Accordingly, accused Mohan Lal Verma is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506(II) IPC and accused Johney Verma is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 354/509 IPC.
13. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of the provisions of Section 437 A Cr.P.C.
Announced in open Court on 13.04.2018 SONAM Digitally signed by SONAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2018.04.13 17:15:43 +0530 (SONAM SINGH) Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi State v Mohan Lal Verma FIR no. 932/15 PS: Sarai Rohilla 7/7