Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/327/2006 on 12 February, 2015
In The Court of Ms. Shefali Barnala Tandon, MM, Mahila Court, NW,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State v. Vijay Raut
FIR No.327/06
U/s : 354 /506 IPC
PS : Adarsh Nagar
JUDGMENT
S.No. of the Case : 880/2 03/11/06
Date of Commission of offence : 7/8.06.06
Name of the Complainant : Ms.Poonam Kumari
Name of the accused : Vijay Raut S/o Sh. Chulahi Raut
R/o 195, Village Bhadolla, Delhi,
Presently resided at WZ61,
Vijay Khyala,Delhi
Offence Complained of : 354 /506 IPC.
Plea of accused : Plead not guilty.
Date of order : 10.02.2015
Final order : Convicted
Brief Reasons For Such Decision:
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 07/08.06.06 at about 2 a.m. at roof of H.No.195, Village Barola, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Adarsh Nagar accused used criminal force on the person of complainant Ms. Poonam Kumari by carrying her and kissing her in order to outrage her modesty and also threatened the complainant to kill her thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 354 /506 IPC and accordingly chargesheet was filed under Section 354 /506 IPC.
2. After supplying documents to the accused charge for the FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 1/ 17 commission of offence punishable U/s 354/506 IPC was framed against the accused on 13.09.2007 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses namely PW1 Ms.Poonam, PW2 Ms.Reena, PW 3 Sh.Montoo Singh, PW 4 Ct.Satyawan, PW 5 ASI Rajender Singh, PW 6 SI Surender Singh.
Relevant testimony of PWs is reproduced.
PW1 Ms. Poonam deposed that she is studying in Class 4 .
th th The incident took place on the 6 day of month of Vasakh in the year 2006. On that day her parents were sleeping outside their room. She along with her brothers and sisters were sleeping on the floor of the roof of the house. At about midnight hour the accused came near her and removed her panty. She cried in fear then the accused threatened to throw her from the roof. Thereafter the accused fled away. On hearing her cry her mother came on the roof and she narrated her the whole incident. The name of the accused is Vijay. Thereafter she along with her father and mother went to the police station and made complaint there. Police recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A. thereafter they returned to their house with the police officials. She had shown the spot of the incident to the police officials. The accused was arrested by the police on her identification. Accused Vijay was correctly identified by the witness. FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 2/ 17
During her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel she has stated that nobody had instructed her to depose in the Court and she remember everything committed by the accused on that fateful night. No quarrel took place with the accused Vijay prior to two/three days of the incident with her parents.
PW 2 Ms. Reena deposed that the day of incident was in the month of Vaisakh in the year 2006. On that day she along with her husband were sleeping inside the room and her daughter Poonam along with her other children were sleeping on the floor of the roof. In about mid night hour, on hearing the cry of her daughter Poonam, she along with her husband ran towards the stairs leading to the roof. Her daughter who was coming downstairs met them in the stairs and she narrated the whole incident to them. At that time she was crying. Thereafter she, her daughter along with her husband went to the police station and lodged the complaint. There police recorded the statement of her daughter. Police officials inspected the spot. The accused was arrested in her presence by the police vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A bearing her signatures at point A. Personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B bearing her signatures at point A. Her statement was recorded by the police.
During her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel she deposed that her daughter Poonam told that accused Vijay had FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 3/ 17 removed her Kaccha while she was sleeping. The accused was arrested by the police in her presence. The police apprehended the accused on the roof of the building. The accused was also residing in the same building. On the roof of the building the police apprehended the accused in her presence.
PW 3 Sh. Montoo Singh deposed that the incident took place th on 7/8 June 2006 at about 1.30a.m. At the time of incident his family members including his wife, two daughter and one son were present in the house. On that night his daughters namely Poonam and Shivani, his son Vicky were sleeping on the roof of the house and his wife was sleeping inside the house. The accused Vijay came near to her daughter Poonam and kissed her and tried to remove her panty. On this his daughter Poonam started crying, on this accused Vijay threatened her to throw her from the roof of the house. On hearing the cry of his daughter Poonam his wife Reena rushed towards the roof of the house. His daughter embraced his wife in fear and continued crying. Then his daughter Poonam told that accused Vijay had committed the above said act and narrated the whole incident to her. The accused fled away from the spot. Then he came from his job from Azadpur Subji Mandi to his house where his wife narrated him the whole incident. His daughter also told the same. Thereafter he along with his wife and daughter went to PS where his daughter narrated the incident to the police. Police had recorded her FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 4/ 17 statement Ex.PW1/A. The police came to his house and visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/A. Police also recorded his statement and that of his wife.
During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel he deposed that he used to go for his work at 12.00 O'Clock noon and return by 2.00 a.m. At the time of incident he was in Azadpur Mandi. When he returned from his job after the incident his wife and daughter Poonam narrated him the acts of the accused.
PW 4 Ct.Satyawan deposed that on 8.6.06 he was posted at PP New Subji Mandi of PS Adarsh Nagar. On that day complainant alongwith her parents came to PP New Subji Mandi for lodging the FIR. Thereafter ASI Surender handed over him the rukka for registration of FIR. He took the same to PS Adarsh Nagar and got registered the FIR. After registrastion of FIR he returned back with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to the IO. Thereafter he alongwith IO ASI Surender, complainant and her parents left the PS to trace the accused. They reached at H.No.195, Village Bharoda, Delhi. Accused was not found there and thereafter they returned towards the bus stand of bus route no. 100 where the complainant saw the accused person who was standing there. At the pointing out of complainant accused Vijay was apprehended and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point B. personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 5/ 17 bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter they returned to the police post. IO recorded his statement. Witness correctly identified the accused Vijay.
During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel he deposed that at the time of apprehending the accused IO ASI Surender, complainant and her parents were also present with him. When he arrested the accused he was having some injury on his head.
PW 5 ASI Rajender Singh deposed that on 08.06.06 he was posted as duty officer at PS Adarsh Nagar from 4.00a.m. to 12.00 p.m. on that day at about 7.30p.m. He received rukka through Ct. Satyawan sent by ASI Surender Singh. On the basis of same he recorded the FIR bearing No. 327/06 U/s 354/506 IPC. After registration of FIR, original rukka and copy of FIR were handed over to Ct. Satyawan for taking the same to IO. The copy of FIR Ex.PW5/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW 6 IO/SI Surender Singh deposed that on 8.6.2006 he was posted at PP Subji Mandi of PS Adarsh Nagar as ASI. On that day complainant Poonam alongwith her parents came at PP New Subji Mandi to lodge a complaint. He recorded the statement of complainant Poonam Ex.PW1/A attested by him at point X. On the basis of said statement he prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A. He handed over the same to Ct. Satyawan who went to PS for registration of FIR. After FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 6/ 17 sometime he returned and handed over him the the original rukka and copy of FIR. He conducted the investigation of this case and during investigation he alongwith complainant went to the spot and there are the instance of complainant he prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter he tried to trace the accused and then they went to the bus stop of bus route no.100 where the accused was found sitting. There at the instance of complainant accused was apprehended and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point C. Personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B bearing his signatures at point C. He informed the accused about his arrest as per his rights to inform to his relative vide information memo Ex.PW6/B bearing his signatures at pint A. The information of arrest was given to Smt. Vidyawati. On the personal search of accused one watch make Citizen was recovered. He recorded the statement of witnesses and completed the investigation. He filed the charge sheet in the Court through concerned SHO.
During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel he deposed that at the time of arrest of accused he was not in injured condition and was healthy. After the arrest of accused he was sent for medical examination at BJRM hospital with Ct. Satyawan. The accused was apprehended from the bus stand of bus route no.100. At the time of arrest of accused he was accompanied by FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 7/ 17 Ct.Satyawan,father,mother of complainant and complainant herself.
Thereafter PE was closed.
4. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence on record along with documents were put to him to which his stand was of general denial. He chose to lead evidence in his defence.
In his defence accused examined himself as DW3 (wrongly mentioned as DW1) and also examined DW 1 Ram Bhajan Sahu and DW 2 HC Chander Veer Singh.
DW 1 Sh.Ram Bhajan Sahu deposed that on 8.6.06 one Vijay Rawat came to him at about 3/3.15a.m. He was having severe head injury and blood was oozing out and his clothes were blood stained. Then Vijay Rawat requested him for giving his phone to him. He handed over his phone to him and he called at 100 number. Then he asked him who had beaten him. He replied that his landlord brutally beaten him. After making a call to police he left the spot. Witness correctly identified accused Vijay.
During cross examination by Ld. APP for State he deposed that he did not take Vijay Rawat for medical assistance. He did not tell about the injuries of Vijay Rawat to anybody. He did not give any statement to the police regarding the injuries of Vijay Rawat. He admit that Vijay Rawat was not beaten by anybody in his presence.
DW 2 HC Chander Veer Singh deposed that on 8.6.06 he FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 8/ 17 was posted in Chowki Subji Mandi, PS Adarsh Nagar. He received a call at about 3.15a.m. for a quarrel by PCR near Mandi Gate, Bharolla, Azadpuir Mandi Gate. At about 3.30a.m. he reached at the Mandi Gate but no one was found. He returned back to Chowki. In the mandi only, somebody told him that there was a quarrel and the injured has been taken to the hospital. When he reached at the hospital he do not remember the time but it may be 8.00 a.m. or it can be earlier but he could not find Vijay there in the hospital and he received the MLC of Vijay from the hospital and after receiving the same he came back to Chowki. He met Vijay in the noon time. He do not remember exactly but there was bandages over his head and his clothes were heavily blood stained. He have not registered any case by that time, however he was doing investigation and in the evening he went again in the Bharolla village for further inquiry there and he found a quarrel was going on, on that he arrested Swaroop Singh who was the landlord of Vijay Rawat.
During cross examination by Ld. APP for State he admit that MLC of accused Vijay Rawat is not on the record. He admit that he had not brought the record of DD entry. He admit that there is no document pertaining to the above said quarrel or arrest on the record of present case. He admit that he had not participated in the investigation of the present.
DW3 Sh.Vijay Raut (wrongly mentioned as DW1)deposed FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 9/ 17 that on 07/08.06.2006 he was residing on the third floor in H.No.195, Bharola village, Delhi. On that day at about 2.30a.m. He was sleeping in his room, the father of the complainant namely Mantu Singh, Swaroop Singh and Anjay Singh came to his floor and broken the door of his house and forcefully entered in his house and they started shouting on him and further started beating him with the iron rod and laathi due to which he received injury on his head and the other part of the body. Copy of the MLC is Ex.DW1/A. One of the assailants Swaroop Singh shouted that you are not paying the rent on time and further stated that "saamne aane par pranam bhi nahi karta" and further stated that "jaan se maar do". He take out all the money whatever he is having with him and they robbed Rs. 7000/ which were kept by him in paanbasket and further started beating him. Thereafter he tried to run away from the spot, meanwhile Swaroop Singh hit him on his head with iron rod and he became unconscious. When he gained consciousness, then he called the police on 100 number and reached at Police Chowki which was nearby his house and made a complaint. Meanwhile PCR van also came there. They took him to BJRM hospital where he was medically examined by the doctors and stitches were put on his head. Thereafter they came back to police chowki and the police officers forced him to compromise with the father of the complainant when he refused the same the above mentioned persons threatened him that "you don't know our powers and we will teach you a lesson". The father of the complainant namely Mantu Singh asked him to take Rs. 2000/ FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 10/ 17 and get the matter settled otherwise he will forcedly implicate him in a false case but he did not agree on the same and thereafter he was taken to the police station and despite his injuries and complaints no action has been taken against them and further the present false case has been registered against him at the instance of the father of the complainant and he was taken into custody. Swaroop Singh, Mantu Singh, father of the complainant were lifted by the police officers but no action has been taken against them by the police officers. The present case is a false case and he have not seen the complainant on that day and he have not done anything wrong to her at any point of time. The present case was registered against him just to counter his complaint which was not registered by police officers, however, FIR No.160/07 was registered on the direction of the Court concerned on his application u/s 156(3)Cr.P.C. Against the father of the complainant namely Mantu Singh,Swaroop Singh and Anjay Singh and the same is pending in the concerned Court. He had blood stained clothes which he was wearing on that day and were shown to the police but police officer refused to seize the same during investigation.
During cross examination by Ld. APP for State he admit that he did not lodge any written complaint regarding that Mantu Singh, Swaroop Singh and Anjay Singh broke the door of his house and forcibly entered and started beating him with iron rod and lathi. At about 2.30a.m. Mantu Singh, Swaroop Singh and Anjay Singh FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 11/ 17 entered in his house. He became unconscious on the road. He do not know the time when he gained his consciousness. He called the police from vegetable shop. There were seven rooms on the third floor.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The record has also been perused carefully.
6. To bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 354 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove:
i) that the person assaulted was a female;
ii) that the accused assaulted or used criminal force against her;
iii) that he intended thereby to outrage her modesty; or
iv) that he knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the testimony of the witnesses and perused the entire material on record carefully.
8. The complainant/PW1 Poonam has given specific and categorical statement of the incident by deposing that on the day of incident she alongwith her brothers and sisters were sleeping on the floor of her house, at midnight the accused came to her and removed her panty and when she cried accused threatened to throw her from the roof and thereafter he fled away. On her crying her mother came on the roof and she narrated her the whole incident. She has identified the accused correctly in the Court and her testimony inspires the confidence of this FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 12/ 17 Court as there is no contradiction of inconsistency in the same. PW 2 is the mother of the complainant and PW 3 is the father of the complainant. Both the aforesaid PWs are hearsay witnesses therefore their testimonies can not be read into evidence. PW 4,5 and 6 are the official witnesses. Though there is some inconsistency found between the testimony of PW 2 viz a viz PW 4,5 and 6 qua place of arrest of accused but minor contradiction only qua investigation would not wash off the prosecution case in its entirety, and no major contradiction is being found.
DW1 is also not a witness to the incident and he has only deposed regarding some injury on the head of the accused on the day of incident and nothing more. Furthermore, during his cross examination DW 1 was also unable to explain the reason why he did not take the accused for medical assistance when there was severe head injury to him and as per his version blood was oozing out and cloths of the accused were blood stained. He has also admitted that he has not given any statement to the police regarding injury upon the accused and accused was not beaten up in his presence. DW 2 is also a formal witness as he has conducted the investigation of the complaint lodged by the accused against his landlord and father of the complainant. DW 3 i.e. accused himself has deposed regarding the beatings given to him by father of complainant, his landlord and some other person alleged at the time which is after the time of incident in the present matter and has deposed that the present case has been falsely lodged against him out of personal vendetta but in no manner FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 13/ 17 he has been able to prove that the incident in the present matter never happened or he has nexus with the incident of beatings given to him as alleged. During his cross examination DW 3 accused has admitted that he has not lodged any written complaint regarding the incident of breaking the door of his house and beatings given to him with iron rod and lathi by his landlord and father of the complainant. He has further deposed in his cross examination that he became unconscious on road after he was beaten up whereas, in his chief he has deposed that when he tried to ran away from the spot i.e. his house, Swaroop Singh hit him on his head with iron rod and he became unconscious. These contradictions cast a doubt upon the testimony of DW 3 qua present incident.
9. As already earlier stated that the testimony of complainant/ victim/PW1 Poonam is without any inconsistency and inspire the confidence of this Court and minor contradiction qua the investigation can not be said to wash off the prosecution case, it is concluded that the Prosecution has proved the case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, for the commission of offence punishable u/s 354/506(II) IPC. Consequently, accused Vijay Raut is hereby convicted for the offence u/s 354 /506(II) IPC.
Let accused be heard on point of sentence.
Announced and dictated in the open Court today i.e. on 10.02.2015.
(Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM, Mahila Court, North West Rohini Courts,Delhi FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 14/ 17 FIR No.327/06 PS : Adarsh Nagar U/s 354/506 IPC 10.02.2015 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused with Ld.Proxy Counsel Sh. Manish.
Vide separate detailed judgment , accused Vijay is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 354/506 IPC.
Put up the matter on 12.02.2015 at 02.00 pm for order on sentence.
(Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM:MC:NW:Rohini 10.02.2015 FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 15/ 17 State v. Vijay Raut FIR No.327/06 U/s : 354 /506 IPC PS : Vijay Raut 12.02.2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Convict with Ld. Counsel Sh.Amit Kumar.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Ld. Counsel for convict submits that convict is aged about 38 years and is the sole bread earner of his family and convict has a big family to look after including his wife and 06 children. Ld. Counsel for convict further submits that there is no previous involvement of accused in any such matter. He further submits that convict has now reformed himself and is not involved in such offences nor he will commit such offence in future. He further submits that convict was in custody for a period of 67 days in the present matter.
On the other hand, Ld. Substitute APP requested for maximum punishment to the convict stating that offence committed by him is serious in nature therefore, no leniency be shown to the accused in the present matter.
Arguments heard. Case file perused.
In the present matter, I am not inclined to give benefit of probation to the accused as the crime against women is on high rise and releasing accused on probation would not have deterrent effect in the society, which is need of the hour.
Considering the age of the accused and keeping in view the present facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 16/ 17 record that convict was in JC for 67 days in the present matter, convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 1&1/2 years for the offence U/s 354 IPC and 6 months for the offence U/s 506(II)IPC and a fine of Rs.10,000/. Both the sentences should run consecutively.
At this stage, an application u/s 389(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the convict for suspension of the sentence for a period of one month and for grant of bail to enable him to file appeal against the order.
Heard. Perused.
Application under consideration is allowed. The aforesaid sentence is suspended for a period of one month from today to enable the convict to file an appeal against the order and till then convict is admitted on bail on furnishing of personal bond of Rs.20,000/ with surety of like amount. Bail bond furnished and accepted till 13.03.2015.
Copy of this order be given to convict free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. A copy of the present order as well as copy of judgment be given to the convict, free of cost. Bail bonds be put up on 13.3.15 at 2p.m.
(Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM: MC: NW: Rohini 12.02.15 FIR No.327/06 State v. Vijay Raut Page No. 17/ 17