Delhi District Court
State vs Uttam on 7 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK
COURT)-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,
DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-004323-2019
SC 298/2019
STATE Vs. UTTAM
FIR No.185/2019
PS Punjabi Bagh
U/S 366/354/354A/354B/323/506/509 IPC
Date of commission of offence 23.03.2019
Date of Committal in the Court of 30.05.2019
Sessions
Name of the complainant Ms. 'A'
Name of accused and address Uttam S/o Sh. Dharam Raj
R/o H.No.B-3, Home Guard
Staff Quarter, Raja Garden,
New Delhi
Offence complained of or proved Section 342/354B /354 /354D
/506 /366 /323/509 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquittal
Date of judgment 07.05.2026
JUDGMENT
FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.1 of 36 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Briefly stated facts as per the charge-sheet are that on 24.03.2019, the prosecutrix 'A' (name of the prosecutrix withheld to protect her identity) alongwith her mother 'J' came to PS Punjabi Bagh and made complaint against the accused, making allegations of sexual harassment, criminal intimidation and kidnapping/abduction against him. The complainant stated that she met with the accused around two years back when she had gone to fill the form of home-guard at SDM office, Karam Pura. The accused, on the pretext of helping her, called her at an old and empty office, where he misbehaved with her and tore her suit. The complainant alleged that the accused had recorded the video of the incident and clicked her photographs. He started blackmailing the complainant and threatened her that if she told about the incident to anyone, or did not talk to him he would show her video to her family members.
2. The complainant further alleged that on 13.03.2018 the accused snatched her phone and forced her to sit in his car. He dragged the complainant and hit her on the back of her neck. An unknown person took her to Acharya Bhikshu hospital from where she was referred to DDU hospital. Her uncle reached DDU hospital and she narrated the entire incident to him. However, the accused apologized with her on intervention of their family members and undertook not to repeat this conduct.
3. The complainant further stated that after some time the FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.2 of 36 accused against started misbehaving with her. He used to abuse her and once tried to abduct her in his car bearing registration no. HR99-WR(T)-7012. He also brandished a knife to her. She managed to escape with the help of her cousin, who threw a stone at the car of the accused.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
4. On basis of the statement of the complainant, the present FIR was registered under Section 366/354/354A/ 354B/ 354D/323 /506/509 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in short).
5. The statement of the complainant was recorded by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested and two mobile phones were recovered from his possession. A Swift Dzire car having registration no. HR 46E 4765 registered in the name of accused was also seized.
6. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 366/354/354A/354B/354D/323/506/509 IPC was filed in the court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the accused. After completion of proceedings U/s 207 Cr.P.C, Learned MM committed the case to Learned Sessions Court.
CHARGE
7. Vide order dated 24.07.2023, charge under Section 342/354B/3354/354D/506/366/323/509/366 IPC was framed FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.3 of 36 against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
8. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined 06 witnesses in total.
9. PW-1/Prosecutrix 'A' deposed that she had met the accused in his office at Karampura, while she was getting the form filled for the post of Civil Defence. She could not recall the date, month and year of the same. She handed over her form to the accused, as he was working in the office of Civil Defence. Accused informed her that he would call her later on. Her cousin (बुआ की लड़की) was accompanying her. After 2-3 days or one week, accused called her at an office near Ramesh Nagar Metro Station. He told her that he had done all the formalities required to deposit her form. One stamp is required on the form. She noticed her form as well as forms of other candidates on his table. Accused told her to have friendship with him. She did not reply to the same and left the office without getting her Form stamped. Accused started making her video when she was present in his office. PW-1 alleged that the accused has several videos of hers in his mobile phone.
10. PW-1 further deposed that after half an hour of her leaving the said office, when she reached Ramesh Nagar Metro Station, she called the accused and requested him to return her form. The accused told her that if she wanted to get her form back, she FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.4 of 36 would have to visit his office.
11. PW-1 further deposed that after a few weeks she received a call from the office of SDM that she has been selected for the post of Civil Defence and she can join from Monday onwards. She went to attend her training of Civil Defence on two Sundays but finding the accused in the said office she did not attend the training. She did not join the office of Civil Defence but she had joined training there for 2 days only, even though the training was to be held on 10 consecutive Sundays. She was doing private job since 2014, prior to filling her form for Civil Defence. Accused did not return her form and documents to her.
12. PW-1 further deposed that she was doing Job at Tilak Nagar in the year 2016-2017. Accused used to message and call her and used to threaten her by saying that he would tell her mother about her filling the Civil Defence forms etc. Accused had once followed her to her office from her home. On one occasion, when she came out of her office after finishing work in the evening, the accused was present outside her office in his car. She deposed that the accused used to send her obscene and threatening messages on her mobile phone. " गन्दे गन्दे message भेजता था, कभी कटा हुआ हाथ भेजता था, कभी रोती हुई शकल बना कर भेजता था". Accused used to send her pictures of criminal torturing the victim and used to say he would do the same with her. Accused introduced her to a girl as his sister. The accused's sister also told the witness that accused was a good person and that he likes her and that she should accept his proposal for friendship and FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.5 of 36 marriage. She used to call her on her mobile phone and also on video call. She started talking with accused for some time and requested him to return her documents. Thereafter, the accused returned her documents.
13. PW-1 further deposed that when she was moving towards Ramesh Nagar Metro Station, accused followed her and gave her beatings. He punched her on her neck. When people gathered there, the accused ran away from there. Some boys from the public took her to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital. The doctor at the hospital asked her how she received the injury but she did not tell anything to the doctor. The doctor advised her to go to DDU hospital as they were not having treatment for E.N.T. She called her friend to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and she took her to the DDU hospital. She was treated in the DDU hospital and her X ray was done. She called her uncle in DDU hospital and narrated the incident to him. Her uncle further told the said facts to her mother.
14. PW-1 further deposed that in the year 2018-2019 in the month of March (exact date she did not remember), she came out of the nursing home and took rickshaw for Raghubir Nagar. There she got down from the rickshaw as she had to change the rickshaw to go to her house. When she got down to change the rickshaw, accused came there and snatched her mobile phone and went away. When she followed the accused to take her phone, he forcibly made her sit in his car and drove the car in full speed. Accused brandished a knife to her in the running car and FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.6 of 36 threatened her not to raise alarm. Accused was also having a gun. There was red light near shamshan ghat and she saw her cousin brother there. Her brother hit a stone on accused's vehicle and damaged the rear window glass. Accused stopped the vehicle for a moment and she escaped from his vehicle. She called her mother at the said place and her mother reached there and called the police from PS Punjabi Bagh. After half an hour police came there. She narrated the incident to the police but police did not take any action and left from there after asking cursory questions. They did not pursue the matter on that day as her maternal uncle visited their house. On the next day in the morning, she along with her mother went to PP Madipur and from there to PS Raja Garden. A written FIR was recorded in PS Raja Garden.
15. PW-1 further deposed that thereafter, she alongwith her mother came to Tis Hazari Court and narrated the incident to the Learned MM. Thereafter, Mahila Ayog official was also called and they were referred to PS Punjabi Bagh. At PS Punjabi Bagh, FIR was recorded. PW-1 identified her signatures upon her statement Ex.PW1/A. She also came to the court and her statement was recorded by Ld. MM. PW-1 correctly identified her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Same is Ex.PW1/B. She identified the accused before the court.
16. PW-1 was cross-examined by Learned Chief Prosecutor as she was unable to narrate all the material facts as told by her in her earlier statement. PW-1 admitted the suggestion of learned Public prosecutor that about two years before the date of lodging FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.7 of 36 complaint, she had gone to SDM Office, Karampura to fill form for the vacancy of Civil Defence in Home Guard. She admitted having met the accused in the office of SDM and also admitted that the accused was residing in the quarters of Civil Defence near Shivaji college. She also admitted that accused informed her that forms were not filled up in SDM Office and she had arrived at wrong office. He told her to come at Ramesh Nagar Metro Station. She also admitted that when she reached near Ramesh Nagar Metro Station accused met her and took her form along with all her documents (in photocopy) from her. She further admitted that one day accused called her again near Ramesh Nagar Metro Station on the pretext of registration of her documents and from there, he took her to some old office where nobody was present except her and the accused. When she confronted the accused, he told her that it was a holiday. She got suspicious and left the said office. She admitted that accused called her telephonically and asked her to come again to the said office as officials had come. When she asked him to return her documents, he asked her to come to the office to collect the same. She admitted that when she again went to the office, there was nobody in the said office except the accused. She admitted that the accused bolted the door from inside and started doing "बदतमीजी" with her. As the witness was not comfortable in verbally stating about the incident, she was asked to write it on a blank paper. Same is Ex.PX.
17. PW-1 further admitted that the accused had prepared the video of the incident and that when she escaped from the said FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.8 of 36 place accused followed her and said, "मैं तुमसे प्यार करता हूँ और तुमने आज जो भी हुआ है उसके बारे में किसी को बताया तो मैं अपना हाथ काट लूंगा और video तुम्हारे घर वालो को भी दिखाऊँ गा". She admitted that thereafter the accused started blackmailing her and due to accused's aforesaid conduct, she used to talk with accused. When she used to go to her work place at Tilak Nagar, accused used to follow her and when she changed her job to Subhash Nagar, accused used to follow her at that place also.
18. PW-1 admitted that on 13.03.2018 near Ghore Wala Mandir, Raghuvir Nagar, accused snatched her mobile phone and bag and forced her to sit in his car. He was saying " आज तेरी अकड़ निकालूंगा". She admitted that accused called his friend Manish and took her to Ramesh Nagar. Accused gave a fist blow on her neck and hit her face with some coins and some coins went inside her mouth, which she took out. When she escaped from accused's clutches and reached near metro station parking, public persons started collecting there and thereafter accused ran away. She admitted that one unknown person took her Acharya Bhikshu hospital and she was given medicine in the hospital. She admitted that from Acharya Bhikshu hospital, she went to DDU hospital as there was no treatment for ENT. She was given some medicines in DDU hospital and was advised X Ray.
19. PW-1 admitted that accused as well as accused's sister telephonically called her and told her not to report the incident to anyone and the accused also threatened to kill himself if she told about the incident to anyone. Due to these threats, she could not FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.9 of 36 report the incident to the police or her family members. She also called her friend 'M', who accompanied her from Acharya Bhikshu hospital to DDU hospital and she had also called her uncle in DDU hospital.
20. PW-1 further stated that accused did not do anything for some time. However, after some months, he again started following her while she was going to her office. She reported the incident to his mother in the month of March 2019. Her mother and brother met accused and told accused not to repeat the incident. Accused felt sorry for his conduct.
21. After few months, accused started following her. She stated that once the accused called her and when she refused to meet him, the accused gave her abuses in Haryanvi language, which she could not comprehend. She admitted that when accused did not stop, she reported the incident to the police and police recorded her statement. She had given complaint in her handwriting to the court. She voluntarily stated that after 2-3 days of registration of the case, one night accused's sister came to their house with two small children and created a lot of drama requesting them to end the case.
22. PW-1 filed some documents i.e. one printout of screenshot showing recent transfer/posting, printout of screenshot showing two I-cards of the accused; copy of Whatsapp screenshot showing chats between her and Anita (accused's sister); two copies of treatment papers prepared at Acharya Bhikshu hospital FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.10 of 36 and at DDU hospital; and one print out of photo taken by mobile of statement of her mother.
23. PW-1 was cross-examined at length by Learned counsel for the accused. She stated that she had first met the accused in the year 2017 in the office of Civil Defence situated at Karam Pura, Delhi. Her cousin (sister) had accompanied her to the said office. She obtained information regarding the form from an official, who was present at the window. He informed her that the form is to be obtained online. The accused met them outside the office and told her that forms are not sold at the said counter. He provided a copy of form to her and also told her that the forms are not accepted here and it requires stamp from Raja Garden office after filling the form. She handed over the filled up form to the accused along with her testimonials as the accused had informed her that the police verification has to be done before submitting the form.
24. PW-1 further stated that within 2-3 days, the accused called her on an afternoon. At that time, she was working in a call centre in Moti Nagar. She reached Ramesh Nagar Metro station alongwith her friend. Thereafter, accused took her to an office near Ramesh Nagar Metro Station. Her friend did not accompany her to the said office as she was attending some call. Accused told her to be friends with him.
25. She further stated that after she left her job at the call centre, she started working in a nursing home in the year 2018.
FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.11 of 36 She stated that the accused sent her whatsapp as well as text messages on her mobile phone of different body parts in harmed condition. She also stated that the accused had made her video while entering in the office at Ramesh Nagar. She stated that she had not seen any video on the mobile phone of the accused, but she had noticed the accused making a video. She voluntarily stated that she is 100% sure that accused was making her video. She stated that the accused had molested her in the office by bolting the door from inside. After the said incident, she ran away. She did not raise any alarm while escaping, however, she was weeping. She did not inform anyone about the said incident. Her friend had already left from Ramesh Nagar Metro Station on receiving a call. She had tried to tell her friend about the incident but her phone was busy. On the next day, she informed about the incident to her friend. She did not inform her mother about the incident.
26. She further stated that after about one week of incident, she had called the accused to return her documents. Accused never returned her documents. A question was put to the witness that why she agreed to meet the accused even though he had misbehaved with her on the very first meeting. She replied that she agreed to meet the accused as her documents were with him and as he used to threaten her on phone and through messages to harm her family especially her brother.
27. She had told one of her friends about the threat given by the accused and she advised her to get her documents back from FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.12 of 36 the accused as he may misuse them. The witness stated that she had told her mother when she visited the office of Civil Defence to fill up the form. She was confronted with her statement made in her examination-in-chief dated 09.10.2023 wherein she had stated that accused used to message her that he will tell her mother about her filling the Civil Defence form, but in her cross- examination, she stated that she had already told her mother about filling the said form. The witness answered that her statement that she had conveyed to her mother prior to visiting the office for filling of form of Civil Defence is correct.
28. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the accused visited the nursing home along with his wife Anita for a medical insurance for her pregnancy as per her advice and she took Rs.500/- from the accused to issue the said policy. She voluntarily stated that she had never seen the accused's wife.
29. PW-1 stated that she had informed the doctor during her treatment at Acharya Bhikshu hospital that accused had beaten her and the doctor had asked her whether he should prepare MLC but she had refused. She stated that her friend had accompanied her to the said hospital. She had also visited DDU hospital. She had narrated about the incident of beating by the accused to her mother and thereafter her mother and brother went to lodge complaint against the accused in the PS.
30. She stated that she had not raised alarm when the accused forced her to sit in his car. She had to sit in the car of accused as FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.13 of 36 accused had snatched her mobile phone and she did not sit in his car voluntarily at her own will. Accused was having a knife by the driver side and was threatening her. He was also carrying a small weapon at that time but she could not tell the exact description of the said weapon. She had seen her cousin brother when the car of the accused was standing at red light near shamshan ghat. She raised alarm by saying "रमेश भाई मुझे बचाओ". Her brother was standing at a distance of 8-10 steps from the vehicle of accused. He threw a stone on the rear portion of the vehicle of the accused as he was not stopping the car. She had jumped from the moving car of the accused to escape and the accused escaped in his car. Her brother called her mother and police. She had taken her mobile phone from the accused, which he had snatched from her.
31. The witness admitted that a POCSO case was registered against her brother 'K' as he had eloped with a girl. She admitted that they had taken assistance of the accused in the said case. She denied that she and her brother 'K' had gone to village Gari Sapla, District Rohtak, Haryana to escape the police. However, they had gone with the accused to some place ahead of toll tax along with her brother and that girl. She admitted that the accused had told them that he will take assistance of some advocate to solve the case against her brother. Her family members were not aware about the said fact. She denied that accused had helped them by giving Rs.50,000/-, and voluntarily stated that the accused had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from her and had failed to repay the said amount. Accused told her that the FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.14 of 36 said amount would be adjusted in making payment to the police as well as to the advocate.
32. PW-2/ASI Jitender deposed that on 24.03.2019, he made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW2/A. The computerized copy of the FIR is Ex.PW2/B and certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW2/C.
33. PW-3/Dharam Raj, father of the accused, deposed that Maruti Swift Dzire bearing registration no.HR-46E-4765 of white colour is registered in the name of accused. The said car was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A. Later on, he got it released on superdari. The said car is Ex.PW3/Article 1. He also deposed that he had handed over mobile phone make Oppo of violet colour to the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B.
34. PW-4/mother of the prosecutrix deposed that her daughter/prosecutrix had told her that one boy namely Uttam used to harass and tease her. She alongwith her son 'N' visited accused's house and told accused's father not to harass her daughter. Accused's father advised accused not to harass the Prosecutrix. However, accused did not stop harassing her daughter. Thereafter, she alongwith her son went to PS Raja Garden to lodge report against accused but police failed to register their report. Thereafter, they returned to their house. Accused threatened her and her daughter that they could not do anything against him. Thereafter, she along with her son and Prosecutrix went to PS in the night hours. Police lodged FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.15 of 36 complaint of her daughter. She identified accused before the court. She deposed that once wife of accused visited their house asking them not to pursue the case and offered money to them.
35. During cross-examination, PW-4 stated that she could not tell the date, month or year, when prosecutrix told her that accused used to harass her. She did not meet the accused in this regard. She could not recollect the date, month or year when she visited PS to lodge report. She stated that she is not aware whether any case was registered against her son and whether the prosecutrix had taken help of accused. She had no knowledge whether the prosecutrix had taken an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the accused. However, she voluntarily stated that accused Uttam had taken Rs.50,000/- from them to pay to the police to work out the case registered against her son by the police.
36. PW-5/SI Richa Sharma deposed that on 24.03.2019 the complainant namely 'A' came to the PS alongwith her mother and got recorded her statement which is Ex.PW2/A. As the complaint revealed commission of offence under Section 366/354/354-A/354-B/354-D/323/506/509 IPC, she prepared rukka Ex.PW5/A and handed it over to duty officer for registration of the case.
37. PW-6/IO SI Ankur Ohlan deposed that he received investigation of this case on 24.03.2019. Accused as well as complainant were already present in the PS and he made enquiry from them. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.16 of 36 Ex.PW6/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/B. the accused was remanded to police custody by court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 25.03.2019 (Ex.PW6/C). He got recorded the statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by Ms. Tista Shah, Learned Metropolitan magistrate vide his application Ex.PW6/D. During police custody, accused's father produced his car bearing registration no. HR-46E-4765 as well as accused's two mobile phones in the PS. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the court.
38. He further deposed that after filing charge-sheet, the mobile phones of the accused were sent to FSL, Rohini. On receiving the FSL result, the same was filed in the court vide the supplementary charge-sheet by SI Sumit Dhankar. The mobile phones of the accused are Ex.PW6/Article-1 and 2.
39. In cross-examination, PW-6 stated that he did not conduct investigation qua the incidents narrated by the complainant, as the victim was reluctant to cooperate and specify the allegations. He admitted that in the complaint Ex.PW2/A, the vehicle number of accused is mentioned as HR-99WR(T)-7012. He had not done any investigation whether the said registration number and the registration number of the seized car of accused were allotted by the Transport Authority qua the said same vehicle. He admitted that no knife was recovered from the accused during investigation.
FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.17 of 36
40. Vide his statement dated 08.08.2024 and 23.09.2024, recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted the factum of recording of statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. dated 25.03.2019 (Ex.PW1/B) and the FSL report of Dr. Jagjeet Singh (Ex.PX-1).
41. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the entire prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused submitted that he knew the complainant when she was working in Civil Defence. She had approached him for help as her brother had eloped with a girl. He paid Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and also took them to his village to give them shelter. Also, he had lent Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant when she was purchasing her house. He also stated that the complainant had helped him procure a Mediclaim for his pregnant wife from Amit Nursing home where she was working. It has been alleged that when the accused demanded his money back, the complainant and her family members falsely implicated him in the present case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
42. The accused led defence evidence and examined two witnesses. DW-1/Ms. Sarwat Parveen, Principal, MCD Pratibha Vidhalya produced the attendance register for the month of March, 2018 with respect to the accused Uttam, who was posted in the school as a guard. She deposed that the accused had FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.18 of 36 worked in their school only for two months i.e. February and March, 2018. He was a volunteer from Civil Defence. Copy of his attendance sheet for the month of March, 2018 is Ex.DW1/A (OSR).
43. In cross examination by Ld. Addl PP for state, DW-1 stated that the duty of security guard used to be from 07:30 a.m. to 01:30 p.m. The accused had worked only for two months and had taken several leaves in the month of February, 2018.
44. DW-2/Sh. Suresh Kumar, Senior Instructor, Directorate of Civil Defence, West D. C. Office produced the summoned record i.e. office noting with respect to Civil Defence enrollment of Prosecutrix 'A' at serial no.4. The member is only for three years. As per record, the Prosecutrix 'A' enrolled as CD Cops w.e.f. 30.07.2016 to 29.07.2019. She he prosecutrix 'A' submitted the form physically in the D.C.Office for getting enrolled in the department as volunteer. The copy of list of candidates, who were enrolled as Volunteers in the department from 30.07.2016 to 29.07.2019 is Ex.DW2/A (OSR). The certified copy of enrollment order no.154/W dated 30.07.2016 is Ex.DW2/B.
45. DW-3/Dr. Anil Aggarwal, Proprietor of Amit Nursing Home deposed that they do not offer any insurance plan to the patients who visit their Nursing home.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
46. Learned defence counsel as well as Learned Additional FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.19 of 36 Public Prosecutor for State have addressed detailed oral submissions.
47. Ld. counsel for accused has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that PW-1 i.e. Prosecutrix has made contradictory statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before the court. Hence, her testimony has become unreliable. Further, she has not mentioned even a single date on which the alleged acts were committed by the accused. She has made baseless and false allegations against the accused.
48. It has been further submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine material witnesses like the friend of the prosecutrix, who had visited her in Acharya Bhikshu hospital, or her uncle who had come in DDU hospital; or her cousin who had helped her by allegedly throwing a stone of accused's car. Further, there is neither any CDR record of the mobile phone of the complainant or the accused to prove that the accused and his sister used to frequently call/message the complainant and threaten her. There are no WhatsApp messages or videos/photos to prove that the accused was sending obscene or threatening messages to the complainant.
49. Learned Defence counsel has submitted that the PW-1 admitted in her cross examination that the accused had helped her in her brother's case under POCSO Act. If the witness was FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.20 of 36 being threatened or blackmailed by the accused, why would she take his help in her brother's case.
50. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that no MLC of the complainant of Acharya Bhikshu hospital or DDU hospital has been placed on record to prove that the accused had hit her. No knife or any other weapon was recovered from the possession of the accused. Even the registration number of his car is different from the registration number mentioned by the prosecutrix in her complaint Ex.PW1/A. Further, no data could be retrieved from the mobile phones recovered from the possession of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused.
51. Per contra, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for State has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the accused and he is liable to be convicted. Learned APP has submitted that the prosecutrix/PW-1 has duly supported the prosecution story and has narrated all the incidents in detail. Her testimony has remained unimpeached despite a lengthy cross examination. Hence, the sole testimony of PW-1 is sufficient to convict the accused.
52. Learned APP further submitted that PW-1 has clearly deposed that the accused had beaten her and hit her on her neck. Even though the MLC of the prosecutrix is not on the judicial record, it has been held in the plethora of cases that testimony of FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.21 of 36 prosecutrix is sufficient to prove the prosecution case even in the absence of MLC. Also, PW-1 has placed on record copy of the MLC of Acharya Bhikshu hospital as well as DDU hospital dated 13.03.2018, which proves that the accused had caused hurt to her on the said date as alleged.
53. Ld. Addl. PP has further submitted that the statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/A as well as her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. EX PW1/B are quite lengthy and hence some discrepancies are bound to occur in her testimony. However, those are not material discrepancies and do not strike at the root of the prosecution case.
COURT FINDINGS
54. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of prosecution as well as on behalf of both the accused and perused the entire record carefully.
55. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.22 of 36 prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
56. In the present case, the accused has been charged for stlaking the complainant, molesting her, recording her videos without her consent, abducting her, threatening her and causing hurt to her. The accused is charged for wrongfully confining PW-1 in an empty office, under Section 342 IPC. He is further charged for offence of using criminal force with intention to disrobe the prosecutrix and outranging of her modesty and stalking her to foster personal interaction, punishable under Section 354, 354B and 354 D IPC. Further, he is charged for criminally intimidating the prosecutrix by saying that he would leak her objectionable photos and videos to her family members. He also insulted her modesty. He is further charged for offence of abducting the complainant to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse and while she was in his captivity, he hit her and pulled her breast, which is an offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and Section 354A IPC and Section 323 IPC.
57. The identity of the accused and the prosecutrix are not disputed. It is also not disputed that the accused and the prosecutrix were acquainted with each other for last few years.
58. The star witness of the prosecution is the PW-1/prosecutrix. This witness has made three different statements, one is her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.PW1/A, the other is her statement recorded under Section 164 FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.23 of 36 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.PW1/B and thirdly, the testimony recorded before the court. However, there are various contradictions in the said three statements.
59. The first instance of harassment/assault as stated by PW-1 took place when she reached at an empty office near Ramesh Nagar Metro Station on being called by the accused. Firstly, no specific date, month or year of the said incident was given by the Prosecutrix. Then, in her statement Ex.PW1/A, the complainant stated that the accused bolted the door and started misbehaving with her. He tore her suit and recorded her video. However, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/B, she stated that he hit her with a danda on her back, threw her on a cot and tore her clothes and tried to sexually assault her. He kissed her and recorded her video. However, in her statement before the court she did not mention any such incident. She only stated that the accused told her that he wanted to befriend her and she left the office without getting her form stamped. She did not depose anything about tearing of her clothes or sexual assault. It was only when the Chief Prosecutor cross-examined her that she admitted that accused had bolted the door and assaulted her and prepared her video. She had written on a piece of paper Ex.PX that the accused had held her from behind and tore her clothes and touched her on upper body. Hence, a different version has been given by PW-1 in all these three statements.
60. Secondly, PW-1 deposed that the accused had recorded her FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.24 of 36 video at the time when she visited the said office and while molesting her. However, no such video or photograph has been placed on record to show that accused had recorded any obscene video or clicked any such photograph of the prosecutrix. Even PW-1 admitted in her cross examination that she had not seen any such video in the mobile phone of the accused. The relevant portion of her testimony is reproduced verbatim as under:
"I did not see any video from the mobile of the accused, but I had noticed that accused was making a video. Vol. However, I am 100% sure that accused was making my video."
61. Hence, apparently, the prosecutrix had not even seen any such objectionable/obscene video of hers in the mobile phone of the accused and she has deposed only on an assumption that the accused was recording her video.
62. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer FSL report Ex.PX1. The mobile phones seized from the possession of the accused were sent to FSL, Rohini by the IO for examination. However, as per the FSL result, Ex.PX1, no data could be retrieved from either of the mobile phones. One of the mobile phones was physically damaged while the other mobile phone was encrypted with pin lock, which could not be bypassed despite efforts.
63. It is noteworthy that the IO did not seize the mobile phone of the accused at the time of his arrest and his mobile phones FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.25 of 36 were later on handed over by his father to the IO. Also, the IO did not make any effort to remove the pin lock from the mobile phone of the accused and sent it to the FSL without removing the said lock. The IO did not even make an effort to himself search the seized mobile phones for any such obscene photo/video.
64. Be that as it may, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution is failed to prove that the accused had recorded any obscene video of the prosecutrix or clicked any such photograph using his mobile phone or any other device.
65. Another contradiction in her statements is that PW-1 deposed in her examination-in-chief that accused used to threated her by saying that he will tell her mother about her filling the form at the SDM office. However, in her cross-examination, she stated that she had already told her mother about filling of the form.
66. Another allegation made by the prosecutrix that the accused had kidnapped her on two occasions. First, the accused abducted her on 13.03.2018 in his car. He also hit her on her neck and made her swallow some coins. However, this allegation of prosecutrix is also doubtful for the following reasons:-
(i) In her statement Ex.PW1/A, the prosecutrix stated that the accused had snatched her mobile phone and forced her FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.26 of 36 to sit in his car. He took her to Ramesh Nagar. When she was trying to open the gate of his office, she tried to escape. The accused hit her on her neck and dragged her to the parking of Metro station. Public persons gathered there and accused fled from the spot. However, in her examination in chief, PW-1 has failed to mention any particular date, month or year of the incident. She deposed that when she was moving towards Ramesh Nagar Metro station, the accused followed her and gave her beatings and punched on her neck.
(ii) In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/B, the prosecutrix stated that when the accused was dragging her towards the metro station, he was beating her and recording her video and was also pulling her breast.
However, in her testimony before the court she has not mentioned anything about recording of video or pulling of her breast by the accused.
(iii) The prosecutrix/PW-1 deposed that she had gone to Acharya Bhikshu hospital where she called her friend and her friend took her to DDU hospital. However, in her cross examination, she stated that her friend had accompanied her to Acharya Bhikshu hospital. Also, there is no MLC or medical document on record to prove that the accused had hit the prosecutrix on her neck and caused hurt to her.
FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.27 of 36
67. PW-1 has placed on record copy of treatment papers prepared at Acharya Bhikshu hospital and DDU hospital both dated 13.03.2018. However, these treatment papers are not duly proved as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the doctors who had prepared those MLCs were never summoned and examined as witness by the prosecution. Also, the original documents were neither produced by the prosecutrix before the court, nor any application was ever made by the prosecution to summon the original MLC or medical treatment record of the prosecutrix. Hence, these MLCs cannot be relied upon.
68. Also, a bare perusal of the above-referred treatment papers of the prosecutrix clearly show that she had given the history of 'fallen from bike' and not 'physical assault'. Also, PW-1 stated in her cross-examination that she refused to get her MLC prepared even though she purportedly told the doctor about the assault.
69. Another allegation made by the prosecutrix is that the accused had abducted her again in his car and brandished a knife to her. He also had a gun with him and he threatened her not to raise alarm. At red light near Shamshan Gath she saw her cousin brother and shouted for help. Her brother pelted a stone on the car of the accused and rear window glass was damaged. Accused stopped his car for a moment and she escaped from his car. She called her mother and also police.
70. Again, this version of the prosecutrix is marred with FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.28 of 36 contradiction. In her cross examination, she had stated that she had jumped from the moving car to escape and that it was her brother who called the police and her mother. Also, the prosecution failed to summon and examine the cousin of the prosecutrix, who had saved her by throwing stone at accused's car and called the police.
71. PW-1 has alleged that the accused used to threaten her by sending her threatening messages. She deposed that the accused used to send her कटा हुआ हाथ and रोती हुई शकल. However, no such threatening messages has been placed on record by her. Also, she has not specified the words of threat spoken or messaged by the accused.
72. PW-1 has also alleged that accused's sister also used to force her to talk to the accused and become friend with him. PW-1 has placed on record printout of one screenshot showing the chat between her and sister of accused. However, no mobile phone number of the said sister of the accused, presumably named Anita has been told by the PW-1. Further, the mobile phone of the witness containing the said chat was never produced by her in the court. Also, a bare perusal of the said chat transpires that the said person Anita had only sent two photographs - one of a tlocket and the other of a ring, and it is mentioned that "Uttam एक रिंग आपके लिए लाया था और खुद के लिए लॉके ट लाया था." Even if it is presumed that the said chat has been sent by sister of the accused, there is nothing threatening in the said chat nor does the FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.29 of 36 sender appears to be blackmailing PW-1.
73. PW-1 has further deposed that the accused used to blackmail her and threaten her. However, she admitted in her cross examination that she had taken the help of the accused in her brother's case under POCSO Act. The relevant portion of her testimony is reproduced as under:-
"It is correct that a POCSO case was registered against my brother 'K'. Vol. Same was solved later on. My brother has left with some girl in the said case. It is correct that we had taken assistance of accused in the case registered against my brother 'K'. It is wrong to suggest that me and my brother 'K' to escape the police had gone to the village Gari Sapla, District Rohtak, Haryana. We had gone with the accused to some place ahead of toll tax along with my brother and that girl. Accused had advised us that he will take assistance of some Advocate to solve the case registered against my brother. My family members were not aware about the said fact. We had not taken any financial help from the accused at that time. It is wrong to suggest that accused had helped us by giving Rs.50,000/- to us. Vol. Accused had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from me. He had not repaid the said amount to me. Accused told me that the said amount would be adjusted in making payment to the police as well as to the Advocate. Accused did not introduce us to any Advocate."
74. It is difficult to believe that on one hand the complainant was being harassed and molested and criminally intimidated by the accused and on the other hand, she was seeking his help in resolving her brother's case.
75. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.30 of 36 PW-4/mother of the prosecutrix. However, she has only made a bald statement that the accused was harassing and threatening her daughter and has not given any details. Also, there is a contradiction between the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3. PW-1 had deposed that she is not aware whether the accused was married or not, however, PW-3/mother of the prosecutrix deposed that wife of the accused had visited them and threatened them. PW-1 deposed that she is not aware of the residential address of the accused, however, PW-3 deposed that they had gone to the house of the accused and met his father there.
76. In the present case, the FIR has been registered after about two years from the first incident when the accused had allegedly confined the Prosecutrix in an empty office, tore her suit and tried to sexually assault her. As per the statement Ex.PW1/A, the prosecutrix had met the accused around two years back and within a few days he called her to an old and abandoned office where the above said incident had taken place. However, for the reasons best known to the witness, she did not report the matter to anyone, not even her mother or the friend with whom she had visited the said office, as stated by her in her cross examination.
77. It has been alleged by the Prosecutrix/PW-1 that the accused has been harassing her and blackmailing her for last two years. She has also alleged that he had tried to kidnap her twice and also beaten her, forcibly kissed her and threatened her with knife. She also alleged that the accused used to send her FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.31 of 36 threatening/obscene messages and blackmail her by saying that he would show her indecent photograph and video to her family members.
78. However, not even once in the span of two years, the Prosecutrix called on 100 number or sought help from the concerned authorities or police, or even from her family members. PW-1 has deposed that she had narrated the incident of abduction and assault to her uncle in DDU hospital, who in turn informed his mother. However, neither the mother nor the uncle of the prosecutrix made any call on 100 number or filed any complaint against the accused before concerned authorities. PW-1 also stated that she had told the doctor during treatment at Acharya Bhikshu hospital that accused had beaten her. But even the doctor concerned did not make any call on 100 number.
79. It is the case of the prosecution that the Prosecutrix did not tell anyone about the harassment/blackmail/the incidents to anyone as the accused used to send her threatening messages and blackmail her that he will show her photograph and video to her family members. However, not a single threatening message has been placed on record by the prosecution. There are no videos or photograph of the Prosecutrix, which were recorded by the accused and for which she was being threatened. In fact, in her cross examination, PW-1 has admitted that she had not seen any video in the mobile phone of the accused but she was 100 % sure that the accused was making her video. Hence, clearly she is only FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.32 of 36 assuming that the accused had videographed her.
80. Also, there is no CDR of the mobile number of the prosecutrix or the accused and his sister on the judicial record to prove that the accused and his sister used to call the prosecutrix and threaten her or blackmailing her.
81. The prosecutrix has deposed that she has been working and had taken up different jobs since 2014. Hence, she was a well- educated and self-dependent lady. It is difficult to believe that she remained under threat for two long years, that too without having seen any obscene photo or video of her, only on an assumption that the accused had her indecent phot/video.
82. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-1 is unreliable and not worthy of trust. There are various discrepancies in her statement which have created doubt regarding her credibility. It is beyond understanding of the court why the complainant kept in contact with the accused despite being molested by him on their second meeting itself. Why she did not inform her friend who had accompanied her to accused's office, or her mother. Why she did not make call on 100 number. Instead, she continued to remain in contact with the accused and even sought his help to resolve her brother's case. This kind of conduct appears suspicious and creates doubt regarding the testimony of PW-1.
FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.33 of 36 NON EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL WITNESSES
83. The prosecution has failed to examine various material witnesses in the present case i.e. the uncle of the Prosecutrix, who had reached DDU hospital and to whom she had narrated the incident dated 13.03.2018; the friend who had accompanied her to the office of the accused, where the alleged incident of molestation and recording of video had taken place; and cousin of the Prosecutrix, whom she had called for help when the accused was allegedly abducting her in his car and who had thrown a stone at the car of the accused. All these witnesses are material witnesses.
84. The uncle of the Prosecutrix remained unserved even through DCP concerned. He was re-called under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on the application of Ld. Addl. PP for State. However, despite service, he failed to appear in the court and the counsel for complainant himself submitted before the court that he was unable to appear in the court having undergone surgery for slip- disc and has been advised bed rest for six months. It is to be noted that no medial record of the said witness was ever produced before the court to show that he was unable to appear before the court due to surgery of slip-disc. Be that as it may, his name was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 11.02.2025.
85. The other two witness i.e. cousin of the Prosecutrix and her friend have not even been named as a witness in the list of FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.34 of 36 prosecution witnesses. They were neither summoned nor examined as witness by the prosecution.
86. Further, in her complaint Ex.PW1/A, the prosecutrix has mentioned the registration number of the car in which the accused had tried to kidnap her as HR-99WRT-7012. However, the car of the accused which was seized by the IO is having the registration no.HR-46E-4765. Also, there is no investigation regarding the ownership of the car having registration no. HR-99WRT-7012.
CONCLUSION
87. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations/charges against the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had abducted the prosecutrix with an intention to force her into illicit intercourse or marriage. The prosecution has further failed to prove that the accused had sexually assaulted or molested the prosecutrix or recorded her obscene/indecent videos. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused criminally intimated the prosecutrix and forced her to foster any romantic relationship with him. The prosecution has further failed to prove that the accused had assaulted the prosecutrix or disrobed her by tearing her clothes. There is further no proof that the accused used to stalk the prosecutrix and threatened her or caused hurt to her. Hence, the accused the accused Uttam S/o Sh. Dharam Raj is entitled to be acquitted for FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.35 of 36 offence punishable under Section 342/354B/354/354D/506/ 366/323/509 IPC.
FINAL ORDER
88. In view of the above discussion, accused Uttam S/o Sh. Dharam Raj is acquitted for offence punishable under Section 342/ 354B/354/354D/506/366/323/509 IPC.
89. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SAUMYA CHAUHAN SAUMYA Date: CHAUHAN 2026.05.19 15:45:01 +0530 Announced in The Open Court (Saumya Chauhan) today i.e 07.05.2026 ASJ (FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Certified that this judgment contains 36 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed by SAUMYA CHAUHAN SAUMYA Date: CHAUHAN 2026.05.19 15:45:08 +0530 (Saumya Chauhan) ASJ (FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi 07.05.2026 FIR No.185/19 State Vs. Uttam page no.36 of 36