Delhi District Court
State vs Avtaar Singh on 9 July, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. ARCHANA SINHA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 141/01
P.S Kirti Nagar
State V/s Avtaar Singh
1. S.No. of the case : 72/2/01
2. Date of Institution : 26.05.01
3. Date of Commission of offence : 19.03.01
4. Name & Add. of Complainant : Harjeet Kaur W/o Sh.
Harsharan Singh R/o
69/I, WHS, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi.
5. Name & Address of Accused : Avtaar Singh S/o Late
Sh. Mohender Singh,
R/o 69/I, WHS, Kirti
Nagar, New Delhi (aged
40 yrs).
6. Offence complained of : U/s 354/506 IPC
7. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which Judgment : 09.07.08
has been reserved
9. Date of Delivery of the Order : 09.07.08
10. Final Order : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. The brief allegations against the accused Avtaar Singh S/o Late S. Mahender Singh are that on 19.03.01 at about 4 p.m, at 69/1, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S Kirti Nagar, he used criminal force on the complainant Smt. Harjeet Kaur with the intentions to outrage her State V/s Avtaar Singh FIR No. 141/01 JK 2 modesty and also criminally intimidated her by threatening her to kill and thereby alleging to have committed the offences punishable U/s 354/506 IPC, within the cognizance of this court.
2. On the complaint of the complainant Smt. Harjeet Kaur, the matter was investigated upon by the police officials of P.S Kirti Nagar and on completion of investigation of the matter, a charge-sheet for the offences punishable U/s 354/506 IPC against the accused Avtaar Singh, was filed in the court.
3. Vide order dt. 26.05.01, the cognizance was taken by the predecessor court and vide its order dt. 01.08.03, the predecessor court of Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur, the then Ld. M.M, Delhi, framed charges against the accused Avtaar Singh, for the offences punishable U/s 354/506-II IPC on 01.08.03, to which the accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thus, the trial had commenced.
4. For proving its case, the prosecution has relied on the ocular evidence of 4 prosecution witnesses, mentioned in the list of witnesses, as per the charge-sheet, and during trial the prosecution had produced all 4 prosecution witnesses in all.
Out of these four prosecution witnesses, PW-1 H.Ct. Naresh Kumar was the formal witness being the duty officer (D.O) who had come to the witness box to authenticate the registration of the case and proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW-1/A and deposed that on 19.03.2001, while being posted at P.S Kirti Nagar, on the statement of the complainant Smt. Harjeet Kaur, he recorded the FIR bearing No. 141/01 U/s 354/506 IPC. Thus, this witness is being treated as a formal witness who had come to the witness box State V/s Avtaar Singh FIR No. 141/01 JK 3 to authenticate the registration of the case.
Similarly, PW-2 Ct. Vijay Mohan was the police official who accompanied the investigating officer during investigation and testified that he witnessed the arrest of the accused. Thus, this witness is also treated as formal witness as he has nothing to say about the occurrence or about the allegations levelled against the accused.
PW-3 ASI Kesar Singh was the investigating officer (herein after referred as IO) of this case, who had come to the witness box to prove the circumstances in which the statement of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded, the case was registered, the accused was arrested and the other documents were prepared or collected during the course of the investigation. Thus, he was the necessary and material witness to prove the circumstances and the documents prepared or collected by him but he had nothing to say about the allegations against the accused, to that extent, he is treated as a formal witness.
5. Apart from the ocular evidence of four prosecution witnesses, the prosecution also produced the documentary evidence in support of its case, the same includes the statement of the complainant Smt. Harjeet Kaur as Ex.PW-3/A, the copy of FIR Ex.PW-1/A, the personal search memo of the accused Ex.PW-2/A, the site plan Ex.PW-3/B, the arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW- 3/C. That is all for the prosecution evidence.
6. The statement of accused Avtaar Singh was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein when all the incriminating evidence and documents was put to him, he denied all the State V/s Avtaar Singh FIR No. 141/01 JK 4 allegations and incriminating evidence and documents put to him as incorrect, taking the plea that the witnesses have deposed against him being the interested witnesses and he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police officials at the instance of the complainant as there was a mis-understanding with her and now, the complainant has compromised the matter with him and she wants the disposal of the matter without any action against him.
In support of his defence, he did not lead any defence evidence (D.E).
7. I have heard the final arguments of both the parties, Ld. APP on behalf of the State and of Ld. Defence counsel Ms. Jasmeet Kaur on behalf of the accused.
Ld. APP has submitted that the case of the prosecution has been proved through the evidence of the complainant Smt. Harjeet Kaur despite her hostility, only for one point regarding the offence pertaining to offence punishable U/s 506-II IPC.
Ld. Defence counsel Ms. Jasmeet Kaur has submitted that she does not want to argue anymore on the merits as the complainant has compromised the matter by amicable means with the accused and has asked for permission to compound the offences and the permission has already been granted by the court and after permission, the parties have filed a compromise deed in the court, duly exhibited as Ex.CW-1/C in the court itself. Thus, it was requested that without going into the merits of the case, the accused may be acquitted due to compounding of the offences alleged against him.
8. I have gone through the record consisting of ocular as well as documentary evidence in the light of contentions of both the State V/s Avtaar Singh FIR No. 141/01 JK 5 parties, it is observed that for proving the offences alleged, the prosecution examined the complainant Smt. Harjeet Kaur as PW-1, to prove the registration of this case, recorded vide FIR No. 141/01 recorded on the complaint of the complainant.
It is further observed that PW-2 Ct. Vijay Mohan has proved an un-rebutted testimony that at the instance of the complainant, the accused was arrested in his presence and the accused was properly identified by this witness.
It is further observed that PW-3 ASI Kesar Singh who was the IO of the case has testified in the court that on the complaint of the complainant Smt. Harjeet Kaur, wherein she has levelled allegations of eve-teasing and criminal intimidation against the accused, he recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared a site plan at her instance and also arrested the accused at her instance and on completion of investigation, filed the charge- sheet in the court but this witness was not tendered for cross- examination in the court, on the request of the accused as Ld. Counsel was not available for his cross-examination and he could not be traced later on. Thus, this evidence cannot be read in evidence being the incomplete testimony of the witness.
It is further observed that the complainant Smt. Harjeet Kaur was the material star witness of the prosecution who was examined as PW-4 and from the testimony of this witness, it is explicitly clear that the accused at the relevant date, time and place, entered into the room of the complainant and harassed her and later on threatened her. This witness was declared hostile by the State on the point that threatening was to the extent of killing her, but she did not admit the suggestions given by the State through Ld. APP regarding any kind of threats to the extent of killing her. She also denied the suggestion that she was won over by the State V/s Avtaar Singh FIR No. 141/01 JK 6 accused. Thus, through he testimony of this witness though she was declared hostile, she has proved the allegations against the accused U/s 354/506-I IPC, with the supporting document ie. the complaint Ex.PW-3/A. The identity of the accused has already been established but the identity proved in the court by the complainant was of no consequence as the accused was known to the complainant even prior to the incident, being her neighbourer.
It is a well settled principle of law that if the witness testimony is worth to put her on credence despite hostility, her testimony can't be discarded outrightly can be relied on for the other facts duly testified stated by the witness. For these observations, the reliance is placed on a case cited as AIR 1979 SC 1433, wherein it was observed that :
"The statement of witness cannot be disbelieved simply because he is declared hostile."
9. On the above observations on law and facts, it is observed that through the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses with the supporting documents on record, the prosecution has successfully proved its case for the offences punishable U/s 354/506-I IPC against the accused, however, there was no incriminating evidence for proving the offence U/s 506 part II IPC.
10. It is further observed that the complainant Smt. Harjeet Kaur has moved an application Ex.PW-1/A U/s 320(2) Cr.P.C for compounding of the offences punishable U/s 354/506 IPC and her statement was recorded on oath in this regard, wherein she has submitted that the compromise between the parties was voluntary State V/s Avtaar Singh FIR No. 141/01 JK 7 in nature and her request for compounding of the offences was without any coercion, force or undue influence from any corner. Thus, on the statement of the complainant, the permission for compounding of the offences is granted to the complainant, after due permission, the compromise deed was field in the court duly signed by both the parties and exhibited in the court as Ex.CW-1/C.
11. Thus, on the basis of above record, it is observed that though the prosecution has successfully proved its case for offence U/s 354/506-I IPC against the accused, yet the complainant has compounded both the offences with the accused as both the offences proved against the accused are compoundable in nature, therefore, both the offences are compounded as per provisions U/s 320 (2) Cr.P.C and due to the compounding of the offences, accused Avtaar Singh is acquitted from both the offences punishable U/s 354/506-I IPC.
File be consigned to R/Room.
Announced in the open court On 9th Day of July, 2008 (DR. ARCHANA SINHA) Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi State V/s Avtaar Singh FIR No. 141/01 JK