Delhi District Court
State vs . Preetam on 31 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJEET NARAYAN, MM-02,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS/SHAHDARA, DELHI.
State Vs. Preetam
FIR No. 814/15
PS: Farsh Bazar
U/S: 509 IPC
ID number of the case : 81/2017
Date of commission of offence : 25.09.2015
Date of institution of the case : 14.01.2016
Name of the complainant : Saroj, W/o Sh. Mahipal, R/o H. No. D-87,
NSA Colony, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi.
Name of accused and address : Preetam, S/o Sh. Kishan Lal, R/o B-335, NSA
Colony, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : 509 IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Conviction
Order reserved 24-05-2023
Date of judgment : 31-05-2023
FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 1 of 17
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off, the above captioned case FIR No. 814/2015, PS: Farsh Bazar. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.2015, at about 3:15 p.m. at H. No. D-87 NSA Colony, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, accused used abusive languages/vulgar words "Randi" against the complainant Smt. Saroj W/o Sh. Mahipal, with intention to outrage her modesty and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 509 IPC.
On the complaint of the complainant, present FIR U/s 509 IPC was registered against the accused, investigation was carried out and challan u/s. 509 IPC was prepared and presented in the court after completion of the investigation.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 509 IPC, cognizance of offence was taken and copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.01.2018, charge for committing offence punishable u/s 509 IPC was framed against the accused Preetam, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial & matter was fixed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. The prosecution has examined 04 prosecution witnesses in all in the present FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 2 of 17 case. The deposition of witnesses is touched upon in brief as under to have a better appreciation of the case, which is follows:
(I) PW1 is Smt. Saroj who is complainant has deposed in her evidence that on 25.09.2015, she was present at her house at about 3:30 PM. Accused Preetam who is neighbor of complainant had sent Ram Laddu for the complainant through kid. PW-1 objected to the same after that accused abused the complainant and stated the complainant "Randi". PW-1 requested him not to abuse but accused did not listen her and accused continued to abuse PW-1. Thereafter, PW-1 went to the PS and gave written complaint to the police which is Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 also shown the place of incident to the police and site plan was prepared at her instance. On next day, PW-1 came to the Court where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the LD. MM which is Ex.PW-1/B. Accused was identified by PW-1 in the Court. Thereafter, she was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
(II) PW2 is ASI Manbir Singh who has deposed that on 25.09.215, PW-2 received a DD No. 41B regarding eve teasing. Thereafter, at about 4:00 PM, PW-2 went to the spot i.e., H.No.-D-87 NSA Colony, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi. On reaching there, PW-2 did not find any complainant. Then PW-2 returned back to the PS. When he was present at the PS, complainant namely Smt. Saroj (PW-1) came at the PS and handed over a written complaint against the accused Preetam to PW-2 that accused used filthy FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 3 of 17 language against PW-1, and when she refused for the same then he was about to attack her. After that PW-1 called 100 number and went at the PS. After that, PW-2 prepared the Tehrir on the basis of the complainant which is Ex.PW-2/A and got FIR registered through concerned DO. Then PW-2 went to the spot along with the PW-1 and W/Ct. Anju prepared the site plan at the instance of PW-1 which is Ex.PW-2/B. Then Ct. Deepak came at the spot and handed over the said Tehrir to PW-2 and also copy of FIR and original Rukka and after that accused was searched in the locality but he could not be found. On 26.09.2015, PW-2 recorded the statement of the complainant of PW-1 under Section 164 CrPC through LD. MM. On 12.11.2015, at about 6:30 PM accused was apprehended from opposite to the Employment Exchange East Arjun Nagar, Delhi vide arrest memo EX.PW-2/C and personal search vide memo Ex.PW-2/D. PW-2 recorded the statement of all the other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared the charge-sheet in all respect and filed the same in the Court. Accused Preetam was identified by the PW-2 in the Court. PW-2 was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
(III) PW-3 is HC Amit who has deposed in his evidence that on 12.11.2015, along with HC Manbir were going from MCD office to Hedgewar Hospital. Accused Preetam was coming from Hedgewar side and accused was seen by the PW-3 at Employment Exchange and PW-3 asked him to stop and also asked about his whereabouts. Thereafter, FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 4 of 17 HC Manbir personally search and arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.PW-2/D. PW-2 also informed to accused's father about his arrest. After sometime accused's father came at the spot and PW-3 told him that accused was arrested in the case FIR No. 814/15. After furnishing the Bail bond he was released from the spot. Thereafter, PW-3 was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel. (IV) PW4 is W/HC Anju who has stated in her evidence that on 25.09.2015, PW-4 was present at the PS itself and PW-1 came at the PS and got FIR registered against the accused Preetam regarding abusive language. Thereafter PW-4 along with PW-2 went to the spot i.e. H.No. D-87 NSA Colony, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. PW-4 along with PW-2 also search the accused but they did not find him. Thereafter, PW-4 was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
5. Prosecution has examined 04 prosecution witnesses and PE was closed on 04.02.2023. Statement of Accused under Section 313 Cr.PC read with Section 281 Cr.PC was conducted on 10.04.2023 and all the incriminating evidences against the accused person have been put to them to which the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. Defence has examined 1 witness in its favour.
DW-1 is Vijender Kumar who has deposed that on 25.09.2015, he was present along with his nephew Preetam. On that day, they were purchasing Ram Laddoo from a street FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 5 of 17 vendor, one child came near them in weeping condition. When they saw the child who was weeping, Preetam had given a patta of Ram Laddoo to him in his presence. After taking the same, child went to his house. After half an hour, mother of that child came to his shop situated at the above-mentioned address. Thereafter, they made her understand that he was a child, so Preetam had given him a patta of Ram Laddoo. After understanding the same, she went to her house. At that time, Preetam was also present at the said shop and neither used any abusive language against her.
On next day, he got to know that police had called Preetam to the PS Farsh Bazar and he along with his father went there. Thereafter, DW-1 was duly cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state.
7. I have heard the submission of Sh. Vinayak Sharma, Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused. Ld. APP argued that complainant/witness has supported the case of the prosecution and her testimony has remained unrebutted and has further stated that conviction can be based on sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix and offence under section U/s 509 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and there are material contradictions in the story of the prosecution. It is argued that ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 509 FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 6 of 17 IPC have not been fulfilled, hence no case is made out.
I have also carefully perused the record. The court has carefully examined the entire material available on record including the testimony of the witnesses from both sides recorded before the Court. After arguments were heard, matter was fixed for judgment.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
8. Before proceeding further, there is need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused persons. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rest on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused persons.
Also, it is no longer Res Integra that accused persons are entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused persons to acquittal.
9. In the present case the charge for the offence U/s 509 IPC has been framed FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 7 of 17 against accused. Before appreciating the evidence, let us first discuss relevant legal provisions given under Indian Penal code. Section 509 IPC provides punishment for use of word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Section 509 of IPC which reads:
509. 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 or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or 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.
However, in order to prove the offence U/s 509 IPC the following ingredients are required to be prove on behalf of the prosecution to convict the accused U/s 509 IPC, such as:
(i) intention to insult the modesty of a woman,
(ii) the insult must be caused:
(a) by uttering any word or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that the gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or
(b) by intruding upon the privacy of such woman. FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 8 of 17
The word "modesty" has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. It was held by the Apex Court in Rupen Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill (AIR 1996 SC 309) that the dictionary meaning of "modesty" and the interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh's case, (AIR 1967 SC 63), it appears that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged, is the action of the offender such as could be perceived one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.
10. In order to bring home the guilt under section 509 IPC, prosecution is under obligation to prove that the accused had uttered any words, made any sound or gesture, or exhibited any object with intending to insult the modesty of any woman.
Now adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case, coming to the testimony of the complainant/PW-1, she has stated that accused Preetam who is neighbor of complainant had sent Ram Laddu for the complainant through a kid. complainant objected to the same after that accused abused the complainant and stated the complainant "Randi". Complainant requested him not to abuse but accused did not listen her and accused continued to abuse her. Thereafter, complainant went to the PS and gave written complaint to the police which is Ex.PW-1/A. Complainant also shown the place of incident to the police and site plan was prepared at her instance. On next day, complainant came to the Court where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 9 of 17 recorded by the Ld. MM which is Ex.PW-1/B. Accused was identified by PW- 1/complainant in the court.
Complainant has been examined by the counsel of accused, but complainant has remained firm in her cross examination on the aspect of the accused abusing her with such words. Complainant in her cross examination has stated that incident happened between 3 PM to 4 PM and she has made 100 number call to police, but when police arrived, she was not there as she had gone to PS. Then, police came at spot along with complainant in police van. Accused has stated that his son and mother-in-law was present in the house at the time of incident, but when accused has abused her, she was alone as her mother-in-law was inside the house. The fact that complainant first called 100 number and then she went to police station is corroborated by the testimony of PW- 2 Manbir Singh who is IO who has deposed that on 25-09-2015, he received a PCR call vide DD no 41 B regarding eve teasing with a woman and when he went to the spot, he did not find the complainant. When he returned back to PS, he found the complainant there and she handed over a written complaint to him.
Even in her complaint made to the police which she exhibited as Ex.PW1/A and the statement under Section 164 CrPC made to Ld. MM, she has mentioned allegations regarding the accused abusing her. There is no inconsistency or inconformity in the statements of complainant and her deposition.
FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 10 of 17 Her statement in the court was supported by other witness PW-2. There is no contradiction in the testimony of these two witnesses inter-se. Thus, all the prosecution witnesses had supported the testimony of each other. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony which has withstood the test of cross-examination.
11. In this case accused has taken the defence that no such incident has taken place and has examined one witness Vijender Singh who is uncle of accused, in DE, where he has deposed that he was present there at that time at the shop and accused has not used any abusive language against her. Apart from this witness counsel for accused has given suggestion to the complainant that accused has been wrongly framed by the complainant, but no reason has been given by the defence that why complainant will frame her as there is no animosity between them and they do not know each other before the incident. Coming to the testimony of DW-1, the testimony of witness can't be relied upon as he is uncle of accused and is an interested witness and his story does not fit into the situation. According to the story of prosecution incident happened outside house of complainant and there is no mention of any shop or tent house mentioned in site plan or in investigation by IO, but DW-1 has stated that accused was present in Tent house and complainant came there. It is settled law that testimony of interested witness needs to be read cautiously and should be corroborated by independent witness. So, the defence of accused appears to be an afterthought. Hence the testimony of DW-1 in unreliable and FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 11 of 17 stands discarded.
Also, counsel of accused has argued that accused can't be convicted in absence of any independent public witness and on the basis of sole testimony of victim. Now the argument that the entire case depends on the sole testimony of the complainant and in the absence of public witnesses which is detrimental to the prosecution, is not tenable as it is an established principle of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the complainant if it is reliable and free from blemishes. In Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra (Crl. Appeal No. 914/2006), the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision in Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Maharashtra (1975 SER 981) wherein it was observed that:
"1. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
2. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in case of a child witness or an accomplice or a witness of analogue character.
3. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depend upon the judicial discretion of the judge before whom the case comes."
FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 12 of 17 The credibility of the witness is required to be decided with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the court as fact wholly truthful and so convincing that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. As far as public witnesses are concerned, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the incident happened outside the house of the complainant. The incident happened outside of the house of the complainant where only she and the accused were there. When no third person was there in whose presence the offence could be allegedly said to be committed, expecting independent witnesses, when there was none, will do injustice with the case. Examination of independent witnesses in each and every case is no rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution which is to be applied with great care and circumspection and not in every case.
Regarding the reliance on the testimony of prosecutrix/victim in the offences of sexual assault, it is settled that the victim of sexual assault whether under Section 354 or under Section 509 or under Sections 376, 366 and 363 IPC stand on equal pedestal and the testimony of such victim is to be considered like that of an injured witness. The complainant is a victim of offence. She comes in the category of injured witnesses. The law regarding injured witness is that the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage. The statement of injured is generally considered to be FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 13 of 17 very reliable and it is unlikely that she or he will spare the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The most important evidence in this case is of complainant PW1. Her evidence as stated above has given the account of the first incident in her initial complaint Ex. PW1/A. She narrated about the incident in her statement under section 164 CrPC and also in court. She is the eyewitness of this case. Eyewitnesses play an important role in the criminal justice system. The quality of evidence of an eyewitness depends on many factors prominent among them are his/her view in which the crime is committed, his/her confidence with respect to the accuracy of the description of the crime and identification of the accused and his description, the amount of attention the witness paid to the crime during its occurrence, the probability of the witness being present at the place of incident, the accuracy and probability of what he is defining etc. Counsel for the accused has taken the defense that there are contradiction in the cross-examination of complainant that in the cross-examination, she has stated in one place that she was alone at the time of incident and she further said that her mother in law inside the house at the time of incident. Complainant has said that when accused uttered the obscene words to her, she was alone, but her mother-in-law was inside the house. Counsel for accused has submitted that the IO has stated in his testimony that complainant came at PS and handed over written complaint stating that accused used FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 14 of 17 filthy language against her and was about to attack the complainant, but complainant has not stated these things in her testimony. The testimony of complainant cannot be discarded on these minor inconsistency and her reliability is not affected by minor contradiction as she has remained consistent on the aspect that accused has abused the complainant.
The testimony of complainant in this case inspires confidence. She is a wholly reliable witness. Her evidence deserves to be given due weightage due to its inherent consistency at different stages. The evidence of complainant has to be relied upon unless there are grounds for rejection of her evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein which are absent in this case. The complainant has given the account of incident immediately in her complaint and there was no delay on her part in the registration of the case. She sticked to her allegations throughout the case. She has named the accused and identified him in court. She has been duly cross- examined on behalf of accused. There is an inherent consistency in the evidence of the complainant. She has given a consistent account of the incident in her complaint Ex.PW1/A, in her statement under section 164 CrPC and in evidence as PW-1 and during her cross-examination. There is nothing in her cross- examination to impeach her credit or to suggest that she is not a reliable witness or that the incident did not happen as alleged or that she has not spoken the truth. The defence has not produced any FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 15 of 17 proof/material that what can be the reason for complainant for false implication of accused. Immediately after the incident, she made a call to the police and a DD entry has also been registered in that regard which is DD No. 41B.
12. Now, the words "Randi" as narrated by complainant is certainly obscene and anybody uttering such words towards a middle-aged married woman residing in a respectable locality is expected to have the knowledge of use of such words would insult the modesty of the lady.
Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, the necessary ingredients for offence u/s 509 IPC have been duly proved by the prosecution. CONCLUSION
13. In the present case, the testimony of the complainant is coherent, consistent, credible, truthful and trustworthy. There is nothing on record to disbelieve her testimony. The accused has simply stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. But neither has he specified any motive of complainant for falsely implicating him nor has he alleged any previous enmity between them. Keeping in view the above discussed facts, circumstances and evidence adduced in the instant case, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved all the ingredients of the alleged offence u/s 509 IPC.
FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 16 of 17 In view thereof, accused Preetam S/o- Kishan Lal is hereby convicted for offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
This judgment consists of 17 pages and all pages bear my signature.
Digitally signed by AJEET AJEET NARAYAN NARAYAN Date: 2023.05.31 Announced and dictated directly (Ajeet Narayan) 17:04:42 +0530 into the computer in the open Court, MM02 (SHD)/Delhi on 31st May 2023. 31.05.2023. FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 17 of 17