Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravi @ Devi Sahai on 14 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONIKA SAROHA :
M.M.05(SOUTH EAST DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI
State VS. Ravi @ Devi Sahai
FIR NO. : 108/2000
P.S. : Ambedkar Nagar
U.S. : 354 IPC
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case and : 46/2 dated 05.03.2001
date of its institution
b. Name of the complainant : Pinki D/o Suresh Kumar R/o GII305, Madangir,
Delhi
c. Date of commission of
offence : 06.04.2000
d. Name of the accused : Ravi @ Devi Sahai S/o Sh. Raja Ram R/o GII/288
Madangir, Delhi
e. Offence complained of : U/s 354 IPC
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Case reserved for orders : 14.09.2012
h. Final order : Acquitted
i Date of such order : 14.09.2012
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.04.2000 at about 4.00 pm at H II/52, Madangir, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the spot), accused Ravi @ 2 Devi Sahai assulted and used criminal force to the complainant Ms. Pinki intending to outrage her modesty.
2. After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court.
Copies were supplied to the accused. Thereafter, the Ld. Predecessor had proceed to frame charge for offence U/s 354 IPC on 21.06.2002 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. The prosecution examined one witness. Thereafter, the victim was summoned who appeared in the court on 17.04.2003 and on her request the matter was fixed for settlement before Lok Adalat on 27.04.2003 however, on 09.08.2003 it was reported that settlement could not take place. Thereafter again on 03.11.2003 it was stated that a joint compromise application shall be filed. However, thereafter since 2005 the complainant stopped appearing before the Court. Repeated process were returned back with the report that the victim is untraceable and has left the given address. After giving sufficient opportunities, PE was closed. The gist of the deposition of the prosecution witness is discussed in the following para:
4. PW1 ASI Subhash Chander deposed that on 06.04.2000 he was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar as Duty Officer from 4.00 pm to 12.00 midnight and on that day at about 9.05 pm he received the rukka Ex.PW1/B brought by Ct. Udaiveer sent by SI Manish Kumar upon which he register the FIR Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that he gave the copy of the FIR and original rukka to Ct. Udaiveer. 3
5. Despite opportunities, on many occasions the victim could not be traced. Orders were made to serve her through the IO. The IO had attempted to serve this witnesses on many different occasions but was informed that the victim had left the given address. Even the fresh address of the victim was traced in 2010 and her brother gave it in writing that she has married against the wishes of her family and even her family does not know her whereabouts. Therefore, there was no way to secure the presence of the victim and the matter was pending trial for twelve years.
6. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE was closed. Statement of the accused u/s 281 CrPC was recorded. Final arguments as advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel were heard.
7. Coming now to the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution for it is on the evidence of the prosecution and its strength that the fate of this case depends.
8. Now the only witness to the incident was victim Pinki. Only she could have informed the court regarding the manner of commission of the offence against her. All the police witnesses had reached the spot only after the incident had already been committed and they did not see the incident. Thus, the testimony of the Duty Officer is of little use to the prosecution. Even the IO expired during the trial before his testimony could be recorded. Even otherwise even if registration of the FIR and the arrest, personal search memo of the accused would have been proved they would not throw any light on the guilt of the accused.
9. Only the victim being the sole eye witness could have informed the court as to 4 what acts were committed against her. Only she could have identify the accused. Thus, in the absence of any eye witness account of the manner in which the incident occurred, the charge against the accused remain unproved. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted.
10. File be consigned to record room.
Announced and dictated in (MONIKA SAROHA)
the open Court on 14.09.2012 MM/Mahila Court/SED/Saket
New Delhi.