Delhi District Court
State vs . Jarif Ahmad on 28 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS POOJA AGGARWAL:
METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02: (MAHILA COURTS) : SOUTH DISTRICT :
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Jarif Ahmad
FIR No. : 1180/15
U/S : 354/354D/506 IPC
PS : Ambedkar Nagar
UID NO. : 02406R0019412016
DETAILS OF THE CASE
a) Serial number of the case : 9/2(15.01.2016)
b) Date of commission of offence : 03.12.2015
c) Date of institution of the case : 15.01.2016
d) Name of the complainant : Smt. Sonali Pal
D/o. Sh. Jadav Pal
e) Name, Parentage & Address : Sh. Jarif Ahmad
of the accused S/o. Sh. Sarif Ahmad
R/o. Jhuggi no. A858, Subhash
Camp, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi.
f) Offence complained of : 354/354D/506 IPC
g) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 29.02.2016
i) Date of judgment : 28.03.2016
j) Final Order : Acquittal
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1.The accused Jarif Ahmad has been sent to face trial on the complaint of Ms.Sonali Pal wherein she has alleged that on 03.12.2015 she was going to her job at Greater KailashII from her house, when near the FIR No. 1180/15 State V. Jarif Ahmad Page 1 of 10 bridge before Don Bocso at Jahapanah Forest at about 10.30 am, the accused Jarif (who resides at her colony) came running from behind, slapped her, caught hold of her from her breasts and also threatened to injure her with a blade but that 23 boys (whom she did not know) were passing by and saved her. She has further stated that the accused Jarif had also followed her many times earlier and that prior to this incident he had asked her to befriend him or else he will throw acid on her face due to which she has threat for her life as well as of her family from the accused. She has stated that the she had called at number 100 but the accused had run away. She has also stated that the accused is also an addict and even earlier he had fought with them and even had injury.
2. After registration of the FIR upon the complaint of the complainant on 03.12.2015, investigation was carried out and upon completion of the same, charge sheet was filed in the court on 15.01.2016 on which date the Accused was also produced from Judicial Custody and was duly supplied with the complete set of challan and documents in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Vide order dated 01.02.2016, charge was framed against the accused Jarif Ahmad under section 354/354D/506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case and discharge the initial burden of proof cast upon it, the prosecution examined three witnesses.
5. PW1 Sonali Pal was the Complainant herself and stated that on FIR No. 1180/15 State V. Jarif Ahmad Page 2 of 10 03.12.2015 at about 10:0010:30 am when she was on her way to work, near Jahapanah forest the accused Jarif came from behind and caught hold of her from her back side. She has further deposed that he held her breast upon which she pushed him, he slapped her and also showed a blade to her and tried to injure her but two passerby helped her and they snatched the blade from the hand of accused and threw it. She has further deposed that she was crying after the incident and that the aunties from the locality gathered there and helped her and that she called at 100 number from her mobile phone and the accused ran away. She has further deposed that accused also abused her and threatened to kill her and that the accused had been following her since class 10th and had proposed to her but she had refused and she had to leave her computer classes due to the accused following her. She has further deposed that she made her complaint vide Ex.PW1/A and that the accused was arrested from his house vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B.
6. PW1 was duly cross examined by the accused and during her cross examination the accused was able to elicit that one of the aunties who had gathered there was named Laxmi Mausi who wasn't her real Mausi who had accompanied her to the police station as also had informed the family of the complainant. Further while the PW1 during her cross examination denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested by four boys conversant with the accused, she volunteered that they had only brought the accused before the police.
FIR No. 1180/15 State V. Jarif Ahmad Page 3 of 10
7. PW2 Ct. Monu Yadav who had accompanied the Investigating Officer has deposed that on 03.12.2015 upon receipt of DD no. 27A, IO went with him to Jahanpanah forest Don Bosco Bridge where they met the complainant/PW1 who gave hand written complaint Ex.PW1/A to the IO who prepared the rukka, handed over the rukka to him and he got the FIR Ex.P1 registered through the duty officer and after registration handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to IO/SI Krishan Kumar. PW2 further deposed that IO/SI Krishan Pal arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B and conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW2/A whereafter medical examination of accused was conducted and he was sent to judicial custody by the court. PW2 was duly cross examined by the accused.
8. PW3 SI Krishan Pal was the Investigating Officer and deposed on similar lines as PW2 and deposed that he had reached alongwith the PW2 at Jahapahan Forest, Don Bosco Bridge on 03.12.2015 after receiving DD no. 24D where complainant gave him a handwritten complaint Ex.PW1/A. He also deposed as to preparing the rukka and getting the FIR registered through PW2 as also as to preparing the site plan Ex.PW3/A at the instance of the complainant, arresting the accused Jarif vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B and conducting his personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/A, getting the accused medically examined at S J Hospital, getting the statement of complainant recorded u/s. 164 CrPC from Ld. MM, South, Saket Court. The IO was duly cross FIR No. 1180/15 State V. Jarif Ahmad Page 4 of 10 examined by the accused wherein he deposed that complainant had told him that she was not aware of the names of the passersby nor was she aware about them.
9. Vide separate statement under Section 294 CrPC, the accused admitted factum of registration of FIR 1180/15 PS Ambedkar Nagar ExP1 (colly.), factum of recording of DD no. 24A dt. 03.12.2015 PS Ambedkar Nagar Ex.P2 and factum of recording of statement of complainant u/s. 164 CrPC Ex.P3 (colly.) and did not dispute above said documents and did not call for their formal proof or genuineness.
10. Prosecution Evidence was thereafter closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein the incriminating evidence was put to accused who maintained his innocence. The accused did not lead any defence evidence
11. Final arguments addressed by Ms Vandana Sharma, Ld Remand/Legal Aid counsel for the accused and by Sh. Ritendra Singh, Ld APP for the State have been carefully considered and I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence on record.
12. It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
13. In the present case, it is duly noted that the complainant/PW1 has not been consistent in the version put across by her. For instance in her complaint Ex. PW1/A relied upon by her in her examination in chief she has stated that the accused Jarif had come running from behind, FIR No. 1180/15 State V. Jarif Ahmad Page 5 of 10 slapped her, caught hold of her from her breasts and also threatened to injure her with a blade whereas in her examination in chief she has deposed that accused Jarif came from behind and caught hold of her from her back side. She has further deposed that he held her breast upon which she pushed him, he slapped her and also showed a blade to her and tried to injure her. Thus, there is a variation in the sequence of events in as much as whether he had slapped her prior to holding her breast as stated in Ex PW1/A or whether it was subsequently as deposed to during her examination in chief. Further there is also an improvement as in Ex. PW1/A she has stated that the accused had merely threatened to injure her with a blade whereas in her examination in chief she has deposed that he had infact tried to injure her. It is also duly noted that the initial complaint Ex PW1/A is conspicuously silent as to the blade being thrown by the passersby after snatching it from the accused as has been deposed to by the complainant/PW1 in her evidence. Thus, PW1 has improved upon her version while deposing in the court.
14. It is also duly noted that there is an improvement in her testimony when she deposes that hearing her cry the aunties from the locality had gathered there and helped her as her complaint Ex PW1/A is silent as to the presence of the aunties.
15. It is also worthwhile to note that in the present case the prosecution has only examined the complainant as an eye witness. Despite her having FIR No. 1180/15 State V. Jarif Ahmad Page 6 of 10 deposed that two passersby and aunties had gathered at the alleged time of the incident, neither the two boys nor the aunties have been examined by the prosecution. Despite PW1 having deposed during her crossexamination that she recognised Laxmi Mausi and that she alongwith the Laxmi Mausi and one lady constable had gone to the Police Station and that her Mausi had left after going to the police station thereby indicating that the identity of the Laxmi mausi was well within the knowledge of the complainant, Laxmi mausi was not examined as a witness despite being a material witness.
16. It is also pertinent to note that the PW1 has also deposed during her examination in chief that on the day of the incident the accused had shown a blade to her and had tried to injure her but the two passersby had snatched the blade and thrown it. The said blade however has not been produced by the prosecution.
17. The non examination of any public/independent witness as well as the non recovery of the weapon used during the alleged offences assume importance for the reason that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of a sole eye witness. It is not a case where the facts as narrated indicate to the offence having been committed in the presence of none else except the complainant for the reason that as per the PW1 two passersby were present there and were eyewitnesses to the entire incident yet they have not been examined by the prosecution.
18. No doubt that the sole testimony of an eyewitness cannot be FIR No. 1180/15 State V. Jarif Ahmad Page 7 of 10 disbelieved merely because of the absence of any corroborative evidence however, it does come with a rider that the testimony in that case should inspire confidence and should be reliable as well as trustworthy. In the present case the veracity of the testimony of the complainant/PW1 is shaken in view of the improvements and variations as discussed.
19. Coming specifically to the offences for which the accused has been charged, it is noted that the testimony of PW1 is consistent as to the accused pressing her breast. However, as already discussed, the sole testimony of the PW1 does not inspire confidence and hence prosecution cannot be said to have proved the ingredients of Section 354 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
20. It is also duly noted that the testimony of the PW1 as to the accused following her does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 354D IPC as her testimony as to him following her since class 10th cannot be construed to mean that he had contacted her or attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite clear indication of disinterest by her as she has herself deposed that after she rejected his proposal he did not follow her for one year though she has stated that it was because one of her known to brother had counseled the accused. Her testimony as to accused following her again after one year in the absence of any deposition as any clear indication of disinterest by her also does not satisfy the ingredients of the said offence especially as no FIR No. 1180/15 State V. Jarif Ahmad Page 8 of 10 specific time has been deposed to for the same nor has the manner of the same been elucidated. Thus, with the prosecution failing to produce sufficient proof of the accused having committed an offence under Section 354D IPC the accused is entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt and be acquitted.
21. In respect of the offence under Section 506 IPC, it was for the prosecution to prove that the accused had threatened the complainant to attack her with a blade and also to throw acid on her face. However the testimony of PW1 is only to the effect that the accused had threatened to kill her. She has rather gone on to depose that the accused had tried to injure her with a blade thereby negating the version of the prosecution that the accused had threatened to attack her with the blade as from the testimony of PW1 it would transpire that the accused had already attacked and tried to cause injury thus taking the act beyond the scope of Section 503 IPC punishable under Section 506 IPC. It is also worthwhile to note that the entire testimony of PW1 is silent as to any threat by the accused to thrown acid on her face and hence the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the Section 503 IPC punishable under Section 506 IPC.
22. Thus, from the entire evidence on record, as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and thus the accused Jarif is given the benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the offences under section 354/354D/506 IPC in the FIR no. 1180/15 PS FIR No. 1180/15 State V. Jarif Ahmad Page 9 of 10 Ambedkar Nagar. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC which shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
23. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court (POOJA AGGARWAL)
on 28.03.2016 Metropolitan Magistrate02 (Mahila Court)
South District/ Saket/New Delhi
FIR No. 1180/15 State V. Jarif Ahmad Page 10 of 10