Delhi District Court
Fir No: 509/05 1 State vs . Tarun Sharma on 24 March, 2012
FIR No: 509/05 1 State vs. Tarun Sharma
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA T.LAKHANPAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : ROHINI, DELHI.
FIR No. 509/05
PS - Narela
U/s. 354/509 IPC
ID No. 02404R0464682006
24.03.2012
STATE VS. TARUN SHARMA
Date of institution : 07.08.2006
Date of Commission of Offence : 13.10.05
Name of the Complainant : Santosh Devi
Name, parentage & Add. Of the
Accused : Tarun Sharma
S/o Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma,
R/o M - 190, Gali no. 12,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
Offence complaint of : U/s 354/509 IPC.
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Date for reserve of Order : 21.02.2012
Date of announcing of order : 24.03.2012
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The present FIR was registered at PS Narela against the accused namely Tarun Sharma for the offences u/s. 354/506 IPC whereupon the IO had made an endorsement and the Duty Officer FIR No.509/05 State vs. Tarun Sharma 1 of FIR No: 509/05 2 State vs. Tarun Sharma had subsequently recorded the FIR. Charge was framed against the accused Tarun Sharma U/s 354/509 IPC. Gist of the complaint is as under:
2. The prosecution story commenced upon receipt of DD no. 42 B dated 16.10.05. It has been alleged by the complainant Santosh Devi that her husband had expired one year back and having four children. There is no earning member in the house, therefore she started working as labour since 8.10.05 in DSIDC Boregarh situated at F1965. She further alleged that on 13.10.05 when she was working in the factory then at around 1.30p.m., the owner of factory Tarun Sharma called her upstairs for some work. Complainant alongwith him went on first floor of the factory. She asked from Tarun as to what work she has to do. On which he asked her to carry the polythenes from floor and put them in a bag. She carried one bag and started putting polythenes in that. At that time, Tarun caught hold of her hand and pulled her towards him. He took the complainant into his arms and started kissing her. He caught hold of her breast and tried to untie her nara. On which complainant told him that she is not a lady of loose character and belongs to a respectable family and does not sell herself. Complaint asked accused Tarun that whether he behaves in the similar manner with the other working ladies of the factory also. On which, Tarun replied that he liked her and loved her. She managed to free herself from the accused and came down stairs. On that day, at the time of leaving the factory, she called accused Tarun down stairs but he did FIR No.509/05 State vs. Tarun Sharma 2 of FIR No: 509/05 3 State vs. Tarun Sharma not come. Complainant settled her account on that day. She remained tensed over this incident for one day. On 15.10.05, she went to the factory to inform about the incident to father of Tarun Sharma. But his father was not present in the factory. Accused Tarun asked her as to how she entered inside the factory and who permitted her to enter inside. On which complainant replied that she has come here to complain his father about his conduct. Accused Tarun threatened her that he will implicate her in theft case as he is having higher approach. Thereafter complainant called the police at 100no. Accused threatened the complainant while she was returning from Bhoregarh that he will not let her work anywhere and will kill her.
3. Investigation commenced and concluded by filing the challan. Arguments on charge were heard and charge u/s 354/509 IPC was framed against the accused Tarun Sharma to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses.
PW1 is Santosh, who is complainant herself.
PW2 is HC Ram Phal Singh, who recorded the FIR.
PW3 is SI Charan Singh, who prepared rukka and prepared site plan.
PW4 is HC Anil Kumar, who is IO of the present case. PW5 is Ct. Tejinder Pal Singh, who joined the investigation.
5. Statement of accused Tarun Sharma has been recorded FIR No.509/05 State vs. Tarun Sharma 3 of FIR No: 509/05 4 State vs. Tarun Sharma u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied all the allegations made against him. He stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that complainant Santosh was hired by the contractor to work in his factory. As she was not doing any work and was always busy on her mobile phone, she was asked not to report on duty by the contractor on 13.10.05, after clearing all her accounts. He further submitted that complainant Santosh came to him on 15.10.05 and asked for money. He refused stating that she was employed by the contractor and not by the firm. On this complainant got annoyed and started using unparliamentary language. Thereafter, she left the factory threatening him that she would see him soon. He further stated that his false complaint was lodged against him to blackmail him and to be used as tool to extort money from him. Accused opted to lead evidence
6. Defence has led evidence of DW1 Sh. Saurabh @ Bintu. He deposed that he knew accused as he is owner of Sunil Plastic. He used to purchase plastic granules (plastic dana) from the accused. He deposed that accounts is to be settled on 15th day of every month. He further deposed that on 15.10.05, he was present in the factory of the accused when one lady whose name he came to know as Santosh came and started asking money from accused and on his refusal to give any money saying that her accounts has been settled with the contractor, she started using unparliamentary language and left the factory threatening the accused to see him later.
7. DW2 is Sh. Vinod Thekedar. He deposed that he knew FIR No.509/05 State vs. Tarun Sharma 4 of FIR No: 509/05 5 State vs. Tarun Sharma the accused as accused is the owner of Sunil Plastic. DW2 used to provide him with labour for working in his factory. He further deposed that one Santosh W/o Surender Verma was kept by him at the factory of the accused sometime in October 2005. Santosh used to report for work late, constantly remained engaged on her mobile phone and would not work properly, therefore he removed her from the job and cleared her accounts after informing the accused.
8. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of accused as well as on behalf of the State and record has been meticulously perused. Before proceeding further to prove and analyse various testimonies, let us enumerate the essentials of offence which the prosecution is under a mandate to prove.
For better appreciation of facts Section 354 IPC is reproduced as hereunder: Section 354 of the Penal Code is in these words: "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years with fine, or with both". For conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, what the prosecution is required to prove is that :
a) an assault has been committed or criminal force used,
b) the object of the assault or criminal force is a woman, and
c) that it was with the intention of outraging the modesty of a woman or knowledge that it was likely that her modesty would be thereby outraged.
FIR No.509/05 State vs. Tarun Sharma 5 of
FIR No: 509/05 6 State vs. Tarun Sharma
Assault has been defined in section 351 of IPC. Assault
committed on women may be of various types and of varying degrees. Some of the other offences against women are rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and attempt to commit rape, which can be punished under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. There may be cases, and frequently there are, where the assault on a woman neither amounts to rape nor an attempt to commit it. It may still be such an assault as interferes with modesty of a woman or is considered indecent according to morality and in the eye of law. The provision contained in Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is one of the few provisions, contained in the India Penal Code to protect against indecent behaviour or lust of men. It is also intended in the interest of decency and morals and the values that the legislature attaches to the protection of woman against such assaults is obvious from the fact that it has prescribed a punishment of imprisonment of either description for two years and fine without limit as maximum penalty for such an offence. In construing Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code this object of the legislature has not to be lost sight of.
9. In the instant case, PW1 is the main prosecution witness. In her examination in chief before the court on 10.07.08, she alleged that on 13.10.05 she was working in the factory. Factory owner Tarun asked her to come upstairs for work about 1.30p.m. Factory owner asked her to carry polythene from the floor and put it in the bag. When she was doing that work at that time accused caught hold of her hand and pulled her towards him. He took him into his arms and started kissing her. Accused caught hold of her breast and tried to untie her nara. She told the accused that she is FIR No.509/05 State vs. Tarun Sharma 6 of FIR No: 509/05 7 State vs. Tarun Sharma not a lady of loose character and belongs to respectable family. She inquired from the accused whether she behaved in the similar manner with other ladies working in the factory. Accused told her that he liked her and loved her. She managed to free herself from the accused and came down stairs. After the lunch, she called the accused down stairs but he did not come. She settled her account on that day. She remained tense over this for one day. On 15.10.05 she went to inform about the incident to the father of the accused but he was not present. Accused met there and asked her as to how she entered inside the premises. Accused threatened the complainant that he will implicate her in false theft case. Therefore she called the police and lodged her complaint. It has been also deposed that when she returned from Bhoregarh accused threatened her that he will not let her work anywhere and will kill her. This witness appeared in the witness box again on 20.08.2010 for cross examination. In cross examination, she deposed that it is correct that no such incident happened as stated in examination in chief and she was not threatened by the accused. As this witness was resiling from her earlier statement, she was cross examined by Ld. APP also, to which she replied that she did not know or did not remember anything. She deposed that she never gave any statement before the court. There is no other eye witness in the present case.
10. In his defence, accused had taken defence that complainant was hired by the contractor to work in his factory but she was negligent about her work and she used to remain busy on FIR No.509/05 State vs. Tarun Sharma 7 of FIR No: 509/05 8 State vs. Tarun Sharma her mobile phone. She was asked not to report on duty by the contractor on 13.10.2005, after clearing all her accounts. Thereafter, she came to the factory of accused on 15.10.05 and asked for money. Accused refused stating she was employed by the contractor and not by the firm. On this complainant was annoyed and she started using unparliamentary language. Thereafter, she left the factory threatening him that she would see him soon, therefore this false case has been filed against him.
11. Now, I will analyse testimony of the main witness who is the complainant in detail. In her examination in chief, she remains firm but in her cross examination most of the time she gave evasive answers by replying that she did not remember or she denied even happening of the incident also. Even, if I discard her testimony regarding denial of incident in the cross examination and in her examination in chief, I find that this witness is not credit worthy and does not inspire the confidence of this court. Reason being that she herself stated that there were 7 8 workers in the factory. Then in normal circumstances, if such incident happens with any lady, it is the natural behaviour that she will shout for help or will tell to other workers in the factory. In the normal circumstances, no such lady will wait for the whole day, will do nothing and leave the place. It is not her case that she told all the other workers in the factory or other workers had also gathered there. Had such incident happened there must have other workers working in the factory come to know about this incident which did FIR No.509/05 State vs. Tarun Sharma 8 of FIR No: 509/05 9 State vs. Tarun Sharma not happen in the present case. Furthermore, the incident happened on 13.10.05, complaint was filed on 16.10.05, it seems that present complaint has been filed after due deliberation. Complainant has deposed that she was tensed during one day and on 15.10.05. She went to inform the incident to the father of the accused, however she has not given any explanation that why she did not complained to the police on 15.10.05, which again casts shadow upon the prosecution story. Delay in filing FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the above said discussed circumstances, delay in lodging FIR casts doubt upon the story of the prosecution. Time and again the object of prompt lodging of FIR has been high lighted. Delay in lodging FIR, more often then not, results in embellishment and exaggeration which is a creature of an after thought. A delayed report looses advantage of spontaneity and there are chances of coloured version, exaggerate acts of incident and concocted story which casts a serious doubt on its veracity. In the present case, the delay in FIR has not been specifically explained by the complainant. Moreover, in her cross examination at one place she deposed that the incident happened on the 2nd floor and at the other place she deposed that it is correct that no such incident happened and she was not threatened by the accused. The testimony of this witness is not static and this does not inspire the confidence of this court.
12. PW3 who is the IO of the present case, also admitted in his cross examination that no complaint was lodged on 15.10.05 and FIR No.509/05 State vs. Tarun Sharma 9 of FIR No: 509/05 10 State vs. Tarun Sharma he admitted that it is correct that till the time investigation remained with him, he did not came across with any witness in evidence which corroborated the version of the complainant. In such background, defence of the accused assumes importance that due to the termination of the complainant, she was annoyed. There is no other proof to substantiate case of the prosecution and offence has not been proved.
13. In view of the discussion above, the prosecution has failed to the prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused. Accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused Tarun Sharma stand acquitted of the offences U/s 354/509 IPC. However, his surety bond shall remain extended till six months from today u/s. 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 24.03.2012.
FIR No.509/05 State vs. Tarun Sharma 10 of