Delhi District Court
State vs . Gulshan Kumar on 22 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: WEST02, DELHI
FIR No.605/04
Case ID: 02401R1347232006
State Vs. Gulshan Kumar
PS Rajouri Garden
U/s 509 IPC
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 58/II/05 Date of commission of offence 05.08.2004 Date of institution of the case 18.03.2005 Name of the complainant Mrs. Anamika
Name of accused, parentage & Gulshan Kumar S/o Gain Chand R/o
address C54, Hastal Vihar Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
Offence Complained U/s 509 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of arguments 08.07.2014
Final order Acquitted
Date of Judgment 22.07.2014
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case filed by SI Arun Kumar (hereinafter referred as IO) against Gulshan Kumar FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 1 of 10 (hereinafter referred as accused) on the complaint of Smt. Anamika (hereinafter referred as complainant) for committing offence under section 509 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 05.08.2004, the DD entry no.3A was registered at PS Rajouri Garden at 10.30 am from PCR that at Raja Garden, red light one DTC driver has slapped a woman. The DD entry was handed over to the IO who along with Ct. Bhupender proceeded to the spot. Complainant was present at Subhash Nagar Turn. One DTC bus no. DL1P 2523 was also found present at the spot. IO recorded statement of the complainant who stated that driver of the DTC bus of route no. 851 misbehaved with her, abused her and slapped her. She also stated that the accused asked her to get down from the bus in a rubbish language. When other passengers objected on the conduct of the accused, he also started quarreling with them. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR was registered through Ct. Bhupender under Section 509 IPC. The accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 2 of 10 filed.
3. Copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C were supplied to the accused.
On 18.03.2005, notice for the offence under Section 509 IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution's evidence.
Evidence recorded during trial
4. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
5. PW1 SI Viplesh was the Duty Officer at PS Rajouri Garden on 05.08.2014. He exhibited the FIR as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
6. PW2 Ct. Bhupender Singh accompanied the IO to the spot after receiving the entry no.3A. He deposed on the lines of the prosecution's case. He took the rukka to the PS for registration of the FIR, exhibited the arrest memo of the accused as Ex.PW2/A and his personal search memo as Ex.PW2/B.
7. PW3 Anamika is the complainant. She stated that she boarded the bus and the accused asked her to board the bus from the back door and pushed her back and also slapped her. She called the police at FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 3 of 10 no.100 and gave her statement to the IO which is Ex.PW3/A. In her crossexamination, she admitted that it is not mentioned in her complaint from where and what time she boarded the bus. She further admitted that it is not stated by her in her complaint given to the police that the accused asked her to board the bus from the back door. She stated that her MLC was not prepared as the police officials suggested her that a slap injury will not be reflected in the MLC.
8. Thereafter, PE was closed on 27.09.2013 and statement of the accused was recorded on 08.10.2013 wherein he pleaded false implication and opted to lead defence evidence.
9. DW1 Ram Chander is the conductor of the bus. He stated that there was a altercation between the accused and the complainant on the said day as the complainant had boarded the bus in moving condition. When the accused asked the complainant not to do so, then she asked him to take the bus to the PS and she will teach him a lesson. When the bus reached at Raja Garden intersection, she deboarded the bus and called the police officials from the nearby police post. He stated that the complainant did not purchase any ticket from him on the said date.
10.DW2 Gulshan Kumar is the accused. He also deposed on the lines FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 4 of 10 of the DW1 and stated that the complainant tried to board the bus in moving condition and there was no bus stand at the place. She boarded the bus from the front door and was standing near the gate and due to that, the accused was not able to see the mirror of the bus and it was causing difficulty to drive the bus. He requested the complainant to go back side but she started shouting at him and called the police station at Raja Garden Intersection. He further stated that no such incident occurred and it is the false case against him. Thereafter, DE was closed on 26.05.014.
11.I have heard final arguments put forth by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. S. K. Sood.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
12.It is alleged against the accused that he used abusive language against the complainant and misbehaved with her and also insulted her modesty during the incident. Accused is facing trial for committing offence under section 509 IPC. Before proceeding further I would like to reproduce section 509 IPC as under:
Section 509 IPC. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. "Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word of sound shall FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 5 of 10 be heard, or that such gesture of object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
13.The ingredients of the offences are as follows:
1. The accused uttered some words, or made some sounds or gesture or exhibited any object or intruded upon the privacy of a woman.
2. The accused must have intended that the words so uttered or the sound or gesture so made or the object so exhibited should be heard or seen respectively by the woman.
3. The accused thereby intended to insult the modesty of the woman.
Therefore, prosecution is duty bound to prove these ingredients in a particular case to bring the same within the ambit of section 509 IPC.
14.It is alleged against the accused that he misbehaved with the complainant on 05.08.2004 when she tried to board the bus from front door. As there was congestion in the bus and accused was driving the bus, therefore, he objected to the complainant for boarding the bus from the front gate. He also asked her to board FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 6 of 10 the bus from the back door. This is the bone of contention qua the altercation which took place between the complainant and the accused. It is also alleged by the complainant that accused misbehaved with her and his intention was to insult her modesty. She appeared before the court and deposed as PW3 and stated that accused objected when she board the bus from the front door and pushed her back and slapped her. Complainant has also disclosed two acts of the accused, one is 'pushed her back' and second is 'slapped her'. It is well known fact that a driver of a bus sits at a distance from the front door and it is not possible for the driver to push and slap a passenger while sitting on his seat. It is not stated by the complainant that accused left his seat and thereafter, he pushed her and slapped her. No other passenger has been examined as witness to corroborate the allegations of the complainant. If the bus was fully crowded and accused had slapped her in the presence of other passengers then at least one witness should have been examined by the IO to verify the authenticity of the statement of the complainant. No explanation has been given by the IO for not examining any passenger of the bus during the investigation. Therefore, deposition of complainant that accused pushed her and slapped her are not possible until and FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 7 of 10 unless accused had left his seat for doing so. Moreover, altercation took place due to the conduct of the complainant herself. She tried to jump in the bus in a moving condition.
15. To bring an act under section 509 IPC the same should have been done an intention to insult the modesty of the woman. The essence of woman's modesty is her sex. Therefore, culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. There is nothing on record to suggest that accused had intention to insult the modesty of the complainant. Accused would have reacted in the same way if the complainant was a male person. His objection was related to the boarding of the bus from the front door in moving condition and inference cannot be drawn that he argued with the complainant to insult her modesty.
16.Another important aspect which is missing in this case is that complainant has not deposed about the words or sounds or gestures of the accused due to which her modesty has been insulted. In absence of these relevant facts, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused under section 509 IPC. It was expected to the complainant to state about what abuses or words were used by the accused due to which she felt insulted. The court cannot presume those words until and unless same have been FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 8 of 10 brought on the record by the complainant herself. In fact, the driver of a bus is duty bound to take care of the well being and safety of the passengers. If any mishappening occurs then it is the only driver who will be held responsible for the injuries suffered by any passenger. Therefore, objection of the accused against the conduct of the complainant seems to be reasonable. He argued with the complainant on account of his duty and out of his concern towards safety of the complainant and other passengers. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that conduct of the accused was appropriate and does not fall within the ambit of section 509 IPC.
17.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that in absence of any specific words or gestures, the fact that the accused argued with the complainant on account of his duty and non examination of any other witness to corroborate the version of the complainant, this court of the view that this is a false case hoisted against the accused by the complainant just to satisfy her ego as she felt insulted in presence of other passengers. The allegations levelled by her is an effort just to teach a lesson to the accused and not more than that. Accordingly, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 9 of 10 against the accused. Accused Gulshan Kumar is exonerated from the allegation levelled against him in this case. He is acquitted from committing offence under section 509 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DHIRENDRA RANA ON 22nd JULY, 2014 MM02/WEST DELHI FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 10 of 10