Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev Navaria on 17 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI PAREWA:
MM-03: (MAHILA COURT): SOUTH EAST DISTRICT:
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
STATE Vs. SANJEEV NAVARIA FIR NO. : 241/12 U/s 341/506/509 IPC PS : LAJPAT NAGAR A. CIS No. of the Case : 89597/2016 B. Date of Institution : 02.02.2013 C. Date of Commission of Offence : 21.09.2012 D. Name of the complainant : (Assumed name X) E. Name of the Accused, his : Sanjeev Navaria Parentage & Address S/o Sh. Bachhu Singh R/o J-II, 154, Madan Gir New Delhi F. Offences complained of : U/s 341/506/509 IPC G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty H. Order reserved on : Not Reserved I. Final order : Acquitted J. Date of such order : 17.04.2017 Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case:
1. As per the case of the Prosecution, on 21.09.2012, Near Lajpat Nagar Market, New Delhi, accused wrongfully restrained the complainant (Ms. X) and uttered obscene words with intention FIR No.241/12 State Vs. Sanjeev Navaria PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 506/509/341 IPC Pages 1 of 10 that the same be heard by the complainant (Ms. X) and also extended threats to the complainant (Ms. X). The accused was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 341/506/509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, referred to as 'IPC').
2. FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant (Ms. X) and has been investigated by the Investigating Officer. After completion of investigation, IO has filed the charge sheet against the accused. Cognizance on the same was taken on
02.02.2013 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Accused was summoned to appear before the Court and on 19.03.2013 accused put his appearance before the Court.
3. Documents under section 207 CrPC were supplied. Notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 21.05.2013 for the offence punishable Under Section 506/509 IPC, to which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. FIR No.241/12 State Vs. Sanjeev Navaria PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 506/509/341 IPC Pages 2 of 10
5. Prosecution has examined 4 witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW1 complainant (Ms. X), PW2 Raj Kumari (mother of complainant Ms. X & eye witness), PW3 SI Raj Kumar & PW4 SI Bharat Singh (IO of the case).
6. PW1 is the complainant (Ms. X), who in a nutshell has testified that she was student of class 11 th in the year 2005 and was residing in Pushp Vihar, Delhi. She met accused (who is the husband of cousin sister of complainant Ms. X) in the house of her Tauji and in the year 2005, accused told her that he loves her. The accused used to stop her while she was coming back from her tuitions. She also complained about the behavior of the accused to her parents. Her parents also tried to make understand the accused and his family members. The accused and his family apologized about his conduct. Thereafter, the complainant (Ms. X) with her family shifted to Ghaziabad in the year 2007. Thereafter, she started studying in Medical College, Meerut. On 06.09.2012, the accused called her on her mobile and threatened her that she should not disconnect the phone of the accused, otherwise, she should face bad consequences. The accused also told her that he is keeping a watch on her FIR No.241/12 State Vs. Sanjeev Navaria PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 506/509/341 IPC Pages 3 of 10 activities and visiting her college regularly. The accused also told her that she should come and live with him and he would keep her like a 'Rani' as he had lot of money. Upon this, complainant (Ms. X) scolded the accused. The accused kept calling her on her phone. The accused also threatened the complainant (Ms. X) that if she refused his offer, he would throw the acid on her face. The accused also threatened the complainant (Ms. X) and his family for dire consequences.
7. She has further testified that on 21.09.2012, when she was in three wheeler in the area of Lajpat Nagar with her mother, the accused alongwith one person came on a bike and was sitting as a pillion rider. Accused started abusing the complainant (Ms. X) and her mother. The accused also told her that if she was alone today, he would have abducted her. Her mother scolded the accused, upon which, he said that he would throw acid on the face of complainant (Ms. X). Thereafter, the complainant (Ms. X) with her parents went to the Police Station Lajpat Nagar and gave a complaint, which is Ex. PW1/A and FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant (Ms. X). She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused but no contradiction has come on record.
FIR No.241/12 State Vs. Sanjeev Navaria PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 506/509/341 IPC Pages 4 of 10
8. PW2 Smt. Raj Kumari is the mother of complainant Ms. X. She has corroborated the testimony of PW complainant Ms. X and has deposed on the same line.
She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, wherein, she admitted all the suggestions, given by the counsel for the accused.
However, this witness was recalled on application by the Prosecution, wherein, she deposed that she did not admit the suggestions during the cross examination. In cross examination with respect to the said testimony, she testified that the evidence was not read over to her and she was under no duress when her statement was initially recorded.
9. PW3 is SI Raj Kumar, who has deposed that on 09.10.2012, he received the complaint of complainant (Ms. X), which is Ex. PW1/A and he has handed over the same to the Duty Officer. On the basis of which, FIR was registered.
He was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. PW4 is SI Bharat Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the FIR No.241/12 State Vs. Sanjeev Navaria PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 506/509/341 IPC Pages 5 of 10 case and has investigated the case. He relief upon the computerized copy of FIR, which is Marked F1. He testified that during the course of investigation, he has collected the CDR of accused, coloured copy of CAF is Marked F2 & Copy of CDR is Marked F3. He has further proved the arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and personal search memo Ex. PW4/B. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
11. Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed.
12. Statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 26.08.2014, wherein he has denied the allegations, leveled against him. He expressed his desire to lead Defence Evidence and examined one witness in his defence, i.e. DW1 Smt. Kavita Navaria.
13. DW1 Smt. Kavita Navaria is the wife of accused. She has deposed that the case registered against her husband i.e. accused is a false case and on the date of incident the accused was with her whole day and the accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
FIR No.241/12 State Vs. Sanjeev Navaria PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 506/509/341 IPC Pages 6 of 10 She was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
14. The accused in his defence also produced certain letters, allegedly written by the complainant (Ms. X) to him in the year 2005-2006, which were admitted by the complainant (Ms. X) on 29.11.2016.
15. Final arguments were heard by this Court on 12.04.2017.
16. During the course of final arguments, Sh. Himmat Singh, Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Manoj Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the complainant (Ms. X), have argued that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable Under Section 506/509 IPC. He also referred to the statement of witnesses, especially PW1 complainant (Ms. X) and PW2 mother of the complainant Ms. X, which corroborates with each other. He has further argued that all the material/public witnesses have duly supported the case of Prosecution and their testimony is corroborative with each other. Hence, it is argued that the accused is liable to be convicted and punished for the charged FIR No.241/12 State Vs. Sanjeev Navaria PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 506/509/341 IPC Pages 7 of 10 offences.
17. Per contra, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel Sh. Gautam Chakraverty has vehemently argued that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that the present case is an after thought and is an outcome of the enmity of the parents of the complainant Ms. X as the complainant (Ms. X) was in love with the accused, which was not acceptable to them. He has placed reliance of Letter Ex. X1 - X57. He has further submitted that as per the defence witness, the accused was not present at the alleged spot of incident. It is further argued that the Prosecution has relied upon statements of interested witnesses to prove its case, who is mother of the complainant Ms. X and is related to each other. It is further argued that PW2 has admitted the suggestions during the cross examination and thus benefit of which must be given to the accused.
18. This Court has thoughtfully considered, the material on record and contentions of the parties.
19. In the present case, the IO in his charge sheet has stated that FIR No.241/12 State Vs. Sanjeev Navaria PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 506/509/341 IPC Pages 8 of 10 during investigation, he had recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant (Ms. X) and statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses. The said supplementary statement of the complainant (Ms. X) has not been filed by the IO with the charge sheet nor the complainant (Ms. X) has testified so in her examination in chief.
20. Further, the date of the alleged incident is 21.09.2012. None of the Prosecution Witnesses have testified about the exact/approximate time of the date of the alleged incident. PW2 has testified that she does not know the registration no. or the colour of the motorcycle/bike on which the accused was allegedly sitting.
21. Further, the complaint Ex. PW1/A has been given in the Police Station on 23.09.2012. The delay in giving of the complaint to the PS is unexplained. The material witness to testify for the reason of delay was PW Raj Kumar, which the Prosecution has not examined. Also further, no PCR call was made from the spot during or after the alleged incident.
FIR No.241/12 State Vs. Sanjeev Navaria PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 506/509/341 IPC Pages 9 of 10
22. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant (Ms. X) PW1 in her cross examination has denied that she had written lot of letters to the accused, which have been later admitted by her, when the same were produced by the accused in the defence.
23. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the benefit thereof must go the accused. Resultantly, this Court finds the accused Sanjeev Navaria not guilty for the offences punishable Under Section 506/509 IPC and thus he stands acquitted.
24. Accused Sanjeev Navaria is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-alongwith one surety of like amount under section 437A CrPC. Bonds furnished. Accepted for 6 months from today.
25. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open
Court on 17th April, 2017 (PREETI PAREWA)
MM-03 (Mahila Court)
SED, New Delhi
FIR No.241/12 State Vs. Sanjeev Navaria PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 506/509/341 IPC Pages 10 of 10