Delhi District Court
State vs . Succha Singh on 10 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. NITI PHUTELA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03 (MAHILA COURT) SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI State Vs. Succha Singh FIR No. 3098/15 Under Section 354B/506/509/34 IPC PS Mehrauli DETAILS OF THE CASE a) CrC. No of the case : 2031180/2016 b) Date of commission of offence : 20.11.2015 (as per FIR) c) Date of institution of the case : 18.05.2016 d) Name of the complainant : Ms. "J" (name withheld to keep her identity confidential). e) Name, Parentage & Address : 1). Succha Singh of the accused S/o Lt. Sh. Gurdyal Singh R/o B79, Gali No.5, Ambedkar Colony, Chattarpur Pur, New Delhi. f) Offences complained of : 354B/506/509 IPC g) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. h) Arguments heard on : 10.04.2018 (pre lunch session) i) Date of judgment : 10.04.2018 (post lunch session) j) Final Order : Acquittal FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 1 of 12 JUDGMENT 1.
It is the case of prosecution that complainant gave her complaint at PS Mehrauli stating therein that on 20.11.2015, when she was at a shop for recharging her mobile balance, the accused i.e. Succha Singh started abusing her. Initially she ignored his acts. However, he started saying "apne yarro ke phone me balance dalwane aai that kya". She still ignored him and kept quiet. He started following her. The complainant saw that he was about to pick something, therefore, she started walking briskly. The accused abused her in filthy language and commented "ruk, me batata hu phone me balance kese dalte hat". Thereafter, he pulled her shawl from behind and tore her wearing suit. She pushed him and went inside her house. She locked the door of the house, but accused kept on abusing from outside and started throwing bricks at the door. As per her, two other persons joined him and they all abused her. They threatened by saying "aaj hum tumhe kese sone denge". As per complainant, only children were present in the house and no elderly person was there. In this background, on the complaint of complainant, FIR was lodged against accused at PS Mehrauli.
2. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the court. Copy was supplied to accused. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.11.2016 charges under Section 354D/354/509/352 IPC was framed against accused by the present court to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined 3 witnesses. The gist of deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as follows:
PW1 Ms. "J" (C omplainant ) : She deposed that on 20.11.2015 at about 7.00 FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 2 of 12 7.30 PM she had gone for recharging her mobile balance from a shop near the gali of her house. As per her, accused was standing in the gali. He started abusing her, but she ignored him and started going back to her house. In the meanwhile, accused came from behind and caught hold of her shawl and her suit, due to which her suit got torn and she fell down. She pushed him and ran towards her house and locked the door from inside. Accused chased her to her house and started throwing stones at the door of her house. She alleged that accused also abused her while throwing stones and two other persons also joined him, who as per complainant were his relatives. She also deposed that on the said day, no elder member in her family was present as they all had gone to Rajasthan at the house of her Aunty(Bua). She was alone with children of her relatives.
Thereafter, she called at 100 number and police came to her house where they recorded her statement which is Ex.PW1/A. She also got recorded her statement under Section 164 CrPC before Ld Magistrate at Saket Court. On being cross examined by Ld APP for the State, she admitted that accused abused her by saying that "apne yarron ke phone me balance dalane aayi hai kya" and also threatened her by saying that "aaj hum tumhe sone nahin denge, ghar me bade koi nahi hain". She further admitted that police had prepared the site plan at her instance. She was crossexamined by Ld Counsel for accused and was discharged.
PW2 HC Raj Kumar: He deposed that on 20.11.2015 he received DD no. 28A. He along with Ct Ravinder went to B119, Ambedkar Colony, Chattarpur Pahadi, New Delhi where they met complainant. She handed over them a written complaint and he endorsed rukka which is Ex.PW2/A and the same was handed FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 3 of 12 over to Ct Ravinder for registration of FIR. Thereafter, the case was marked to HC Satinder. He was not crossexamined by Ld Defence Counsel despite opportunity and was discharged.
PW3 HC Satinder: He deposed that on 20.11.2015, further investigation was marked to him and he along with HC Raj Kumar reached the spot where complainant gave her statement to HC Raj Kumar. Thereafter, he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex.PW3/A. He searched for the witnesses but in vain. Thereafter, he along with complainant went to house of accused but the accused was not present there. He searched for the substances i.e. stones by which the injury was caused to the complainant but no substance/ stone was found at the spot. He asked the complainant to handover her torn clothes but she failed to do so. During investigation, he served notice under Section 41A CrPC to accused for joining investigation and the same is Ex.PW3/B and accused was bound down vide memo Ex.PW3/C. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge sheet and filed it before the court. He admitted that he had got recorded the statement of complainant under Section 164 CrPC before the Ld MM at Saket Court and he also recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. He was crossexamined by Ld Counsel for accused and was discharged.
4. Accused in his statement under Section. 294 Cr.PC admitted the factum of registration of FIR which is Ex.P1 and factum of recording of statement of complainant under Section 164 CrPC the copy of which is Ex.P2. The witness pertaining to the said documents were dropped.
5. Thereafter, the Prosecution Evidence was closed as the same was complete.
FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 4 of 12
6. The statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence and documents were put to accused. He stated that father of complainant is having property dispute with his brotherinlaw and as he is in Govt Job, therefore, in order to pressurize his inlaws to settle the dispute with them, complainant falsely implicated him in the present case. As per him, he had not committed any act as alleged by complainant in her testimony i.e. neither he had misbehaved with her nor he followed her or threatened her. He further said that on the said date he returned from his duty during evening hours. As he was a member of Gurudwara Prabandak Committee, thus, on the occasion of Gurunanak Jyanti, he discussed issue regarding arrangement of Prabhatpheri with Dr Gurbhachan Singh at his clinic. As per him, the alleged place of incident is very near to his house and it is unlikely that he would behave in such a fashion at a public place. Accused was interested in leading defence evidence.
7. In support of his case, accused moved an application under Section 315 CrPC for getting himself examined as defence witness. Apart from him, he also got examined two other witnesses. The gist of deposition of the defence witnesses is as follows:
DW1 Sucha Singh: He deposed that he is a Govt Employee and is working as ALS2 i.e. as Attendant Lab Service with DRDO, Timar Pur. On 20.11.2015, he left his office at 5.30 PM to go to his house at Chattarpur. He reached chattarpur Metro Station at around 7.00 pm and after deboarding the metro, he proceeded forward to his house by walking. On his way, he stopped at Clinic of Dr Gurbachan Singh, who was the then Secretary of Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee as he wanted to take his advice and wanted to consult him in relation to Prabhat pheri which was scheduled in near future. He consulted him in relation FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 5 of 12 to arrangements. Dr Gurchan Singh handed over him some money to be donated as charity in the Prabhat Pheri. Thereafter, he left for his home. He remained at his house and had not gone anywhere after that. As per him, he had not met the complainant on above said alleged date of the incident. He further deposed that complainant has falsely filed the present case against him as he is brotherin law(jija) of Karnail Singh, who is having a property dispute with her father namely Resham Singh. He also stated that a complaint was lodged by Karnail Singh against Resham Singh and his family members on 20.11.2015 at about 2.003.00 PM at PS Sikri, Rajasthan. An FIR was lodged against them at 6.30 PM and when this information was received by complainant, as a counter blast to the same, she lodged the present false case against him. He also deposed that complainant has falsely implicated him as she is aware that he is in govt job and through this case she wants to exert pressure upon his brotherinlaw Karnail Singh to settle their dispute. As per him, complainant was very well aware regarding his routine of boarding and deboarding of the Metro at the same time, therefore, she has deliberately misused the said information. The copy of FIR lodged by Sh Karnail Singh against Resham Singh and his family members is Mark D1. He was crossexamined by Ld APP for the State and was discharged.
DW2 Dr Gurbhachan Singh: He deposed that he is a doctor by profession and is running a clinic situated at B86, Ambedkar Colony, Chattapur, New Delhi. As per him, the distance between his clinic and house of accused is about 100 meters. They organized Pharbhat Pheri in order to celebrate Gurunanak Jayanti. He deposed that on 20.11.2015, accused Suchha Singh, came to meet him at around 7.00 pm in order to discuss about organizing of Pharbhat Pheri by FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 6 of 12 Chattarpur Mandir Trust. He and accused discussed the matter for around half an hour and during the said period, accused remained with him. As the accused left for his home, he came outside at the laundry shop in order to collect his ironed clothes. From there he observed that Suchha Singh entered his house and in his presence, nothing had taken place. At about 8.30 PM he closed his clinic and left for his home. He also said that there is a puliya/ culvert in the gali no. 10 i.e. between his clinic and house of accused. He was crossexamined by Ld APP for the State and was discharged.
DW3 Ct Pritam Singh: He appeared on behalf of ASI Kjuaaram, who was duty officer in FIR no. 366/15, PS Sikari, District Bharatpur. The said case was marked to IO HC Shyam Lal. He brought certified copy of the FIR no. 366/15, PS Sikari which is Ex.DW3/A.
8. Thereafter, the Defence Evidence was closed as the same was complete.
9. Final arguments were addressed. Heard. Record perused.
10. 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. For this the testimony of PW1 i.e. Ms. "J" (complainant) is of utmost importance because she was the victim and she was in the best position to explain the chain of events which took place in her presence. In this context, in her complaint, Ex.PW1/A, she had not mentioned any time of incident. However, the DD entry no. 28A of 20.11.2015, reflects that the PCR call was made at 7.35 PM. Thus, the incident would have been surely before 7.35 PM. The copy of FIR, Ex.P1, reflects the time of incident to be from 7.00 pm till 7.35 pm. However, in the statement of complainant under Section 164 CrPC, Ex.P2, she mentioned the FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 7 of 12 time of incident to be 8.00 to 8.30 PM. In her testimony as PW1, she again alleged that the time of incident was 7.00 to 7.30 pm, however, in her cross examination, she deposed that it was at about 8.008.30 PM. Thus, there is no coherence in all her statements in respect to the time of the alleged incident. Though, the contradiction in regard to time of incident is not a very major factor and minor contradictions are bound to appear in the testimony due to lapse of time. However, in the case in hand, even the said minor issue has become important because of the background of the parties as accused has alleged that as complainant was known to him, she was aware regarding his office timings and also there was a property dispute between their families. Thus, considering the record i.e. DD entry 28A, if it is presumed that the incident took place before 7.35 pm then the next step is to scrutinize the defence taken by accused that whether he was present at the time of incident at the spot alleged by the complainant or not.
11. In relation to the said defence, accused got examined DW2 i.e. Dr Gurbhachan Singh, who testified that accused visited his clinic on 20.11.2015 at 7.00 pm and he remained there for about half an hour for discussing regarding the arrangement of Prabhat Pheri. He also alleged that he saw accused entering his own house. In his crossexamination, he admitted that on 20.11.2015, he had handed over money to accused for depositing the same. He also averred that he can bring the receipts for the transactions of the said date. The said receipts were not called by Ld APP for the State on the ground that the witness himself volunteered that they used to issue the receipts sometimes of collective amount only after Gurupurab, therefore, no authenticity can be attached to the said receipts. It was admitted by DW2 that he had not remained outside the clinic for the whole period between FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 8 of 12 7.00 pm till 8.00 pm. Thus, it was argued by Ld APP for the State that the testimony of DW2 has not been able to corroborate the plea of alibi of accused.
12. After analysing the testimony of DW2, this court is of the view that though DW2 has not been able to corroborate the fact that accused went to his house directly because it is not believable that he remained outside the clinic and kept observing the accused but he has been able to support the contention of accused that he was present at his clinic from about 7.00 pm till 7.30 pm. Thus, the defence has been able to raise at least reasonable doubt in regard to presence of the accused at the Pulia at the time alleged by the complainant. In this context, it is not out of place to mention that it is the cardinal principle of the criminal law that if two views are possible, the view which is in favour of accused is to be considered and the benefit of the same should be given to him. Thus, the view that accused was not present at the alleged spot, at the alleged time has been fairly raised and has been corroborated with the testimony of DW2.
13. Even if the testimony of DW2 is not taken into consideration then also the other defence taken by accused that due to property dispute between father of complainant and brotherinlaw of accused, the complainant has falsely implicated him is also to be considered. In this context, the complainant in her crossexamination as PW1 admitted that accused is his relative. She herself had stated in her statement under Section 164 CrPC which is Ex.P2, that accused in soninlaw of the children of her cousin grandfather. She also stated that her family members had gone to Rajasthan on the said date due to ill health of her bua and also in regard to the Panchayat pertaining to the property in dispute. This therefore, reflects that there was acrimony between family of complainant and the FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 9 of 12 family of inlaws of accused. The said fact is further strengthened by the testimony of DW1 and that of DW3 i.e. Ct Pritam Singh, who proved the copy of FIR no. 366/15, PS Sikri which is Ex.DW3/A. On the perusal of the said FIR, it is clear that the same was lodged by Karnail Singh against Resham Singh and few other persons on 20.11.2015 i.e. on the same day when present FIR was lodged. The time of lodging of the said FIR is 6.30 pm. It is the version of complainant herself that Resham Singh is her father as stated by her in statement Ex.P2. Accused while deposing as DW1 stated that Karnail Singh is his brother inlaw. Thus, the FIR which was lodged by the family member of accused was prior in time then the FIR which was lodged by complainant. Hence, the possibility of present case being a counter blast to the case filed by family members of accused and the motive of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused cannot be completely ruled out. Hence, the sole testimony of complainant is not sufficient to prove the case of prosecution and it required corroboration from independent source.
14. It is pertinent to mention in this respect that complainant in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, Ex.P2, stated that she had gone to the PS along with one of her friend namely Shweta for lodging of her complaint whereas in her testimony as PW1, she stated that when she dialled at 100 number, police reached the spot and she gave her statement to the police. PW3 i.e. HC Satender in his cross examination alleged that complainant had never come to the PS after the incident and he had recorded her statement at the spot. The said person namely Shweta has not been examined and there is contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses in respect to the presence of the said person/ friend of complainant.
FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 10 of 12 Moreover, it was the version of the complainant herself that when accused threw bricks and stones, many neighbours had gathered at the spot but not even a single person apart from complainant has been examined or listed as one of the witness.
15. At this juncture, it is important to mention that the burden was upon prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. For this, not only the testimony of witnesses but also the manner in which the investigation has been carried out is also to be considered. PW1 throughout in all her statements alleged that her suit was torn when the same was pulled by the accused from behind. She however in her crossexamination as PW1 alleged that IO had not asked from her regarding the said clothes/ suit and she herself had not submitted the same to the IO on her own. Contrary to the said version to the PW1, PW3 IO HC Satinder, alleged that he had asked from the complainant regarding depositing her torn clothes but she failed to do so. Thus, there is contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses itself in regard to nonseizing of the clothes of the complainant which is major lacuna in the prosecution case.
16. There is also contraction in respect to the fact that whether after dialling 100 number, the statement of complainant was recorded by the IO at the spot or at the PS. Complainant in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, Ex.P2, stated that she had gone to the PS whereas in her testimony as PW1, she stated that when she dialled at 100 number, police reached the spot and she gave her statement to the police. On the contrary to the said version, PW2 i.e. HC Raj Kumar alleged that he reached the spot and complainant handed over him a written complainant on which he endorsed rukka Ex.PW2/A. On perusal of the complaint Ex.PW1/A, it is evident that same is hand written complainant and is not a statement.
FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 11 of 12 Moreover, PW3 on being crossexamined, admitted that complainant had never visited the PS after the incident. Thus, there is even contradiction in regard to lodging of the complaint, which though is not a material fact but has become important in view of the background of the parties. Moreover, considering the above said discussion, the possibility of concoction and falsely implicating the accused cannot be ruled out.
17. Thus, in view of the previous dispute between the parties, the lacunas as pointed out in the case of prosecution and in view of the contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, this court is of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of which is to be given to accused. Hence, accused Succha Singh is acquitted of the offences under Section 354D/354/509/352 IPC.
18. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by NITI PHUTELA NITI Date:
PHUTELA 2018.04.11
15:22:35
+0530
Announced in the open Court (NITI PHUTELA)
dated 10.04.2018 MM03 Mahila Court,
South Distict, Saket Courts,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 3098/15 State v. Succha Singh Page No. 12 of 12