Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajeev Kumar Singh on 28 January, 2016
In The Court of Ms. Vandana, MM, Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh
FIR No. 104/13
U/s 354D IPC
PS Uttam Nagar
JUDGMENT
S. No. of the case : 39/2/ 11.03.2013
Date of Commission of offence : 01.03.2013
Name of the Complainant : Ms. Neha
D/o Sh. Purshottam Dass
Name of the accused : Rajeev Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Jai Prakash Singh
R/o B39, Nanhe Park,
Matiyala Road, Uttam Nagar
Delhi.
Offence Complained of : 354D IPC
Plea of accused persons : Plead not guilty.
Date of order : 28.01.2016
Final order : Acquittal
Brief Facts of the Case
1. The present case is based upon the complaint dated 01.03.2013 Ex. PW1/A wherein it has been alleged that on 01.03.2013 at about 9:15 AM the complainant was dropped by her father at Nawada Metro Station, thereafter her father returned back to home. Accused along with his friends also reached at metro station. He followed the complainant to upstairs. The accused uttered something. She ignored and boarded the metro for her office. Thereafter she informed her brother on State Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh FIR no. 104/13 Page No. 1 of 8 phone, her brother asked her to come and made a call to police. When she returned then her brother namely Nitin was present at metro station and accused had been apprehended by the police. It was further alleged that accused had been stalking her for about two months.
2. On the basis of above facts charge sheet was filed under section 354D IPC.
Framing of Charge
3. After supplying the documents charge for the offence u/s 354D IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution Evidence
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
PW1 Neha is the complainant herself, she deposed that the incident took place one and half year ago. On that day she deboarded at Nawada Metro Station and was going towards her house. In the way accused Rajeev @ Kaju came on his bicycle and started roaming around her (cycle se charo taraf ghumne laga aur rasta rok liya). Thereafter he told her that he wanted to talk to her. She ignored the accused and came towards her house and made a call to her mother. Thereafter, her mother and father came and took her to house. Her family members tried to search the accused but in vain.
Thereafter, accused started chasing her on her way to office and to her State Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh FIR no. 104/13 Page No. 2 of 8 house. He chased her for 1015 days regularly. Initially he used to come alone but later on he started coming along with 34 other boys. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint at P.S Uttam Nagar. Accused also arranged her mobile number and started making call to her. One day accused tried to enter into her house after consuming alcohol but accused was caught by neighbourers and beaten by them. She also lodged complaint regarding this incident at P.S. Bindapur.
PW2 Nitin Kumar is the brother of the complainant. He deposed that two years back during summer his sister Neha left for office in the morning at about 9:00 AM. After some time she informed him telephonically that accused was following and eve teasing her at Nawada Metro Station. He along with his father immediately rushed to Nawada Metro Station where Rajeev was present but he escaped from there on seeing them. He called at 100 number. PCR officials came who suggested him to call his sister at Metro Station. He called his sister who reached at Metro Station. Accused was apprehended at the other side of metro station. He knew accused since he had resided at their house as tenant around four years back for about 23 months.
PW3 SI Rajender is the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 01.03.2013, he was posted as ASI in PS Uttam Nagar and was on emergency duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. On receipt of DD no. 23A regarding eve teasing near Nawada Metro Station (vide Ex. PW3/A), he along with Ct. Satish reached Nawada Metro Station. He met caller Nitin along with accused Rajeev Kumar Singh. Within 510 minutes victim Neha also reached there and he recorded her statement which is State Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh FIR no. 104/13 Page No. 3 of 8 already Ex. PW1/A. He prepared rukka Ex. PW3/B by endorsing complaint of Neha and got FIR registered vide Ex. PW3/C. He prepared site plan Ex. PW3/D at the instance of complainant. Accused Rajeev Kumar Singh was arrested and personal search was conducted vide already Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. He recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the Court through SHO.
5. Vide order dated 09.10.2015 at request of Ld. APP names of rest of the witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses. Afterwards PE was closed.
Statement of accused
6. Statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded whereby he stated that he was not following the complainant and he is innocent. He further stated that he was the tenant of the complainant and used to reside at first floor. He used to park his bicycle at the ground floor, one morning he could not find his bicycle. He enquired from the mother of the complainant. She taunted him and said that she was not responsible for his bicycle. Later on, it was found that the brother of the complainant had sold the bicycle to junk dealer and when he sought compensation from the family then they threatened him to get the premises vacated or else they would frame him in some false cases. He also led defence evidence.
Defence Evidence
7. In support of its case the accused examined one witness.
DW1 Meenu i.e mother of accused, deposed that she was residing at the State Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh FIR no. 104/13 Page No. 4 of 8 first floor of the house of the complainant. One day the bicycle of her son was stolen by Nitin (brother of the complainant) and sold it to one kabari. When she inquired from the mother of Nitin about the said bicycle, she told that she was not accountable for the bicycle. Thereafter, it was revealed that aforesaid bicycle had been sold to the kabari. She narrated the said incident to her neighbour. Thereafter, the family of the complainant felt humiliation and warned to get vacated her house immediately and also threatened her that her son would be implicated in a false case. She further deposed that the mental condition of her son is not well and he is under medical treatment since July 2013 till date in the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Scienses (IHBAS). She relied upon medical prescription Ex. DW1/A.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The record has also been perused carefully.
Appreciation of Evidence & Law
9. The necessary ingredients of the alleged offence i.e 354D of IPC, which the prosecution is required to prove are as under;
(i) Following of a woman and repeatedly contacting/attempting to contact her ;
(ii) There must be an intention to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman.
Appreciation of Evidence
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the testimony of the State Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh FIR no. 104/13 Page No. 5 of 8 witnesses and perused the entire material on record carefully.
11. There are two material/public witnesses in the present case i.e complainant and her brother. On perusal, number of material contradictions are found in the statement of complainant which are as under :
(i) The complainant has stated in the complaint i.e Ex. PW1/A that it was her father who dropped her at Nawada Metro Station as she was going to her office. However, she deposed that at the time of incident she deboarded at Nawada Metro Station and was going to her house. Meaning thereby incident did not take place at Nawada Metro Station.
(ii)She has further stated in the complaint i.e Ex. PW1/A that accused used to reside on rent in their house before 23 years. Rejecting the same, during cross examination she deposed that accused used to reside as tenant in her house 89 years ago, though the statement of the complainant was got recorded only after one year of recording of the complaint.
(iii)Further, in the complaint Ex. PW1/A she has alleged that at Nawada Metro Station, accused followed her upstairs and he was uttering something which was ignored by the complainant. But while making statement before the court she deposed entirely a different story. She stated that on the day of incident she deboarded at Nawada Metro Station and was going to her house. In the way, accused came on his bicycle and started roaming around her. She ignored the accused and went towards her house which is State Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh FIR no. 104/13 Page No. 6 of 8 entirely altogether a different story from the complaint.
(iv)Further, in her complaint Ex. PW1/A she stated that she made a call to her brother who asked her to come back at Nawada Metro Station, however in the court she stated that she made a call to her mother and father who took her to their house.
(v) She has further stated in her complaint Ex. PW1/A that when she came back at Nawada Metro Station the IO had already arrested the accused, however she deposed in the court that her parents tried to search the accused but their efforts went in vain.
(vi)The complainant has further deposed that once accused tried to enter her house after consuming alcohol but she has not mentioned any such date.
Further, she deposed that accused started chasing her on her way to office and her house. But again she has not mentioned any single date of any such incident. Moreover above said allegation is nothing but an improvement.
(vii)The complainant has alleged that accused used to make call to her but she neither mentioned the mobile number nor she filed the call detail record.
12. Dealing with the material contradictions further PW2 has deposed that her sister informed him having been followed at Nawada Metro Station by accused who was eve teasing her and thereafter he with his father rushed to Nawada Metro Station where accused was present but he escaped from there on seeing them. From the above, it is clear that there is no coordination at all between the testimony of State Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh FIR no. 104/13 Page No. 7 of 8 complainant and her brother.
13. Further, the complainant deposed that previously also she filed a complaint against the accused which was denied by her brother i.e. PW2. Moreover. complainant herself could not file any such complaint.
14. In the present facts, according to the complainant's testimony the alleged incident took place on the way to her home, however her brother deposed that alleged incident took place at Nawada Metro Station. Hence, the place of alleged incident remained unascertained. The presence of father has been mentioned at different time and place by both the witnesses, however neither their father nor any other public person was made a witness in this case.
CONCLUSION
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 354D IPC, accordingly accused is Acquitted for the offence u/s 354D IPC. His bail bond stands cancelled. His surety stands discharged.
Announced and dictated in the (Vandana)
open Court today i.e. on 28.01.2016 MM, Mahila Court,
Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi
State Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh FIR no. 104/13 Page No. 8 of 8