Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Manish Maurya Alias @ John Peter vs The State on 30 November, 2024

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), SHAHDARA,
         KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

Criminal Appeal No. 131/2024                             DLSH010037922024
CNR No. DLSH01-003792-2024




In the matter of :-

Manish Maurya @ John Peter
S/o Sh. Akash Maurya
R/o B-83, G.D. Colony, Mayur Vihar,
Phase-3, Delhi
                                             .......... Appellant / accused
                                            Sh. Ashish Verma, Advocate

                                   Versus

The State (NCT of Delhi)
                                             .................... Respondent
                                     Sh. Jitendra Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP

'M'
(Name withheld in view of the
decision dated 31.08.2016 of
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Manoj Vs. State GNCT of Delhi, Crl.
Appeal No.647/2015, the name of
complainant is not being disclosed
herein, as the case involves offence
of a sexual nature. The complainant
shall be referred to as 'M')
                                              ................ Complainant
                                              Dr. S.P. Gautam, Advocate

       CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 CrPC

       Date of institution         :                 07.06.2024
       Date when judgment reserved :                 20.11.2024
       Date of Judgment            :                 30.11.2024

Criminal Appeal No.131/2024                               Page 1 of 25
Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI)
        JUDGMENT:

-

1. A girl, aggrieved of being stalked and threatened by a boy to force her to marry him, approached the police. The police acted and arrested the boy, who pleaded innocence, claiming that he and the girl were good friends and when he asked her to marry him, she not only refused, but also ended the friendship and falsely implicated him for stalking and threatening her. The boy having been convicted and sentenced for stalking and criminal intimidation, preferred this appeal.

2. The appeal is against judgment dated 25.08.2023 and order on sentence dated 01.03.2024 passed by Ld. MM Mahila Court-02 by which the accused / appellant was convicted and sentenced for offence u/s 354-D/506 IPC.

3. The present appeal has resulted from FIR No.750/2015 lodged on 29.07.2015 at PS Madhu Vihar on the complaint of complainant M. In the said complaint which is Ex.PW1/A the complainant alleged that she started living at her aunt's house, as one boy namely Manish Maurya (John Peter)/ appellant used to stalk her, threaten her and teased her. She alleged that accused Manish Maurya frequently called her and forced her to marry him, despite her refusal. She further alleged that on her refusal to marry the appellant, the appellant threatened her by calling her from his phone number. i.e. xxxxx41028 (complete mobile numbers have not been mentioned in order to protect privacy). The accused also used to call complainant's relatives and threaten them. She further stated in her Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 2 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) complaint that the accused threatened her that he would throw acid on her face if she declined his proposal of marriage. Accused also threatened and abused her brother and stated that he is an influential person, and complainant cannot do anything against the accused. It is because of these threats, complainant had to leave her job and had to file a complaint against the accused / appellant.

4. The said FIR was lodged under sections 354D/506/509 IPC. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the court on 04.08.2016. The accused was summoned to face the trial, after the Ld. Magistrate took cognizance.

5. Charges were framed against the accused for offence under sections 354D/506/509 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 08.06.2017.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses of which complainant M is PW1, her Aunt Rajeshwari is PW4 and her cousin brother Sidharth Gautam is PW7.

7. Statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 22.05.2023 wherein, he denied the entire evidence put to him. He took the defence that he and the complainant were friends and that the aunt of the complainant never liked him as she disapproved of his friendship with the complainant. He further stated in his defence that as the complainant wanted to marry some other person, therefore, she ended her friendship with the appellant and implicated him in a false case.

8. In his defence the appellant examined Ms. Babita Maurya as DW1.

Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI)

9. After hearing arguments, the Ld. Magistrate vide impugned judgment dated 25.08.2023, convicted the accused / appellant under section 354-D/506 IPC and acquitted him for the offence u/s 509 IPC. After hearing both the parties the impugned order on sentence was passed on 01.03.2024 thereby sentencing the accused / appellant as under: -

(a) simple imprisonment for two years for the offence u/s 354D IPC along with fine of Rs.5000/-

(b) simple imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 506 IPC along with fine of Rs.5000/-

(c) in default of payment of fine the appellant to undergo to imprisonment for a period of three days.

(d) Appellant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant u/s 357 CrPC and

(e) Sentences to run concurrently.

10. The judgment of conviction has been challenged by way of present appeal on the following grounds: -

10.1. The said impugned order was passed by the Ld. Magistrate without applying judicial mind or reviewing the evidence on record. There are several discrepancies in the evidence, therefore, the judgment and order against the accused / appellant are liable to be set aside.

10.2. There are several discrepancies in the evidence presented for PW-1, PW-4, and PW-7, which affects the credibility of their statements and there are material omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses.

10.3. The Ld. Magistrate has overlooked that PW-4 became aware of the harassment of the appellant in March-April Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 4 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) 2015, yet the complainant filed her complaint on July 29, 2015, resulting in a three-month delay. This delay raises questions about the veracity of the complainant's story, suggesting it may be fabricated or exaggerated. 10.4. Ld. Magistrate has not considered that PW-1, PW-4, and PW-7 are relatives, and that PW-4 and PW-7 are not the eyewitnesses to the case.

10.5. The Ld Magistrate has not considered that the investigating agency failed to examine any independent public witnesses. Consequently, the credibility of the statements of witnesses is questionable, as PW-1, PW-7, and PW-4 are relatives.

11. With respect to sentence the grounds of appeal are as under: -

11.1. Appellant faced the agony of trial for more than 09 years. 11.2. Appellant, a 29-year-old newlywed, is a young person with a bright future.

11.3. Appellant has no prior criminal record, yet the trial court, without any valid reason, denied the appellant the benefit of probation.

Arguments:

12. Sh. Ashish Verma, Ld. Counsel for the accused / appellant has submitted that in para-43 of the judgment, the Ld. Magistrate has stated that prompt registration of FIR, supports the version of complainant and the truthfulness of the allegations made by her. He has submitted that even as per the FIR Ex. PW3/B, the FIR was lodged on 29.07.2015, whereas the complainant testified that it was Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 5 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) in January 2015 that the accused threatened her over phone. Even the aunt of complainant namely PW4 Rajeshwari stated that she came to know that the accused was troubling the complainant in March - April of 2015. However, despite that the complaint was lodged as late as in July 2015. Ld. Counsel submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR indicates that the complainant had fabricated the complaint in order to implicate the accused in the present case. Ld. Counsel further submitted that despite the allegations of continuous stalking and threatening by the complainant as well as her relatives PW4 & PW7, there is not even a single independent witness to the offence of stalking or threatening of the complainant. It is submitted that both PW4 & PW7 are closely related to the complainant, not only because they are aunt and cousin of the complainant, but also for the reason that the complainant is admittedly residing with them. Ld. Counsel further submitted that none of the three witnesses specifically pointed out any date or time as to when the accused involved in the offence of stalking or threatening of the complainant. Their statement is general in nature, which lacks specifics both as regards time and manner, in which the offence was allegedly committed.

As regards sentencing, Ld. Counsel submitted that the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years for offence u/s.354D IPC is excessive as there is no previous involvement of the accused and he is a young new wed man, who has a future, which will be destroyed, if he is sentenced to prison for 2 years.

Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI)

13. Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand submitted that the accused has been rightly convicted for the offence u/s.354D / 506 IPC for the detailed reasons mentioned by the Ld. Magistrate in paras no.9 to 46 of the impugned judgment.

As regards sentencing, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the manner in which the accused continuously stalked and threatened the complainant and also threatened to throw acid upon her, is an aggravating circumstance to grant higher punishment to the accused and that imprisonment of 2 years has been rightly awarded by the Ld. Magistrate.

14. Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam, Ld. Counsels for the complainant / victim submitted that the accused has been rightly convicted by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order. He further submitted that the complainant went to the police to complain about the act of the accused only when the accused repeatedly stalked and threatened her. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that the accused has been rightly sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 2 years as the accused through his conduct made it difficult for the complainant to live a normal life and attend to her job.

Relevant legal provisions :

15. To decide the present case, it is important to discuss the provisions i.e., Section 354D/506/509 IPC.

16. As the accused was acquitted for offence u/s.509 IPC by the Ld. Trial Court and no appeal in that regard has been filed, therefore, the ingredients of Section 509 IPC are not required to be mentioned here.

17. The accused has been convicted for the offence u/s.354D Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 7 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) IPC i.e. stalking and necessary ingredients to make out the said offence as per Section 354D IPC are as under :

(I) If a man -

(i) follows a woman and contacts or attempt to contact such woman.

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, e- mail or any other form of electronic communication,

(iii) or watches or spies on a person (II) to foster personal interaction repeatedly (III) despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman.

18. The accused has also been convicted for the offence u/s.506 IPC i.e. criminal intimidation and necessary ingredients to make out the said offence as per Section 503/506 IPC are as under :

(I) Threatening a person with any injury ;

(i) to his person, reputation or property ; or

(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.

(II) The threat must be with intent ;

(i) to cause alarm to that person ; or

(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat ; or

(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI)

19. Analysis of evidence with respect to offence u/s.354D IPC (i.e. whether the accused repeatedly followed the complainant and contacted or attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction, despite a clear indication of disinterest by complainant) The complainant categorically testified regarding the repeated attempts made by the accused to contact her both physically and telephonically in her examination in chief as under :

"In the year 2015, I was residing at my mother's house. Accused Manish Maurya ((Accused is present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness) was residing in my neighbourhood. At that time, he had disclosed his name as John Peter. I received a friend request on facebook from John Peter (facebook account) in the year 2015. I accepted the friend request. We started chating on facebook. I did not give my mobile to accused and I do not know how he obtained my mobile number. Thereafter, accused called me on my mobile number. I talked to him as a friend. Thereafter, he started pressurizing me for marriage in the month of October 2015 and started following me to my office. Once he threatened me that if I will not marry him and talk to him, he will throw acid on my face. Thereafter, I shifted to my mausi's house due to this problem. I changed phone number several times but he kept on calling me. I do not know how he obtained my numbers. Accused also started calling my friends, colleagues, my family members and used to inquire why I talk to them. I stopped picking his phone but whenever I received any phone from unknown number, I picked the same. I disconnected my phone number xxxxx08122 in the year 2015 as accused was having my this phone number and he was harassing me on this number. After few days of disconnection of my mobile number, I came to know that someone else is using my above said mobile number on whatsapp. I called customer care and came to know that accused Manish Maurya was using that mobile number".

19.1. The complainant in her examination-in-chief admitted that initially she started chatting with the accused on Facebook Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 9 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) and thereafter also talked to her over phone as friend. However, the things took an ugly turn, when the accused started pressurising the complainant for marriage. Complainant categorically stated that the accused started following her to her office and also threatened her that if she did not agree to marry him, he would throw acid on her face. It is because of those threats and continuous following by the accused that the complainant shifted to her aunt's (PW4) house. Ld. APP for the State also cross- examined the complainant in which the complainant testified as under :

"It is correct that I left my parental house because accused Manish Maurya (John Peter) "vo mujhe aate jaate chhedta hai aur dhamki deta hai".

Q. What do you mean by chhedta hai? Ans. Accused restrained my way and wanted to talk to me forcibly. He used to threaten me that he will disfigure my face by throwing acid. Twice he said that he will disfigure my face by throwing acid. I do not remember the exact date however it happened in August 2015.

It is correct that when I refused the marriage proposal of accused, he started calling me on my mobile phone number xxxxx08122 from his mobile number xxxxx41028. It is correct that accused was repeatedly calling me and my relatives despite my objection. It is correct that accused called my brother and said to him that he will defame me and "aur tumhe kahi mu dekhane ke layak nahi chodunga". Vol. Several time accused threatened me that I cannot do anything against him. It is correct that accused called to my brother on his mobile number xxxxx23331 from M.No.xxxxx41028 and said to him that "main gun supply karta hu tumhe jo ukhadna haid ukhadlo jaha case karna hai kar lo maine tumhari behen ka phone bhi tracking par lagvaya hua hai". It is correct that accused used to call us on mobile no.xxxxx23331 and xxxxx08122".

Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) 19.2. In the aforesaid cross-examination, the complainant further clarified that the accused used to repeatedly restrain her way and wanted to talk to her forcibly. She further stated that it was upon her refusal to marry the accused that the accused started calling her on her mobile number xxxxx08122 from his mobile number xxxxx41028. Accused not only called her, but also started calling her relatives, despite her objection. Accused also called her brother (PW7) and said to him that he would defame the complainant. Complainant was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused. Relevant portion of the cross-examination is as under :

"I do not remember when the accused started messaging on Facebook. It is correct that accused started messages on Facebook in year 2014. It is wrong to suggest that my Facebook friendship was started with accused in year 2014. It is correct that I had replied to the message of accused once or twice. It is correct that accused had sent me a friend request on Facebook and since we had mutual friends I had accepted the request of the accused. I do not remember when accused had called me and when I had spoken to the accused. It is correct that I had talked to the accused as a friend.

Q. Can you tell since when accused started following you till your office?

Ans. Since 2015, accused had on and off started following me. I do not remember the exact date.

Did you ever make a complaint to police that accused had Started following you?

Ans Yes, in August 2015 to the concerned SHO of Madhu Vihar.

Q. Is there any other complaint other then the above mentioned complaint which you have made? Ans. Yes, I do not remember the date, month and year regarding the same.

I do not remember the complaint number.

Q. When did accused threaten you for throwing acid on your Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 11 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) face if you denied to his proposal of marriage? Ans. Around January 2015, however I cannot recall the exact month. Accused has threatened me of the same over phone and also face to face outside my office".

19.3. In the examination-in-chief, the complainant had stated that the accused started pressurising the complainant for marriage in October 2015, though, the FIR is dated 29.07.2015. This discrepancy was however ironed out in the cross-examination, when upon being specifically questioned, that since when the accused started following the complainant, she testified that "since 2015, accused had on and off started following me. I do not remember the exact date". On being specifically asked as to when the accused threatened to throw acid on her, the complainant that it was in January 2015, though, she was unable to recall the exact month. In answer to question as regards the complaint to police, complainant stated that the complaint was made by the complaint in August 2015, which is understandable, as the complaint is dated 29.07.2015 and the witness was making this deposition in September 2022. Therefore, the timeline given by the complainant in her examination-in-chief is corrected and clarified in her cross-examination. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that the deposition of the complainant took place many years after the incident, while appreciating her testimony.

19.4. It was repeatedly argued that the complainant neither in her statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C., nor in her deposition gave any specific date and time with respect to the allegations Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 12 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) of accused following her or calling her or threatening her repeatedly. It was also argued that if the threat to throw acid was advanced in January 2015, as stated by complainant in her cross-examination, then why the complaint was lodged after delay of seven months on 29.07.2015.

19.5. Both these arguments need to be dealt with after taking into account the realities of life and that how conducive the system and society is for a girl to approach the police, even if she is facing such type of harassment. It is not at the very first instance of threat or stalking that a girl approaches the police. In Indian society, before a girl approaches police to complain of such offence, she has to come over, not only her own inhibitions, but also that of her family members. Such offences cannot be compared with offences of theft or robbery, as these kind of offences become hot topic for discussion among the members of the society where the girl resides, specially when the culprit is a neighbour or resides in same locality. The very fact that a girl alongwith her family member approached police to complain of such offence, is evidence of the fact that she was deeply disturbed by the conduct of the accused and could not bear it anymore. It is generally after prolong discussion in the family that a decision to approach police is taken and it is not expected of the victim / complainant to have kept notes from the very first day, she was threatened or stalked regarding date, time and place of the same. It may be noted that PW4 (aunt of the complainant) in her cross-examination categorically stated "we filed the Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 13 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) complaint lastly when accused started trouble us severely". Further, even the brother of complainant (PW7) stated that "Firstly, we ignored her complaint as we do not want to take any legal action........Thereafter, we filed complaint against accused Manish Maurya before PS. Accused Manish had harassed and humiliated my sister continuously". The delay in lodging of FIR, therefore, stands explained.

19.6. It may be argued that even in India, there are cases of false implication in offences having sexual overtone, however, that is not the case here, because it is not the defence of the accused that he was implicated falsely because of previous enmity between him and the complainant or between their families. In his statement u/s.313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that the complainant lodged a false complaint against accused, as she wanted to marry some other person and end her friendship with the accused. The reason given by accused is inconceivable, because to end a friendship or even a relationship, one does not have to approach the police, obviously, unless the other side is hellbent to continue the relationship and starts stalking or threatening for that purpose. At this juncture, it would be apt to mention what the Ld. Trial Judge observed on 27.05.2019 and what the mother (DW1) of accused had to say about the accused.

Court observation dated 27.05.2019, while recording examination-in-chief of PW4 (aunt of complainant) :

"Accused used to make status on facebook by showing the tattoo in the name of my niece.

Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) Court observation : The accused directed to show hand and it is found that on the left upper arm there is a tattoo heart depicting the name of complainant."

DW1 (mother of accused) in her examination-in-chief dated 26.06.2023 testified :

"My son i.e. accused Manish was madly in love with the complainant but complainant was adamant on breaking the relationship with the accused. Accused Manish was also admitted to the hospital".

19.7. The aforesaid observation and deposition indicate the mental status of the accused with respect to the relationship that he wanted to have with the complainant. 19.8. As rightly pointed out by Ld. Trial Court in para-42 of the judgment, the aforesaid observation and deposition establishes that the accused wanted to have serious relationship with complainant, culminating into marriage, which forms the motive behind the offence u/s.354D/506 IPC, for which the accused has been convicted. 19.9. It was also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the contradictions in the statement of complainant u/s.164 Cr.P.C. and her statement before the Court.

19.10. In the opinion of this Court, the said argument has been aptly dealt with by Ld. Trial Court in para-16 of the impugned judgment, reproduced herein below:

"In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/B complainant has deposed on similar lines as she has stated in her original complaint Ex. PW1/A. PW1 has stated in Ex. PW1/B that accused used to call her day and night. He threatened her to throw acid on her face. Accused used to follow her despite her clear disinterest. He also threatened the Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 15 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) complainant that he was into business of smuggling guns. He threatened her brother as well. It is a well settled law that statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence, but can be used for corroborate of the material particular. In her original complaint she has stated that due to the conduct of the accused, she got her mobile number disconnected. It appears to be a minor inconsistency. The testimony of witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely on an account of minor contradiction or omission. Reliance can be profitably placed on the judgment Narayan Chetan Ram Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (200) 8 SCC 457 (para 17). The examination-in-chief is corroborated by statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/B".

20. The evidence of PW1 that the accused was repeatedly trying to contact her and even threatened her on certain occasions is further corroborated by the call records, as available in the CDR collected by the investigating agency during investigation. The Ld. Trial Court rightly took note of these call records in para-26 of the impugned judgment, as under :

"Perusal of Ex. PW6/A (colly) reveals that accused has called the complainant several times on 11.06.2015, 28.06.2015, 02.07.2015, 03.07.2015, 07.07.2015 and 10.07.2015. On 03.07.2015, 17.07.2015, 24.07.2015 and 05.08.2015 he called PW7 many times. Perusal of the customer application form Ex. PW5/C (colly) and another customer application form bearing mobile number xxxxx08122 and xxxxx23331 belong to PW1 / complainant and PW7 brother of the complainant respectively. Perusal of the CDR of mobile no.xxxxx23331 which belongs to PW7 reveals that accused has called the brother of complainant / PW7 on 03.07.2015, 17.07.2015, 24.07.2015 many times. Similarly, perusal of the CDR of phone no.xxxxx08122 reveals that accused called PW1 on 11.06.2015, 28.06.2015, 02.07.2015, 03.07.2015, 07.07.2015, 10.07.2015. The deposition of PW1 and PW7 is in consonance with the Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 16 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) CDRs. CDR is an important piece of evidence and may be used as corroborative evidence. The CDRs are accompanied by Section 65B certificate and the same being relevant and admissible under Indian Evidence Act. Perusal of the CDRs of the accused, complainant and the brother of the complainant reveals that accused has called the complainant and her brother multiple times".

21. Ld. Trial Court in the aforesaid para of the judgment rightly noted that CDR is an important piece of evidence, which corroborates the evidence given by the complainant. It may be noted that the complainant was given an opportunity to explain his conduct as to why so many calls were made by him to the complainant and her brother in his statement u/s.313 Cr.P.C., but he did not give any explanation for the same at that stage. Further, even in the appeal, there is no mention of the CDR in the grounds of appeal, meaning thereby that the accused has conceded that the CDRs are a corroborating piece of evidence to show that the accused was regularly calling the complainant as well as her brother (PW7).

22. Coming to the testimony of PW7, he categorically stated that the complainant had informed her that the accused was regularly harassing and misbehaving with her by repeatedly calling her. He also testified that he too received call from accused Manish Maurya in 2015, wherein he threatened to eliminate him.

23. It was strenuously argued that this witness in his statement stated that the complainant had been residing with her since her childhood, which shows that the statement of the complainant that she shifted to the house of her aunt Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 17 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) because of the harassment caused to her by the accused is incorrect.

The said argument is devoid of merits for the reason that PW7 after stating that the complainant resided with them since her childhood, further stated, that in 2013 she went to Rajbir Colony to reside with her parents and only came back to the house of PW4 and PW7 in the year 2014 or 2015. The testimony of this witness, therefore, corroborates the statement given by the complainant in the Court as well as in her initial complaint Ex. PW1/A.

24. PW7 also stated in his testimony that the accused used to telephonically call on mobile phone of her sister and used to threaten her that in case she did not marry him, he would kill her, her brother, sister-in-law and her friends. He also testified that in the month of June 2015, at about 8.00 - 8.30 p.m., the accused came in front of his house, where he parked his motorcycle in street and started misbehaving with the passersby. He also stated that the accused called him and threatened that he would make viral the photos and videos of her sister (complainant) which he had received from a friend namely Sameer. It was argued that the evidence of this witness is hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible. However, the Ld. Trial Court rightly dealt with this argument as well, while observing in para-30 that the testimony of this witness as well as PW4, though, hearsay is admissible as res-gestae u/s.61 of the Indian Evidence Act. The testimony of this witness is also supported by the CDR record, as per which, the accused 1 Recorded as u/s.60 in the impugned judgment, may be due to typographical error.

Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) called this witness repeatedly on 03.07.2015, 17.07.2015 and 24.07.2015.

25. PW4 is the aunt of the complainant, with whom the complainant is residing and her deposition also corroborates the testimony of PW1. PW4 deposed in her examination-in-chief that the accused used to threaten her niece (complainant) and used to say that he would not let the complainant marry any other person. The accused also used to call her son as well as the complainant repeatedly and also made calls to the friends of the complainant. PW4 also testified regarding the incident when the accused parked his motorcycle in front of their house and started abusing the complainant and threatened to kill her and her family members. Thus, she too corroborated the testimony of complainant.

26. The Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that all the three public witnesses, including the complainant, are related to each other and that there is not even a single independent public witness examined by the prosecution. This argument too has been considered by the Ld. Magistrate in para-45 of the impugned judgment, while observing that the non-joining of independent witness by the investigating agency, does not adversely effect the credibility of the depositions of complainant (PW1), her aunt (PW4) and her brother (PW7). The Ld. Magistrate aptly noted that in the present time, no public person comes forth to join investigation, as it is considered burdensome to attend the Court to give evidence.

Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI)

27. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Ld. Trial Court rightly relied upon the testimonies of complainant, her aunt and her brother as well as the call detail records produced by PW5 and PW6 in order to conclude that the accused used to follow the complainant and contacted as well as made repeated attempts to contact the complainant to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of disinterest by the complainant.

Analysis of evidence with respect to offence u/s.506 IPC (i.e. whether the accused threatened the complainant with injury to her person or reputation or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom she is interested, with intent to cause alarm or to make her to marry the complainant, which she is not legally bound to do).

28. As stated earlier, PW1, PW4 and PW7 testified that the accused regularly called the complainant and threatened her of dire consequences, if she did not agree to marry the accused. The complainant in her deposition, as reproduced earlier, had categorically stated that the accused threatened to throw acid on the face of the complainant, in case she did not agree to marry him and talk to him. In her cross- examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, the witness has reiterated the said allegations and stated that it was twice that the said threat was extended by the accused to the complainant. The said deposition of the complainant is in line with the allegations made in the complaint Ex. PW1/A, wherein also the complainant alleged that the accused threatened to throw acid on her face. The same statement was also made by the complainant in her Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 20 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. dated 30.07.2015 before the Ld. ACMM.

29. As stated earlier, the motive behind the said threat has been duly established by the prosecution as the prosecution proved beyond doubt that the accused claimed to be madly in love with the complainant, also got her name tattooed on his left upper arm and wanted to marry her desperately.

30. Therefore, it stands established from the testimonies of PW1, PW4 & PW7 corroborated by the CDR produced by PW5 and PW6, that the accused repeatedly extended threats to the complainant of causing her bodily injury by throwing acid upon her and also to cause injury to her reputation by making her photos / videos viral and by causing bodily injury to her relatives and friends, with intent to make her to marry the accused.

31. In opinion of the Court, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly analysed the evidence available on record, so as to reach the conclusion that the prosecution proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offences u/s.354D/506 IPC.

Findings on sentence (i.e. whether the sentence awarded is excessive)

32. The accused has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years for offence u/s.354D IPC and for one year for offence u/s.506 IPC.

33. In the appeal, the said order on sentencing has been challenged by the accused on the ground that the same is Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 21 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) excessive, in view of the fact that the accused has no previous involvement and he has faced the agony of trial for 9 years. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the accused is a 29 years old man, who got recently married and has a bright future ahead, which would be devastated if he is made to undergo imprisonment so awarded by the Ld. Magistrate. Ld. Counsel submitted that accused being first offender should have been given the benefit of probation so as to correct himself.

34. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for complainant stated that the accused has been rightly sentenced by the Ld. Magistrate as the accused caused severe harassment and humiliation to the complainant. The accused not only stalked and threatened her, but also threatened her relatives and also tried to defame her by calling her relatives and friends.

35. As far as the request for probation is concerned, it may be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Ajahar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal (04.10.2013 - SC) Manu/SC/1016/2013, while dealing with a convict u/s.354 IPC, has held as under :

"12. In the instant case, as the appellant has committed a heinous crime and with the social condition prevailing in the society, the modesty of a woman has to be strongly guarded and as the appellant behaved like a road side Romeo, we do not think it is a fit case where the benefit of the Act 1958 should be given to the appellant".

36. In the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid judgment, the accused is not entitled to be given the benefit of probation.

Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI)

37. The second ground praying for leniency is that the accused faced agony of trial for 9 years. On this aspect, in State of U.P. v. Shri Kishan MANU/SC/1022/2004 : AIR 2005 SC 1250, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that too sympathetic view should be avoided on account of lapse of time. The Court held:

"...... Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'."

38. In Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0625/2012 : AIR 2012 SC 3242, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the ground of sympathy or delay as the same cannot be any ground for reduction of sentence.

39. The fact that trial took 9 years, cannot be a ground to take too sympathetic a view towards the accused.

40. Lastly, it was submitted that the accused is a newly wed man of young age, having bright future, hence, long incarceration would not serve the desired purpose of reformation. It was pointed out during the course of Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 23 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) arguments by Ld. Counsel for complainant, that accused has got married, but the complainant has not been able to move ahead in life because of the incident and is still unmarried.

41. The very fact that the family of the complainant is pursuing this case by engaging lawyers, even after 9 years of the incident, shows the pain and agony, which the complainant and her family have undergone, since the accused started stalking and threatening the complainant. As stated in the FIR itself, the complainant had to leave her job because of conduct of the accused. Thus, the conduct of accuse had a debilitating effect on the life of complainant.

42. Further, the conduct of accused after he was convicted vide impugned judgment on 25.08.2023 also needs to be noted. After convicting the accused on 25.08.2023, Ld. Trial Court posted the matter for sentencing on 06.10.2023 and thereafter on 13.10.2023. The accused did not appear before Ld. Trial Court on 13.10.2023, leading to issuance of warrants and finally process u/s.82 Cr.P.C. Again, after the sentencing, bail was granted u/s.389(3) Cr.P.C. for one month, however, on next date (after a month) i.e. 01.04.2024, the accused again failed to appear before Trial Court, though by that time, he had not even filed the present appeal. Again, warrants were issued and thereafter even process u/s.82 Cr.P.C. was issued against accused.

43. Keeping in view all the factors, in the opinion of this Court, Ld. Trial Court has rightly sentenced the accused both for offences u/s.354D IPC and u/s.506 IPC.

Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI) Final order

44. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the finding of Ld. Trial Court on sentence in impugned order dated 01.03.2024 are upheld.

45. The present appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

46. Copy of this order alongwith TCR, if any, be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.

47. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the accused.

48. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.

SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Announced in the open Court Date: 2024.11.30 LALER 15:07:43 +0530 on 30th November, 2024 (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler) Special Judge (NDPS Act), Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.131/2024 Page 25 of 25 Manish Maurya @ John Peter Vs The State (NCT of DELHI)