Delhi District Court
State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Sh. Satyaprakash on 14 November, 2018
Criminal Appeal No.134/2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. : 134/2018
Under Section : 354/509 IPC
PS : Shakarpur
FIR No. : 639/2012
CNR No. : DLET01-006723-2018
In the matter of :-
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ............APPELLANT
VERSUS
SH. SATYAPRAKASH
S/o. Shri Pitambar Datta,
R/o. M-35, B-1, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi. ............RESPONDENT
Date of Institution : 01.10.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 14.11.2018
Date of pronouncement : 14.11.2018
Decision : Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal directed against judgment/order of acquittal dated 25.06.2018, passed by trial court in the case titled as State v. Satya Prakash, bearing FIR No.639/2012, under Section 354/509 IPC, PS Shakarpur, Delhi. Vide impugned judgment/order of acquittal, trial court acquitted accused Satya Prakash (respondent herein) for aforesaid offence.
BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE : -
Page 1 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.134/2018
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that complainant Ms. X (name withheld) was working in Puri Com Private Ltd. and accused was owner of the said company. She further alleged that on 24.08.12, accused called her in his cabin on the pretext of some work and made obscene gestures, touched her breasts by using criminal force upon her, in order to outrage her modesty. On such complaint, police registered the case and filed chargesheet for offence u/s 354/509 IPC. Accordingly, charge u/s 354/509 IPC was framed against accused on 27.01.2014. After framing of charge, examination in chief of complainant was recorded on 25.07.16. However, cross was deferred on the request of accused. Thereafter, summon was sent to the complainant by trial court for her fresh appearance, however, despite being served for 25.06.18, complainant did not put in her appearance before the court and trial court vide impugned order dated 25.06.2018, acquitted the accused relying upon Section 256 Cr.P.C.
GROUNDS :-
3. Being aggrieved of impugned judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal mainly on the following relevant grounds :-
● That impugned judgment is illegal, perverse and hence, same is liable to be set aside as trial court committed illegality by acquitting the accused in the present case. ● That trial court failed to follow the procedure and mandate of law for trial of summons cases instituted upon police report as prescribed by Cr.P.C. Even trial court failed to appreciate that Page 2 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.134/2018 section 256 Cr.P.C. is applicable only in summons cases instituted upon a complaint.
● That trial court failed to secure the presence of the complainant despite service of summons. Shailendra Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC was relied upon.
● That trial court passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind, thereby rendering the entire order to be void-ab- initio.
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS AS WELL AS DECISION :-
4. Ld. Addl. PP argued that ld. MM should have taken coercive action against complainant/PW1, but it was not so done. He further submitted that Section 256 Cr.P.C. was wrongly applied in this case.
5. Ld. counsel for respondent did not make any particular submission in respect of aforesaid arguments and grounds.
6. Section 256 Cr.P.C. refers to summons being issued on complaint.
The context of Section 256 Cr.P.C. can be further ascertained from subsequent provision under Section 257 Cr.P.C. Section 257 Cr.P.C. provides for withdrawal of complaint by complainant against one or more accused. Complaint is defined in Section 2 (d) Cr,P.C., which makes it clear that it does not include a police report. Present case was not a complaint case. A police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the court by police, on conclusion of the investigation. Therefore, Section 256 Cr.P.C. could not be applied in the present case.
Page 3 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.134/2018
7. Moreover, it was recorded by ld. MM that complainant was served for that day, but she was absent. In such circumstances, the due course of action was to take coercive action against complainant/PW1, so as to procure her presence. Further action under Section 350 Cr.P.C. could have been taken against complainant.
8. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I do find that ld. MM adopted wrong course of action and wrongly applied Section 256 Cr.P.C. in this case, so as to acquit the accused/respondent herein. Therefore, appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 25.06.2018 is hereby set aside.
9. Accused is directed to appear before trial court on 16.11.2018 at 2.00 p.m. Trial court shall adopt procedure applicable to a case instituted on police report and shall proceed further to procure appearance of PW-1 for her cross-examination. It has to be kept in mind that it is also duty of the court to take sufficient steps to procure appearance of a witness, which are relevant for the issue involved in the case. Trial shall be further conducted accordingly to its legitimate conclusion.
10. Accordingly, case is remanded back to the trial court with aforesaid directions. Trial court record be sent back alongwith copy of this Digitally signed by judgment. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA Location: Court Appeal file be consigned to record room. PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.11.14 15:39:14 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 14.11.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 4 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 4 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi