Delhi District Court
Ravinder @ Juli vs The State on 27 October, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.NARINDER KUMAR:SPECIAL JUDGE2
NDPS ACT:(CENTRAL DISTRICT):TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
Decided on: 27.10.2017
Crl. Appeal No.: 216/17 of 23.10.2017
In the matter of:
Ravinder @ Juli
S/o Sh. Harvansh Lal,
R/o H. No. 1084, Bartan Market,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
The State .....Respondent
JUDGMENT
By way of present appeal, appellant has challenged judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2017 and order on sentence dated 26.09.2017 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR No. 65/2017 of PS Sadar Bazar.
2. Vide impugned judgment and order on sentence, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has convicted and sentenced the accused for offences under Section 354, 355 and 509 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submitsthat the version put forth by the complainant and her grand daughter 2 cannot be said to be probable.
Learned counsel submits that had the accused been involved in any such crime, he would have run away from the spot but herein case of the prosecution is that he remained present at the spot and the police arrested him on their arrival. So, it is submitted that since the accused has been falsely implicated on account of some misunderstanding, he is entitled to acquittal.
4. Case came to be registered on the statement Ex PW1/A of the complainant wherein she alleged that while she and her grand daughter were in the market and in front of street no. 11, from their opposite side, the accused came there, saw towards her and started hurling abuses at her, then spat on her and when she objected to it, he caught hold of her by hand and neck and misbehaved with her.
5. Undisputedly, the accused was apprehended at the spot. According to the complainant, she informed PCR dialing No. 100 whereupon police reached there and the produced the accused before the police.
Complainant made statement in Court as PW1, whereas her grand daughter deposed as PW2.
36. While appearing in Court complainant narrated the manner in which the occurrence took place on the given date, time and place corroborating the version submitted by her to the police while making statement Ex PW1/A. PW2 also made statement in consonance with the statement made by her maternal grand mother.
7. It is true that PW2 also stated that accused had touched in between her (grand mother's) legs, PW1 did not state this fact while making statement before the police or in chief examination, But, in her crossexamination she clearly stated about this fact as well.
9. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that no person from the public was associated.
It is true that during investigation, no other witness was joined in the investigation from the said area, but their non joining does not adversely affect the case of prosecution when there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 and PW2. Learned Trial Magistrate has rightly relied on the statements of PW1 and PW2 complainant and her grand daughter.
10. From the material available on record, it stands established that the accusedappellant committed offence under 4 Section 509 IPC by hurling abuses at the complainant.
Since accused accusedappellant assaulted complainant and used criminal force with intent to outrage her modesty, learned Trial Magistrate has rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 354 IPC.
11. In view of the findings of guilt recorded for offence under Section 354 IPC, separate conviction for the offence under Section 355 IPC was not required as words "to any person used in Section 355 IPC, includes a woman".
Accordingly judgment of conviction for offence under Section 355 IPC and order on sentence for the said offence is set aside.
12. On the point of sentence, learned Addl. PP has rightly pointed out that the occurrence having taken place on 21.03.2017 and the offence under Section 354 IPC having been substituted in the year 2013 (by Act 13 of 2013) minimum punishment by way of imprisonment not less than one year has been prescribed.
Court does not find any ground to show leniency on the point of sentence for the offence under Section 354 and 509 IPC, having regard to the nature of act done by the accused.
5Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
Sentences for fine for the offences under Section 354 and 509 IPC are also maintained.
13. As a result, appeal is partly allowed.
14. Trial court record be returned. Copy of this order be sent to learned trial court.
15. File of appeal be consigned to RecordRoom.
Announced in the open Court on 27th day of October, 2017 (NARINDER KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGE2, NDPS ACT CENTRAL DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI