Delhi District Court
State vs Ashin on 21 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJOT SINGH AUJLA JMFC-11 (SOUTH-
WEST) DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs Ashin
FIR No : 961/15
U/s : 506/509 IPC
P.S. : Janakpuri
1. CNR No. of the Case DLSW02-014401-2019
2. Date of commission of offence 05.08.2015
3. Date of institution of the case 21.01.2016
4. Name of the complainant Amrita Sethi
5. Name of accused, parentage & Ashin
address S/o Sh. Sudhan
R/o House No. 2/99,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi
6. Offence complained of 506/509 IPC
7. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order Acquitted
9. Date of final order 21.04.2025
Argued by: -
Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Rajat Sikri, Ld. Counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.08.2015 at unknown time, at A-1/28, GF, Janakpuri, accused caused criminal intimidation to complainant Amrita Sethi by threatening to kill her and with the intention to insult her modesty, abused her and thereby committed an offence punishable FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 1 of 15 Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH under Sections 506/509 of IPC for which FIR no. 961/2015 was registered at the police station Janakpuri, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the charge-sheet against the accused person was filed. The Court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC") (now section 230 BNSS). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under Sections 506/509 of IPC was framed against the accused on 23.05.2017. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 HC Ajit Kumar PW-2 Ms. Amrita Sethi PW-3 Retired SI Joginder Singh Rathi PW-4 Ms. Sarita Yadav PW-5 Dr. Monika DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A DD no. 15A dated 05.08.2015 (OSR) Ex. PW 1/B FIR No. 961/15 (OSR) Ex. PW 1/C Endorsement on rukka vide DD no. 35A Ex. PW 1/D Certificate u/s 65B IEA FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 2 of 15 Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH Ex. PW 1/A Complaint Ex. PW 3/A MLC of complainant Ex. PW 3/B Endorsement on complaint Ex. PW 3/C Arrest memo of accused Ex. PW 3/D Copy of statement u/s 164 CrPC
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows:
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
5. Prosecution examined HC Ajit Kumar as PW1. His version is reproduced as under:-
"On 05.08.2015, I was posted at PS Janak Puri as Duty Ofifcer / HC from 8 am to 4 pm. On that day at about 9:32 am, I received one PCR call which was regarding a quarrel with a lady at A-1/28, Janak Puri. I recorded the said fact in daily diary register of the PS vide DD no. 15A dated 05.08.2015. The said DD was forwarded to SI Joginder for further necessary action. Today I have produced the original DD register containing the said DD no. 15A dated 05.08.2015. The certified copy of the same is there already on judicial record. Same is Ex. PW 1/A (OSR). At about 3:30 pm, I received one rukka from Ct. Ajay which was sent by SI Joginder. On basis of which, I registered the present FIR bearing no. 961/15, copy of the same is already there on judicial record and the same is Ex. PW 1/B (OSR). I have also brought the original FIR register containing the said FIR. I also made endorsement on rukka vide DD no. 35A and the same is Ex. PW 1/C bearing my signature at point A. I also gave certificate under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act for the said FIR and the same is Ex. PW 1/D. Till the time the said computer remained in my possession no FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 3 of 15 Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH tampering was done with its record and the computer functioned in a normal manner."
6. Prosecution examined Ms. Amrita Sethi as PW2. Her version is reproduced as under:-
"I joined BC to AD Hyper Link Ltd. in the year 2015 as an executive. After 2-3 days of my joining, accused who is my boss offered me to have lunch together in his cabin however, I refused. Thereafter, he started harassing me like he offered me to become his personal assistant. He also allured me for some luxuries. He also invited me to join him to Kerala trip and all other sponsored business trips but I refused. He started ill-treating me because of my refusal on which he got furious. On several occasions, sometimes he used to push my chair, used to shout on me in front of everybody in office and also used some filthy words. Because of this reason, I gave my resignation to him but he did not accept it. After that, he started blackmailing me that he was having political links. He also threatened me to kill, if I left the job. On 05.08.2015, in morning hours, the accused called me in his cabin and gave me one final chance to think about getting an affair with him. I refused. Thereafter, his personal assistance approached me and also offered me to have some links with the accused as he could offer luxuries and all the facilities to me, if I keep the same continued. I shouted on accused and finally asked for accepting my resignation. I also warned him that I would call police, if he was not accepting my resignation then and there. When I was shouting some employees (Prajeet) of the accused who were also from Kerala, grabbed my hands in order to push me out of the office. Thereafter, I filed my police complaint. The filthy words were used by accused on me "fucker, sucker, rascal, slut, filthy mother sucker etc." The said complaint is now Ex. PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. During investigation, my statement u/s 164 Cr.PC was also recorded."FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 4 of 15
Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH
7. Prosecution examined Retired SI Joginder Singh Rathi as PW3. His version is reproduced as under:-
"On 05.08.2015, I was posted at PS Janakpuri as SI. On that day, on the receipt of DD No.15A already Ex.PW1/A regarding the quarrel with lady at A1/28, Ground Floor, Pillar No.626, I went there. Complainant Amrita Sethi met me there. She gave her written complaint already Ex.PW1/A (Exhibit is mentioned in the statement of PW2). I called one lady constable and one male constable at the spot. The complainant was got medically examined from DDU Hospital. I received the MLC of the complainant Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, I made my endorsement Ex.PW3/B on the complaint bearing my signature at point B and sent male constable whose name as I remember was Constable Ajay with the tehrir to the PS for registration of FIR. After the registration of the present FIR, I arrested the accused Ashin at the instance of complainant vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/C bearing my signature at point A. As the offences were bailable, he was released on bail. Statement of the complainant was got recorded u/s 164 CrPC before the ld.MM. I collected the copy of the statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex.PW3/D of the complainant. I recorded statement of witness namely Satyam Jha u/s 161 CrPC who was employee in the said place. After the completion of investigation, I prepared charge-sheet and filed the same in court."
8. Prosecution examined Ms. Sarita Yadav as PW4. Her version is reproduced as under:-
"I do not remember the day of the incident however, the month and year was August, 2015. As far as I can remember I was called by IO SI Joginder at the spot and thereafter I took the complainant Ms. Amrita Sethi to DDU Hospital for medical examination. After the medical examination complainant was taken to the P.S. Janakpuri."FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 5 of 15
Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH
9. Prosecution examined Dr. Monika as PW5. Her version is reproduced as under:-
"On 05.08.2015, I was working as Jr. Resident at DDU hospital, Hari Nagar. On that day I had prepared MLC No. 12703 dated 05.08.2015, which is already Ex. PW 3/A bearing my signature at point A. My conclusion was "no fresh external injury or bleeding seen"."
10. Vide separate statement recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C, accused had admitted the document i.e. statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex. P1. Hence the above document was ordered to be read in evidence without its formal proof.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
11. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 20.09.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
13. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 6 of 15Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH
14. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
15. In order to prove the offence u/s 506/509 IPC against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the ingredients of the offence u/s 506/509 IPC. Before proceeding further, let us go through the relevant provisions of section u/s 506/509 IPC.
16. Section 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides punishment for criminal intimidation which is defined u/s 503 IPC as follows: -
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 he 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 intimidation".
17. Further, section 509 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under: -
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 FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 7 of 15 Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH 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 three years, and also with fine".
18. The ingredients of offence u/s 506 IPC that the prosecution must prove are as follows: -
(a) That the accused threatened some person.
(b) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he is interested.
(c) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
19. The ingredients of offence u/s 509 IPC that the prosecution must prove are as follows: -
(a) Intention to insult the modesty of a woman.
(b) The insult must be caused by: (i) uttering any word or making any sound (ii) or gesture (iii) or exhibiting any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that gesture or object shall be seen by such woman or
(c) Intruding upon the privacy of such a woman.
20. Section 509 of IPC delineates three pivotal components of establishing an offence, Firstly, the presence of an intention to insult the modesty of a woman; Secondly, the manner in which this insult is perpetrated and Thirdly and independently, an intrusion on her privacy.
FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 8 of 15Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH
21. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Major Singh, 1967 AIR 63 1966 SCR (2) 286 has made observations regarding outraging the modesty of a woman, and the relevant observations read as under: -
"3. I would first observe that the offense does not, in my opinion, depend on the reaction of the woman subjected to the assault or use of criminal force. The words used in the section are that the act has to be done "intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty". This intention or knowledge is the ingredient of the offense and not the woman's feelings. It would follow that if the intention or knowledge was not proved, proof of the fact that the woman felt that her modesty had been outraged would not satisfy the necessary ingredient of the offense. Likewise, if the intention or knowledge was proved, the fact that the woman did not feel that Gitalaxmi 1-wp-3480-2011-J.doc her modesty had been outraged would be irrelevant, for the necessary ingredient would then have been proved. The sense of modesty in all women is of course not the same; it varies from woman to woman. In many cases, the woman's sense of modesty would not be known to others. If the test of the offense was the reaction of the woman, then it would have to be proved that the offender knew the standard of the modesty of the woman concerned, as otherwise, it could not be proved that he had intended to outrage "her" modesty or knew it to be likely that his act would have that effect. This would be impossible to prove in the large majority of cases. Hence, in my opinion, the reaction of the woman would be irrelevant.FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 9 of 15
Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH
4. Intention and knowledge are of course states of mind. They are nonetheless facts which can be proved. They cannot be proved by direct evidence. They have to be inferred from the circumstances of each case. Such an inference, one way or the other, can only be made if a reasonable man would, on the facts of the case, make it. The question in each case must, in my opinion, be: will a reasonable man think that the act was done with the intention of outraging the modesty of the woman or with the knowledge that it was likely to do so? The test of the outrage of modesty must, therefore, be whether a reasonable man will think that the act of the offender was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. In considering the question, he must imagine the woman to be a reasonable woman and keep in view all circumstances concerning her, such as, her station and way of life and the known notions of modesty of such a woman. The expression "outrage her modesty" must be read with the words "intending Gitalaxmi 1-wp-3480-2011-J.doc to or knowing it to be likely that he will". So read, it would appear that though the modesty to be considered is of the woman concerned, the word "her" was not used to indicate her reaction. Read all together, the words indicate an act done with the intention or knowledge that it was likely to outrage the woman's modesty, the emphasis being on the intention and knowledge."
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
22. At the outset, it would be apt to allude to the cardinal principal of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 10 of 15 Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence as it is supposed to stand on its own legs and cannot derive benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is also well settled that burden of proof in a criminal trial throughout the trial lies upon prosecution and never shifts to accused who is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any doubt entitles him to acquittal.
23. Since criminal liability can be attached by proving each element of the section under which liability is sought to be enforced, I shall go on to appreciate the evidence- documentary and oral, in light of how compellingly it satisfies each of such ingredient, if at all.
24. In the present case, complainant is the sole material witness as other witnesses joined the investigation after the incident in question and are merely formal witnesses. Complainant Amrita Sethi reported the present matter to PS Janakpuri on 05.08.2015 and FIR bearing no. 961/2015 u/s 323/506/509 IPC was registered. Her original statement/tehrir/complaint Ex. PW 1/A stated that the complainant was working in BC to AD Hyper Link Limited and the name of her boss was Ashin (from Kerala) accused in the present case. The complainant stated in her complaint Ex. PW 1/A that the accused has beaten her, pushed her chair, used abusive language, mentally tortured her and shouted on her very badly in front of all the employees. That accused further told his security guard to push the complainant from the office and used derogatory words like "fucker, bastered, rascal, fraud and cheap etc". That he further threatened the complainant to get her murdered as the accused had big links.
25. Thereafter, her statement u/s 164 CrPC was recorded by Ld. Reliever MM on 19.08.2015. Same is Ex. PW 3/D. She stated in her statement that she is fashion designer and on the suggestion of her friend namely, Satyam, she joined the company i.e. BC to AD Hyper Link Limited on a monthly salary of Rs. 14,000/- as associate. That she used to have lunch with some friends due to FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 11 of 15 Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH which two girls got jealous and out of jealousy, they passed uncivilized/unparliamentary comments against her to which she replied them back. That she complained about the said incident to Mr. Ashin (accused in the present case) and he assured the complainant to sort the things out. That no action was taken by Mr. Ashin to which the complainant handed her resignation which was torn by the accused. That the accused refused to accept her resignation and when the complainant persisted for her resignation, accused Ashin shouted at her, used abusive language like "fucker, sucker and bastered"
and when the complainant asked the accused to behave, he slapped her on her face, pushed her chair due to which she fell down. That the complainant was kicked out of the office and salary due for 20 days was not paid to her and her friend Satyam, who was supporting the complainant. That the matter was reported to Police Station and the accused Ashin threatened the complainant in the Police Station with remarks to get her murdered as he has contacts with high profile politicians. That after registration of FIR, office staff of the accused's office called the complainant and used abusive language against her.
26. The complainant was examined as prosecution witness (PW2). She was examined and in her examination in chief, she completely changed her stand and deposed that she joined the company BC to AD Hyper Link Limited in the year 2015 as executive. That after 2-3 days of her joining, accused offered her to have lunch in his cabin to which she refused. That the accused started harassing her by offering her to become his personal assistant. That the accused allured the complainant with some luxuries and also invited her to join him in the Kerala trip and other sponsored business trips but she refused. That the accused got furious on her refusal and started ill-treating the complainant. That on several occasions accused pushed the chair of the complainant and shouted at her infront of everybody and also used filthy words. That the complainant gave her resignation but the same was not accepted by the accused and the accused FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 12 of 15 Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH started blackmailing her saying that he has political links. That accused threatened the complainant to kill, if she left the job.
27. She further deposed that on 05.08.2015, accused called her in the cabin and gave her final chance to think about getting an affair with him. That the personal assistant of the accused approached the complainant to have links with the accused under the garb of offering her luxuries/facilities. That the complainant offered her resignation and when she shouted at the accused, one employee namely, Prajeet grabbed her hands in order to push the complainant out of the office. She further deposed that filthy words used by the accused on her are "fucker, sucker, rascal, slut, filthy mother sucker etc.".
28. It is interesting to note here that the complainant initially gave her complaint Ex. PW 1/A stating that she was harassed, tortured, beaten and abused by the accused. Thereafter, she changed her stand in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC whereby she stated that two girls of the office got jealous from her and used uncivilized comments against her and when she reported the matter to her boss Ashin, accused in the present case, no heed was paid and she was beaten, pushed and abused by the accused and her salary was not paid. Thereafter, when she was examined as prosecution witness, she changed her stand completely and portrayed another story and deposed that the accused was alluring her in getting an affair with him and when she refused, she was beaten, abused and tortured by the accused. The testimony of the complainant is full of contradictions and lacks credibility and is not supported by any other corroborating oral and documentary evidence. Her friend/colleague Satyam Jha was cited as witness by the prosecution but as his presence could not be secured, he was ultimately dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses vide order dated 26.04.2024. The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal witnesses who joined the investigation after the incident in question.
FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 13 of 15Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH Thus, the sole testimony of the complainant does not inspire confidence of the court.
29. Further, no efforts were made by the IO to join the office staff of the accused's office in the investigation. It was deposed by the complainant that there were CCTV cameras installed in the office. However, no effort was done by the IO to check the CCTV cameras to substantiate the allegations of the complainant. There is no other independent witness except the complainant. Testimony of the complainant could not be relied upon as the same is inconsistent, full of material contradictions and does not inspire confidence of the court. Thus, the ingredients of the offence u/s 506/509 IPC remained not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
30. It has to be understood that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, by leading positive evidence. This burden never shifts upon the accused to establish his innocence. Mere suspicion, howsoever, strong it might be, cannot replace the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of an accused in a trial for commission of a criminal offence.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh And Ors. (2004) 9SCC 186 observed the following:
"The golden thread whichr runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view of which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 14 of 15 Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent."
32. Therefore, no substantive evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that accused criminally intimidated the complainant or insulted her modesty. The testimony of the sole witness lacks credibility. The other eye witness to the incident namely, Satyam Jha failed to appear before the court to support the case of the prosecution. There is no corroborating piece of evidence on record. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused.
CONCLUSION
33. Accordingly, this court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 506/509 IPC and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Ashin is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 506/509 IPC.
Announced in the open Court
on 21.04.2025 in the presence Digitally
HARJOT signed by
SINGH HARJOT
of the accused. SINGH
(Harjot Singh Aujla)
JMIC-11
South West Dwarka,Delhi
21.04.2025
Note: - This judgment contains 15 pages and each page has been signed by me.
Digitally
HARJOT signed by
SINGH HARJOT
SINGH
(Harjot Singh Aujla)
JMIC-11
South West Dwarka,Delhi
21.04.2025
FIR No961/2015, PS Janakpuri State vs. Ashin Page 15 of 15