Delhi District Court
State vs . Chader Bal Tomar on 24 November, 2014
- :1 : -
In The Court Of Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court No. 1) Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Presided by : Ms. Ritu Singh
FIR NO. 64/07
PS M.S. Park
24.11.2014
Present: Ld. Substitute APP for State.
Accused in person.
Vide separate judgment of even date, accused Chander Bal Tomar
is acquitted of offence U/s 354/506/509 IPC.
Bail bond of accused persons furnished at the time of court bail,
shall remain in force for a period of six months. Sureties of the accused persons
shall not be discharged for a period of six months from today in view of Section
437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RITU SINGH)
MM(Mahila Court)1
Shahdara/KKD Courts/Delhi
24.11.2014
FIR NO. 64/07 page no. 1 of 9
- :2 : -
IN THE COURT OF MS. RITU SINGH,
MM, (MAHILA COURT NO. 1), SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD, DELHI
FIR NO. 64/07
UNIQUE I.D. NO.02402R0316122007
PS M.S. Park
U/SEC. 354/506/509 IPC
STATE VS. Chader Bal Tomar
1. Name of the complainant: Ms. Pooja
D/o Sh. Raju
R/o I/3978, Bhagwan Pur
Khera, Delhi
2. Name of the accused, his : Ms. Chander Bal Tomar
parentage and address. S/o Deep Chand Tomar
R/o 209, Dayanand Vihar,
Delhi.
3. Offence complained : u/s 354/506/509 IPC
4. The date of order : 24.11.2014
5. The final order reserved : 12.11.2014
6. Acquitted or convicted : Acquitted
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The challan was filed in the present case on 25.04.2007 on the basis of FIR u/s 354/506/509 IPC registered on 09-02-2007 on the basis of complaint made by the complainant Ms. Pooja.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 09.02.2007 as well as on earlier occasion at Nehru Memorial Co-Ed. School, Mandoli Road, Delhi accused Chander Bal Tomar assaulted and used criminal force against complainant Pooja Kumar, Kumari Mamta, Kumari Asha Kain, Kumari Ruksana, Kumari Neha, Kumari Aarti Soni, FIR NO. 64/07 page no. 2 of 9
- :3 : -
Kumari Tina, Kumari Monica, Kumari Sonia, Kumari Preeti Sohan Pal by doing the act detailed in complaint and their statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. with intention to outrage their modesty. It is further alleged that accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant Kumari Pooja to kill her as well as threatening Sonia, Tina, Neha, Ruksana, Asha to declare them unsuccessful in examination intending to cause alarm to her. It is further submitted that accused with intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant Pooja, Kumari Mamta, Kumari Asha Kain, Kumari Ruksana, Kumari Neha, Kumari Aarti Soni, Kumari Tina, Kumari Monica, Kumari Sonia, Kumari Preeti Sohan Pal made some sound or gestures in the manner detailed in complaint and their statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. intending that the same shall be heard and seen by aforesaid girls and intruded upon their privacy.
3. Complainant Pooja has requested to take legal action against the accused person.
4. On basis of her complaint, FIR no. 64/07, u/s 354/506/509 IPC was registered on 09.02.2007 with PS M.S. Park. Challan was filed and cognizance of the offences was taken. Accused person was summoned and after hearing arguments, charge was framed against accused Chander Bal Tomar u/s 354/506/509 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
5. It is settled procedure of law that it is prosecution which FIR NO. 64/07 page no. 3 of 9
- :4 : -
has to prove charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
6. In order to discharge this onus, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Prosecution has examined complainant Ms. Pooja D/o Sh. Raju as PW1, Ms. Neha D/o Sh. Vinod Kumar as PW-2, Ms. Mamta D/o Sh. Prem Chand as PW-3, Ms. Asha D/o Mahender Kain as PW-4, Ms. Rukhsana as PW-5, Ms. Aarti Soni D/o Sh. Om Prakash as PW-6, Ms. Teena D/o Rajender Kumar as PW-7, Ms. Monika D/o Rambeer Singh as PW-8, Ms. Sonia D/o Sh. Gopa as PW-10, Ms Preeti D/o Sonpal as PW-11. Remaining are formal witnesses which includes SI U.Balashankaran No. D-290, Additional DCP Office as PW9, Inspector Sushma Rawat, No. D-2625, IC CAW cell, North District as PW-12.
7. Prosecution witnesses have relied on following documentary evidence.
1. Ex.PW1/A written complaint to the police
2. Ex. PW12/A Site plan.
3. Ex. PW12/B arrest memo.
4. Ex. PW12/C personal search memo.
5. Ex. PW12/D & Ex. PW12/E DD no. 9A and DD no. 60B with charge sheet.
8. Thereafter statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused preferred to lead defence evidence. In defence accused has examined himself as DW-1 and thereafter, DE was closed vide his statement dt. 17.05.2014. Final arguments were FIR NO. 64/07 page no. 4 of 9
- :5 : -
heard on behalf of both the sides.
9. This court has heard both the parties and perused the record.
10. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses which includes complainant Pooja, public witnesses Neha, Mamta, Asha, Ruksana, Aarti Soni, Teena, Monika and remaining are formal witnesses. Complainant Pooja has been examined as PW-1 who was deposed in her testimony before the court that-.
"Incident occurred on 09.02.2007. At that time, I was studying at Nehru Memorial School, Mandoli Road, in 8th Standard. The accued present in the court today was science teacher at that time in my school. He used to take classes of science. He used to ask the girl students "What they wore beneath the salwar". He also used to say that "We should wear cotton clothes so that the sweat gets absorbed in the cotton cloth". The accused also used to say that "Bachchey kahan se paida hotein hain, Jab ladke ladki miltein hain to bachchey paida hotein hain".
The accused also used to say that if any of the student narrated to their parents, they would be expelled from the school. The accused also used to say that "Kon si heroene pasand hai, Kon si ladki sunder hai, Tum to saare sunder ho". My sister FIR NO. 64/07 page no. 5 of 9
- :6 : -
namely Neha was studying in class 7th standard at that time in the same school and the accused had struck off her name from the school. The next day i.e. 10.02.2007, the accused had called Arti in his office and the accused had put his hands on the breast of Arti. Arti had narrated the facts to the entire class and also to the lady teacher".
11. During the course of her cross-examination by counsel for prosecution PW-1 Pooja had deposed that the incident related to Arti stated above had occurred on 09.02.2007 and police came on 10.02.2007. However during her cross-examination by accused, PW-1 Pooja had contradicted her own statement stating that-
"It is correct to suggest that accused did not take our class on 09.02.2007. Vol. there has been a mistake, in fact the incident had occurred on previous that is 08.02.2007 and the accused had taken class on 08.02.2007 and had misbehaved".
12. Thus apparently there are material contradictions in testimony of complainant PW1 Pooja regarding date of alleged sexual assault of victim Aarti and as well as date on which this matter was reported to police. PW-1 had deposed that incident took place on 09.02.2007, but subsequently she changed her statement stating that accused had assaulted Aarti on 10.02.2007 and again in her cross-examination, she changed her version and stated alleged FIR NO. 64/07 page no. 6 of 9
- :7 : -
incident against Aarti was committed by accused on 08.02.2007. Moreover PW-1 has deposed that accused did take their class on 09.02.2007 and incident pertains to 08.02.2007.
13. Thus complainant/PW-1 has kept changing her testimony on point of date of alleged incident against Aarti and even whether accused at all had taken their class on alleged date of incident. Thus in light of inconsistency and material contradictions in statement of PW-1, PW-1 does not appear to be reliable witness.
14. Further it is pertinent to mention that the complainant in her police complaint Ex. PW1/A had alleged that the accused had stated that he would take test on next day and that on next day when student Arti went to his office, he was alone there and he tried to molest her and rubbed her hand with his had. However the complaint is completely silent regarding date on which accused had told about test and when victim went to his office and the allegations made are general & vague without any specific datewise details of alleged act and against whom these were committed. According to DD entry 9A dt. 09.02.2007 PS M.S. Park information was received by the concerned PS regarding the alleged incident of physical molestation of the student in Nehru Memorial Student by one of the teacher on 09.02.2007. Charge sheet filed on the basis of investigation upon allegations made complaint is silent regarding the date of alleged incident against the victim Pooja. Complainant has not stated the date when FIR NO. 64/07 page no. 7 of 9
- :8 : -
accused extended threat of expulsion from school to her. Other public witnesses Neha, Mamta, Asha, Ruksana, Aarti Soni, Teena, Monika have not supported the case.
15. Thus apparently the complaint Ex. PW1/A as well as the charge-sheet does not specifically mention the date of alleged incident of molestation of the victim Pooja and allegations made by complainant against accused regarding molestation, vulgar statements and threats given by her are vague and general, without the specific details as to when these alleged acts of molestation were committed and when did accused give threat and to whom these threats were given by accused.
16. Public witnesses Neha, Mamta, Asha, Ruksana, Arti Soni, Teena and Monika had resiled from their statement given before the police U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and further have not supported the prosecution case during the course of their testimony before court and accordingly, they were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Ld. Prosecution Counsel.
17. Thus, this court is of the opinion that there is material contradiction in the testimony of witness Pooja and hence, testimony of witness Pooja does not inspire confidence of the court and she is accordingly not reliable witness. Remaining public witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution has not supported the prosecution version. There is no other evidence documentary or oral on record to establish guilt of accused U/s 354/506/509 IPC.
FIR NO. 64/07 page no. 8 of 9
- :9 : -
18. Therefore, this court is of opinion that prosecution has failed to establish a case against accused U/s 354/506/509 beyond reasonable doubt and in absence of any cogent and consistent evidence, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused Chander Bal Tomar is acquitted of offence U/s 354/506/509 IPC.
19. Bail bond of accused persons furnished at the time of court bail, shall remain in force for a period of six months. Sureties of the accused persons shall not be discharged for a period of six months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (RITU SINGH)
ON 24.11.2014 MM/MAHILA COURTS No. 1
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
FIR NO. 64/07 page no. 9 of 9