Delhi District Court
State vs . Neeraj Sharma on 26 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 : North East /
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0501972007
Sessions Case No. 238/2007
Assigned to Sessions. 28.09.2010
Arguments heard on 18.05.2011
Date of order. 26.05.2011
FIR No. 272/2006
State Vs. Neeraj Sharma
s/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand
Sharma,
r/o A8, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi.
Police Station New Usmanpur
Under Section 368/506 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Station House Officer of Police Station New Usmanpur had filed a challan vide FIR no. 272/2006 dated 28.07.2006 u/s 376 IPC for the prosecution of accused Kapil Dev Sharma which has been disposed off by this court on dated 21.01.2011. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after compliance of section 207 Cr. PC committed this State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 1/15 case for trial before this court wherein accused Neeraj Sharma was also named for offence under section 368/506 IPC but Ld. Predecessor of this court had discharged him and but the present case was challenged by State before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 15.09.2010 had directed to frame charges u/s 506 IPC against the accused Neeraj Sharma. Accordingly, this court had framed charges u/s 506 IPC against the accused Neeraj Sharma.
2. In brief facts, of the case are that on 28.07.2006 PW Babu Ram had made statement to police station New Usmanpur upon whose statement FIR No.272/2006 Ex.PW1/A was recorded u/s 363 IPC regarding missing of prosecutrix and during the course of investigation PW2 prosecutrix had made a statement to police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 17.08.2006 and 22.08.2006 wherein she had alleged that accused Neeraj Sharma being the counsel for accused Kapil Dev Sharma had threatened her that she should not go to the house of her parents and also persuaded her to go to Nari Niketan. Accordingly, vide order dated 30.11.2006 I.O. was directed by Ld. Predecessor of this court to file supplementary charge sheet against State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 2/15 accused Neeraj Sharma. Accordingly, IO had submitted charge sheet u/s 368/506 IPC against accused Neeraj Sharma.
3. As per directions of Hon'ble High Court dated 15.09.2010, this court had framed a charge u/s 506 IPC against accused Neeraj Sharma on 20.01.2011 to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 07 witnesses namely PW1 SI Chand Singh, PW2 Km. Neha - complainant, PW3 Sh. Babu Ram Saini, PW4 HC Naipal Singh, PW5 W/Ct. Noor Jahan, PW6 Sh. Ravinder Singh, Ld. ARC and PW7 Sub Inspector Jawahar Singh.
5. PW1 SI Chand Singh is a formal witness being duty officer. This witness has proved the FIR Ex.PW1/A which was recorded by him.
6. PW2 prosecutrix is a material witness. This witness has deposed that on 11.08.2006 one Kapil had taken her in the chamber of State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 3/15 accused Neeraj Sharma at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and accused Neeraj Sharma had asked her age. This witness has further deposed that accused Neeraj Sharma took her along with Kapil to Shakarpur, Delhi to get conduct the bone test where this witness has disclosed her age to doctor as 17 ½ years and doctor took her XRay for bone test.
7. This witness has further deposed that on 14.08.2006 accused Neeraj Sharma had sent her Mathura along with accused Kapil and accused Neeraj Sharma had dropped her and Kapil at Railway Station by his personal vehicle and had also provided Rs.1500/ to travel to Mathura and had arranged a room in Mathura. This witness has further deposed that on 17.08.2006 she along with Kapil had returned back to Delhi and accused Neeraj Sharma had received her at Railway Station and then he took her to his house and asked her to go to court and advised her to speak according to him. This witness has further deposed that accused Neeraj Sharma had threatened her not to see towards her parents. This witness has admits her signature on application Ex.PW1/DX in main case file of Sessions Case No.65/2006. This witness has further deposed that State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 4/15 Kapil and accused Neeraj Sharma had advised her not to join the company of her parents and further suggested her to go to Nari Niketan. Thereafter, this witness confronted her statement made to the police under section 161 Cr. P.C.
8. PW3 Sh. Babu Ram Saini. This witness has deposed that on 24.07.2006 at about 11:30 a.m. his daughter had gone to market and she did not return from there and he had made search here and there but could not locate her. This witness has further deposed that on 28.07.2006 he had given his statement in PS New Usmanpur Ex.PW2/A and on 17.08.2006 she had taken custody of her daughter from the concerned court and she was produced before court on 24.08.2006 for recording of her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
9. PW4 HC Naipal Singh is the witness of formal nature being duty officer. This witness has proved the copy of DD No.6A Ex.PW4/A in the main file SC No.65/2006.
10.PW5 W/Ct. Noor Jahan. This is the witness of custody of prosecutrix and recording of statement of prosecutrix under section State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 5/15 161 Cr.P.C. In her cross examination, this witness has deposed that prosecutrix had not made any complaint to the IO or to the Ld. MM against her advocate, Neeraj Sharma.
11.PW6 Sh. Ravinder Singh. Ld. ARC, District Courts, Karardooma Courts, Delhi is the witness of recording of statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C.
12.PW7 SI Jawahar Singh is the material witness being the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 28.07.2006 father of the prosecurtix Babu Ram had met him in the Police Station and got recorded his statement against accused Kapil Dev Sharma. On statement of father of prosecutrix he prepared rukka Ex.PW9/A and then registered FIR through Duty Officer. This witness also recorded supplementary statement of father of prosecutrix. This witness deposed that he had recorded the statement of prosecutrix u/s 161 Cr.P.C. with the permission of Ld. MM and after recording her statement prosecutrix was set free. This witness had moved application before court of Ld. MM Sh. Ravinder Singh to get State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 6/15 record the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 24.08.2006. This witness states that on 02.09.2006 accused Kapil Dev made his surrender before the court of Ld. MM from where this witness had arrested the accused Kapil Dev Sharma with the permission of the court. After one day police remand the accused Kapil Dev Sharma (accused in main Sessions Case No. 65/2006) was produced before court on 03.09.2006 from where he was sent to JC. On completion of investigation, this witness handed over case file to SHO who prepared challan and submitted the same in the court.
13.This witness has further deposed that on 30.11.2006 he and SHO/Inspector Kishan Lal were summoned by Sh. R.K. Yadav, Ld. ASJ, Ld. Predecessor of this court in case FIR NO.272/2006 and had directed him to submit supplementary charge sheet against Neeraj Sharma on the ground that prosecutrix had levelled allegations against Sh. Neeraj Sharma in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. This witness has further deposed that he had issued notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. To accused Neeraj Sharma and on refusal of notice, he had affixed a copy of the said notice on the main gate of State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 7/15 the house of Neeraj Sharma. This witness has further deposed that he had intimated in this regard to Sh. Neeraj Sharma through a phone call and when Neeraj Sharma in compliance of notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. did not appear before him then he got issued NBW against him from the court of Ld. MM on 08.12.2006 and against the proceedings of NBW Neeraj Sharma had approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi where Hon'ble High Court had directed not to arrest the accused by 08.02.2007. This witness has further deposed that on 10.12.2006 he had filed supplementary charge sheet u/s 368/506 IPC against accused Neeraj Sharma. In cross examination this witness states that he does not know who was the counsel for accused Kapil Dev Sharma but accused Neeraj Sharma had appeared in that proceedings along with some other counsel. This witness further stated that on 17.08.2006 prosecutrix had not disclosed that accused Neeraj Sharma had threatened her. This witness further states that prosecutrix neither had stated to the court nor to the police that accused Neeraj Sharma had threatened her. This witness did not bring on record any word of threat by accused Neeraj Sharma against prosecutrix in his entire testimony.
State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 8/15
14.Thereafter, PE was closed.
15.After prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded where accused denied all the allegations, evidences and circumstances put to him. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused has denied to be the counsel for accused Kapil Dev Sharma. On question of putting prosecutrix under fear not go with the parents and persuaded her to go nari Niketan, accused states that it is matter of record though the statement was tutored by the I.O. to the prosecutrix. On question of recording statement of prosecutrix under section 161 Cr.P.C., accused had stated that I.O. had recorded said statement himself. Even accused further states that in has been implicated falsely in the present case by the I.O. when in in discharge of his professional duties he produced his client i.e. Prosecutrix before the Ld. MM and during that process some hot words have exchanged between him and the I.O. because the I.O. had tried to take away the prosecutrix from him at the instance of her family members. However, accused did not prefer any defence evidence. Accordingly, matter was listed for arguments.
State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 9/15
16.Thereafter, case was fixed for final arguments. ARGUMENTS
17. Ld. APP for state, Sh. Zenual Abedeen argued that there is charge u/s 506 IPC against the accused Neeraj Sharma as he has threatened the prosecutrix. Ld. APP for the state has further argued that PW2 is the star witness and this witness has supported the case of prosecution. Ld. APP for the state has further argued that PW3 Babu Ram and PW4 HC Mahipal have also supported the case of prosecution. Ld. APP for the State has further argued that the statement of prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused for offence charged as prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
18.On the other hand, Sh. S.N Qureshi, Ld. counsel for accused submits that accused has been implicated falsely in the present case. Ld. counsel for accused further submits that offence u/s 506 IPC is not made out against accused.
State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 10/15
19.Ld. counsel for accused has stressed upon cross examination of PW2 wherein statement Ex.PW2/DA has been confronted by him.
20.Ld. counsel for accused has also stressed upon cross examination of PW5 wherein she has deposed that the prosecutrix had not lodged any complaint to the IO or Ld. MM against her advocate, the accused in her presence. PW5 has also deposed that prosecutrix had gone with her parents voluntarily and no body had abstain her while doing so. This witness has further deposed that when statement of prosecutrix was shown to Ld. MM by the I.O., prosecutrix was present with I.O. And she did not make any complaint against anyone to the court.
21.Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that prosecutrix was missing from her house on 24.07.2006 and a report was lodged by her father on 28.07.2006 and prosecurix was recovered on 02.09.2006 and after her medical examination, her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/A dated 21.08.2006 was recorded by Ld. MM wherein she had levelled allegations against accused Neeraj Sharma, Adv. And detailing State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 11/15 therein that Neeraj Sharma, Adv. Had taken her to a doctor for ossification test and he had paid fee of the doctor from his own pocket and thereafter he sent the prosecutrix along with the accused Kapil Dev Sharma to Mathura. It has further alleged that accused Neeraj Sharma had also terrorized her not to go along with her parents. In her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C dated 22.08.2006 she states that she had given statement dated 17.08.2006 under the influence of accused Kapil Bhardwaj and his advocate.
22.Before coming to any conclusion it will be relevant to discuss section 503 IPC which refers to criminal intimation. Section 503 IPC is reproduced hereunder :
Section 503 IPC :
Criminal Intimidation. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimation.
Explanation. A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 12/15
23.Further, Section 506 IPC which refers for punishment for criminal intimation is reproduced hereunder:
Section 506 IPC:
Punishment criminal intimidation - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both, if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
24.Since the present case has been tried for the offence under section 506 IPC against accused Neeraj Sharma. On perusal of record, testimony of PW2 does not suggest any word in form of criminal intimation except "accused Neeraj Sharma threatened prosecutrix not to see towards her parents and accused Kapil Dev and Neeraj Sharma had advised her not to join the company of her parents and further suggested her to go to nari niketan". Except these words there is no word or sentence on record which can be said to come in definition of criminal intimation. Even from the testimony of PW7 State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 13/15 version of PW2 is not corroborated. In section 313 Cr.P.C. accused had denied allegations levelled by PW2 (Neha Saini). Mere saying by PW2 that if she does not go to otherwise you think is not sufficient to meet out the requirement of section 506 IPC.
25.Since in the present case, from the version of PW7 it reflects that the accused Neeraj Sharma had been counsel for PW2 and if he did so that is the part of his professional duties and it may be presumed that he did so at the request of PW2 as she was at the age of 17 ½ years on date of allegation.
26.So, long as the offence u/s 506 IPC is concerned, there must be something on record which may suggest that accused had put criminal intimation upon PW2 to meet out the requirement of section 503 IPC. Hence, after taking into consideration, testimony of PW2 and record and arguments, this court comes to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the charges under section 506 IPC against accused Neeraj Sharma beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court acquit accused Neeraj Sharma from the charges under section 506 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 14/15
27.In terms of section 437 A Cr.P.C. and directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi accused Neeraj Sharma is directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in the like amount for the period of six months. File be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26.05.2011 (RAMESH KUMARII) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01/NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 15/15 State Vs. Neeraj Sharma SC No.238/07 16/15