Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagdeep on 25 October, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT): SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Jagdeep
FIR NO. 179/10
PS Pul Prahlad Pur
Date of Institution of case : 30.11.2010
Date on which case
reserved for judgment : 25.10.2013
Date of judgment : 25.10.2013
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C .
a)Date of offence : 11.05.2010
b)Offence complained of : 452/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC, 354/34 IPC
c)Name of accused, his parentage : (1) Jagdeep
S/o Sh. Aswani Kumar
R/o K50, Nardhan Basti, Lal Kuan, New
Delhi110044.
(2) Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Loli Rai
R/o K127, Nardhan Basti, Lal Kuan,
New Delhi110044.
(3) Puneet Kumar
S/o Sh. Veer Singh
R/o K127, Nardhan Basti, Lal Kuan,
New Delhi110044.
(4) Mehar Chand
S/o Sh. Dal Chand
R/o K67A, Nardhan Basti, Lal Kuan,
New Delhi110044.
FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 1 of 12 pages
2
d)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
e)Final Order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT:
1. Accused Jagdeep, Manoj Kumar, Puneet Kumar and Mehar Chand have been sent to face trial on the allegations that they trespassed into the house of complainant Ms. Nivedita Pandey, caused hurt upon her person, that of her sister and her mother and also assaulted her and her sister with an intention to outrage their modesty thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 354/34 IPC, 452/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: Kumari Nivedita was commented upon by accused Jagdeep just outside her house when she went out to throw the garbage on 10.05.2010 at about 10:30am about which she told her mother who asked the mother of accused to pull him up so that he behaves properly with Kumari Nivedita. On 11.05.2010 at about 08:30pm, accused Jagdeep alongwith three other coaccused Puneet, Manoj and Meharchand forcibly entered the house of the complainant, torn the clothes of her sister Meenakshi, pulled her hair and that of her sister, slapped her and her mother and one of the co accused also inflicted injuries on the legs of her cousin Sonika Pandey with a wooden rod and one of the coaccused also touched upon her breast. She somehow managed to give a call at 100 number. Police arrived. The injured were taken for medical FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 2 of 12 pages 3 examination. A Kalandara U/s 107/151 CrPC was framed against the accused. The FIR was registered later on after recording the statement of complainant. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Accused persons were apprehended and later released on bail. After conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the court. Cognizance of offence was taken by the Court.
3. Charge for the commission of offence punishable u/s 452/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC and 354/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons vide order dated 18.09.2012 passed by this Court, explained to them in vernacular to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial instead.
4. The matter was then listed for Prosecution Evidence. Prosecution produced 7 witnesses in support of its version. Defence, however, has not produced any witness.
5. PW1 is HC Sunder Singh who proved the FIR registered by him (as Ex.PW1/A) on 26.06.2010 at about 06:15 pm. He also proved his endorsement on the complaint as Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point B. He was not put to cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
6. PW2 is Ms. Nivedita who deposed that accused Jagdeep had passed comments upon her on 10.05.2010 at about 10:30am when she went out of the house to throw the garbage as "Kabhi mujhse phone par bat kar liya karo" to which she replied that she did not want to talk to him and she came back inside her house and informed about the incident to her mother who waited for certain guests to leave the house and confronted the mother of Jagdeep who ensured to pull up her son.
FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 3 of 12 pages 4
7. PW2 Ms. Nivedita further deposed that on 11.05.2010 at about 08:30pm, accused Jagdeep alongwith his three friends Puneet, Manoj and Meharchand forcibly entered her house. She deposed that accused Meharchand had torned the clothes of her sister Meenakshi whereas accused Jagdeep and accused Manoj pulled her and her sister Meenakshi's hair and slapped her whereas accused Puneet also slapped her mother and Jagdeep touched upon her breast and also inflicted injuries on the legs of her cousin Sonika Pandey with a wooden rod and that she somehow made a call at 100 number. She correctly identified the accused persons present in the court. She further deposed that the injured were medically examined in ESI hospital by police who also apprehended the accused. She further submitted that she made complaints of several instances about accused Jagdeep stalking her several times while on her way to and back from her coaching institute. She proved her statement given to the police as Ex.PW2/A bearing her signatures at point A.
8. In cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW2 Ms. Nivedita admitted that her house is situated in a thickly populated area and that she was alone when Jagdeep passed the comments on 10.05.2010. She further stated that she had handed over the torn clothes to the police which were seized by them but the wooden rod could not be recovered as the accused persons had hidden the same in their house. She further clarified that her statement and that of her family members were recorded by police on 11.05.2010 itself and that they were also medically examined on the same date. She declined the suggestion that the accused persons FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 4 of 12 pages 5 have been falsely implicated in this case to take advantage in the other litigations between her father and that of accused persons.
9. PW3 Ms. Meenakshi who deposed that her sister namely Nivedita Pandey was obscenely commented upon by the accused Jagdeep on 10.05.2010 about which her mother had confronted with the mother of Jagdeep who was reprimanded by her. She further deposed that all the four accused persons forcibly entered her house on 11.05.2010 at about 08:30pm and misbehaved with her sister Sonika and Jagdeep touched upon the breasts of her sister and accused Manoj and Meharchand had torned her clothes. Accused Puneet slapped her mother and accused Jagdeep gave a wooden rod blow on the leg of her cousin sister Sonika Pandey. She further deposed that accused Manoj dragged her and her sister by their hairs and the police was informed by the complainant in this case. She deposed that she had handed over the torn clothes to the Investigating Officer vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/I bearing her signatures at point C. She correctly identified the torn clothes when produced in the court as Ex.P1. In cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, she submitted that the police officers reached the spot at about 09/09:30pm but the Investigating Officer did not ask any public person to join the investigation in her presence. She further submitted that she alongwith her mother, her sister and cousin sister were present in the house at the time of incident. She declined the suggestion that any such incident never happened and the accused persons were falsely implicated in this matter.
FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 5 of 12 pages 6
10. PW4 is Mrs. Usha Pandey who deposed that her daughter Nivedita had disclosed to her about the obscene comments passed by accused Jagdeep on 10.05.2010 at about 10:00am in front of her house and that she had confronted the mother of accused Jagdeep the next day when the guests had left the house who reprimanded her son. She further deposed that all the accused persons subsequently forcibly entered her house and accused Jagdeep touched upon the breasts of her daughter Nivedita while accused Manoj and Meharchand torned the clothes of her daughter, accused Puneet slapped her daughter and Jagdeep gave a lathi blow on the leg of her relation Sonika Pandey while accused Manoj dragged her daughter Meenakshi and Nivedita by holding their hairs. She further deposed that police was informed by her daughter Nivedita about the incident and the case was registered. She further stated that the torn clothes were seized by the police subsequently. She stated that she was able to identify those clothes if produced before her. In cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, she stated that any public person did not come to their rescue although during the scuffle, many people gathered at the spot but the investigating officer did not ask any public person to join the investigation.
11. PW5 is ASI Ashok Kumar who deposed to have recorded the statement of Nivedita on 11.05.2010 and initiated the proceedings U/s 107/151 CrPC, the copy of which he proved as Ex.PW5/A while accused Jagdeep and Meharchand were produced before SEM/South East District. In cross examination by Ld. Counsel for FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 6 of 12 pages 7 accused, he submitted that he reached at the spot of occurrence within 10 minutes of the receipt of DD entry at about 09:05pm. He admitted that the crowd had gathered and the public persons were also passing by and that he asked certain public persons to join the investigation but none agreed.
12. PW6 is HC Parvir Singh who deposed that he witnessed the formal arrest of accused Jagdeep and Meharchand vide arrest memo dated 21.09.10 Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B and their personal search memo as Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D, all bearing his signatures at point A and the arrest of accused Manoj and Puneet Kumar on 05.10.2010 vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F and their personal search vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW6/G and Ex.PW6/H which bear his signatures at point A. He further deposed to have got the torn clothes produced by the complainant sealed and seized into a pullanda vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/1 on 10.11.2010 bearing his signatures at point A. He correctly identified the torn clothes produced as Ex.P1. In cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, he admitted that the place of incident was a residential area but the Investigation Officer did not ask any person to join the investigation. He further submitted that only mother of the complainant was present in the house. He declined the suggestion that he alongwith Investigation Officer never visited the house and thus no public person was joined by the Investigation Officer.
13. PW7 is SI Satbir Singh who deposed to have recorded the statement of Nivedita Pandey on 26.06.2010 vide memo Ex.PW2/A and attested her signatures at point B FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 7 of 12 pages 8 and made his endorsement and prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A. He also proved Site Plan vide memo Ex.PW7/B which bears his signatures at point A. He deposed to have formally arrested accused Jagdeep and Mehar Chand vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B and conducted their personal search vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D which bears his signatures at point B. He also further deposed to have formally arrested accused Manoj Kumar and Puneet Kumar on 05.10.2010 vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F which bears his signatures at point B and also conducted their personal search vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW6/G and Ex.PW6/H which bears his signatures at point B. He further deposed that he alongwith HC Parvir Singh went to the house of the complainant on 10.11.2010 when Meenakshi Pandey met them and produced torn clothes which were sealed with the seal of 'SBK' and the pullanda was taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/I, bearing his signatures at point B. He correctly identified the case property as Ex.P1 produced in the court.
14. In cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW7 SI Satbir Singh submitted that he alone had gone to the house of complainant at about 04:00pm. He also stated that he was not aware of the Departure Entry made at the police station before leaving for the spot. He admitted that the house of the complainant is situated in a thickly populated area and that he had asked some neighbours to join the investigation but none of them agreed to do so. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of the complainant, her mother and her sister at her house FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 8 of 12 pages 9 while her mother was also present there, the same day when the incident happened. He declined the suggestion that he never conducted any investigation or never visited the house of the complainant and that is why no public person was examined.
15. Prosecution evidence was concluded. Incriminating evidence appearing on record was then put to the accused persons in their respective statements u/s 313 CrPC in which they denied the allegations against them and opted to lead defence evidence. However, they later on made a statement that they do not want to lead defence evidence. The Defence Evidence was also thus closed.
16. Final arguments advanced.
17. Ld. APP for the State contended that the testimony of PW2 Ms. Nivedita, PW3 Ms. Meenakshi and PW4 Mrs. Usha Pandey are in consonance with each other as well as with the main complaint which forms the basis of registration of the FIR proving the allegations against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the present case is result of the animosity between the accused persons and father of the complainant engaged in several litigations pending between both of them and as such any such incident never happened, thus pleading for acquittal of all the accused persons in this case.
19. PW2 Ms. Nivedita, PW3 Ms Meenakshi and PW4 Mrs. Usha Pandey are the most significant prosecution witnesses in this case. All of them testified that all the accused persons forcibly entered into their house and assaulted them. The incident FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 9 of 12 pages 10 of assault occurred on 11.05.2010 at about 08:30pm. The police was informed and proceedings in a kallandra u/s 107/151 CrPC were initiated against the accused persons. Those proceedings have been placed on record and proved by PW5 ASI Ashok Kumar. The complaint for the purpose of registration of FIR was however lodged only on 26.06.2010 whereas the incident happened on 11.05.2010. There is no reason projected on record for such an inordinate delay on the part of complainant.
20. Counsel for the accused has asserted time and again that there are litigations pending between father of the complainant and the accused persons because of which this motivated case has been filed against them. Submissions which have been recorded as part of proceedings u/s 107/151 CrPC are in glaring contradictions to the statement of complainant which formed the basis of registration of this present case FIR and other witnesses as well who appeared in the witness box. There cannot be two versions purely alternative and exclusive to each other given by the same witness in two separate proceedings. There is variation even with respect to place of incident as well as the manner of assault. Such contradictions even amongst the statement of witnesses during proceedings u/s 107/151 CrPC are also noted in the order dated 18.09.2010 for granting Anticipatory Bail to the accused person by Ld. ASJ.
21. The incident happened in a residential colony. As deposed by various witnesses that both the accused persons and the complainant are members of the same locality still no neighbour has been made to join as a witness in this case to point out what actually happened. Any notice to any such public person was also not FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 10 of 12 pages 11 given. There is no explanation tendered on record on behalf of complainant for this lapse.
22. The torned clothes of Nivedita were allegedly handed over by her to the IO only on 10.11.2010 whereas the incident pertains to 11.05.2010. Thus, there is an inordinate delay and the lapse can be attributed both to the complainant as well as to the IO forming part of the prosecution and there is no reason as to why it took so long for the complainant to hand over those torn clothes or for the IO to get them tendered or sealed for the purpose of investigation in this case.
23. Sonika Pandey who allegedly is one of the injured has not been made witness in this case by the IO without any good apparent reason. Her testimony is thus not on record for the purpose of appreciating the evidence adduced.
24. There are contradictions with respect to presence of father of complainant at home at the time of incident in the depositions made before the court and the proceedings u/s 107/151 CrPC which has been placed on record by PW5 ASI Ashok Kumar as Ex.PW5/A.
25. Considering the observations made above, there are glaring contradictions and inconsistencies appearing on record in the testimony of significant prosecution witnesses with no independent corroboration made available on behalf of prosecution with delay in registration of the FIR as well as in the seizure and sealing of torn clothes with non inclusion of a material witness who is one of the injured in this case, the testimony of significant prosecution witnesses constituting the entire FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 11 of 12 pages 12 prosecution version has suffered a dent and cannot be taken to be successfully establishing culpability against accused persons. All the accused persons namely Jagdeep, Manoj Kumar, Puneet Kumar and Mehar Chand are acquitted of offence punishable U/S 452/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC, 354/34 IPC. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court today (SHELLY ARORA)
on 25.10.2013 M.M. /Mahila Court/SED
Saket/ N.D./25.10.2013
FIR No.179/10 State Vs Jagdeep Page 12 of 12 pages