Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/576/2014 on 16 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MM02, MAHILA COURT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
FIR No. : 576/14
PS : Sultan Puri
U/s 323/354/354B/452/457/506 IPC
Unique I.D. No. 02404R0236162014
State v. Govinda
J U D G M E N T :
a)Serial No of the case : 242/2/14
b)Date of commission of offence : 27.05.2014
c)Name of the complainant : Name with held in typing.
d)Name parentage and address
of accused : Govinda S/o Sh. Kailash
R/o C4/154, Sultanpuri
Delhi.
e)Offence complaint of : 323/354/354B/452/457/506 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Date on which judgment was
reserved : 04.02.2016
h)Final Order : Convicted
i)Date of decision : 12.02.2016
Brief Statement and Reasons for Decision:
1. Accused is facing trial on the allegations that on 27.05.2014, accused Govinda used criminal force against the complainant (name with held in typing but told to the accused) by FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 1 of 12 committing house trespass in her house at 1.30 am in the night. Accused made physical advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. He used criminal force against her with intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked. On these allegations, investigation was carried out and after investigation charge sheet for the offence u/s 354/354B/452/506/323/457 IPC has been filed. On appearance of accused, copy of the charge sheet was supplied. Arguments on charge were heard. Prima facie charges for the offence u/s 354A/354B/323/457 IPC were made out against accused Govinda and charge was accordingly framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses.
PW1 HC Rajinder stated to have registered FIR Ex.PW1/A with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/C. He made an endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B. PW2 WHC Santro stated to have taken the complainant to SGM Hospital for her medical examination and got prepared her MLC Mark X. After medical examination she had brought back the complainant to police station Sultan Puri where her statement was FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 2 of 12 recorded by WSI Ritu in presence of NGO member Najma and present case was got registered. She also made inquiry from the brother of the complainant.
PW3 Dr. Khusbhu stated that on 27.5.2014 prosecutrix was examined by her vide MLC Ex. PW3/A and her findings are from point X to X1 on the said MLC.
PW4 Ct. Satyavir stated that on 30.5.2014 he alongwith SI Sandeep reached at the house of the accused from where accused Govinda was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. PW4 correctly identified the accused in the Court.
PW5 Dr. Gurdeep Singh stated to have given his findings Mark B to B1 on MLC Ex. PW3/A. PW6 Ms. Meenu Kaushik, Ld. Link MM, NW stated to have recorded the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of the complainant. The proceedings of which are Ex. PW6/A with certificate Ex. PW6/B. PW7 the complainant stated that on 27.05.2014, she was lying in her room at about 1.30 am at her residence. At that time, her brother had gone to fetch water from the road. Accused Govinda pushed her door and came inside her room. He touched her breast and pushed her. He also took off her dupatta. He had brought food which FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 3 of 12 he pressurized to complainant to eat. When she refused to take the food, he slapped her on her face. Then, in order to save herself, complainant went outside her house. She tried to seek help from the outsiders. She saw one person sleeping on the road. She requested that person to help her. She made a call to her brother and the outsider dropped her at her house. Accused Govinda also entered in a scuffle with her brother. The complainant made a call to the police by dialing at 100 number. After some time, police reached there. In the meanwhile, accused fled away from the spot. Police officials recorded her statement Ex.PW7/A. She correctly identified the accused in the Court. Police officials prepared the site plan at her instance Ex.PW7/B and her statement was recorded before the Ld. Link MM.
In her cross examination complainant stated that the accused is known to her for last ten years by face as he used to sit with her father occasionally earlier. She denied that the accused had friendly relations with her brother and due to that reason, her brother had borrowed Rs.5000/ from the accused for some time but when her brother did not pay the money which he borrowed, she filed the present false complaint in order to get rid of the payment.
PW8 brother of the complainant also corroborated the FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 4 of 12 version of the complainant he stated that he was coming after taking water from the Gurudwara. He saw accused Govinda caught hand of his sister and pulled her inside the house. When he asked about the same, the accused entered into a scuffle with him. He also correctly identified in the Court.
PW9 SI Deepak Purohit corroborated version of PW4 Ct. Satyvir regarding arrest of the accused.
PW10 SI Sarwan Kumar is the second IO corroborated the prosecution version. He stated to have reached at the spot vide DD No. 5B Ex.PW10/A and stated to have raised demand for lady police officials for recording statement of the complainant from the control room vide DD entry 39A Ex. PW10/B. PW11 SI Ritu stated to have recorded the statement of the complainant in the presence of NGO Member Najma and made endorsement Ex. PW11/A on the complaint.
PW12 WSI Rakhi stated to have moved an application Ex. PW12/A before Ld. Link MM for getting the statement of complainant recorded and moved an application Ex. PW12/B for obtaining the copy of statement of the complainant u/s 164 Cr.PC. After cross examination of the witnesses, prosecution evidence was FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 5 of 12 closed.
3. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused Govinda and his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In reply to the incriminating evidence, accused stated that accused denied the allegations against him and stated that it is a baseless and concocted story and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He had a quarrel with the brother of the complainant. As the accused chose not to lead any evidence in defence, the matter was listed for final arguments.
4. I have heard Ms. Yogita Kaushik, Ld. APP for the State and the LAC Shri Pradeep Parihar for the accused and perused the Court record.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the boy with whose help the complainant not made a witness in this matter. The IO did not inquire from the public persons. Even though it being the crowded area, no public witness has been joined in the investigation.
5. It is cardinal principle of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. In FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 6 of 12 order prove its case the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients for the offence u/s 354A/354B/323/457 IPC.
(i) That the accused made physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures or the accused made sexually coloured remarks.
(ii) That the accused assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked.
(iii) That the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant.
(iv) That the accused commits lurking housetrespass by night, or house breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence.
6. In the present case, PW1/the complainant and her brother both have categorically stated that the accused entered in the house of the complainant when she was alone. PW7 the complainant has stated that the accused touched her breast and pushed her and pressurize her and eat the food. He slapped the complainant and also entered into a scuffle with the brother of the complainant. PW7 has stated the same in her statement Ex. PW7/A before the police as well FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 7 of 12 as when her statement was got recorded in the Court. Even during cross examination both PW7 and her brother PW8 have remain firm to their statement. It is not the case of the accused that he was not present on the spot. Even though the accused has taken the defence that the brother of the complainant had borrowed Rs. 5000/ from the accused but no proof has been produced by the accused to show that sum of Rs. 5000/ was ever borrowed by the brother of the complainant from him. Hence, the defence of the accused has remained a mere assertion without being corroborated. Hence, from the statement given on oath by PW7 and PW8 it is clear that the accused had made physical contact and advances involving unwelcome explicit sexual overtures to the complainant after entering in her house at night. He also slapped the complainant and entered into a scuffle with the brother of the complainant. As regards the offence u/s 354B IPC the same has not been corroborated the testimony of the complainant or her brother. Hence, the same remains not proved.
7. It is the defence of the accused that the public witnesses / neighbours have not been examined by the IO. It is not the case that the identity of the accused is in dispute. The complaint has been given by name and it is admitted that the parties are known to each other. As FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 8 of 12 regard the contentions regarding no public witnesses being joined in the investigation, in case there is any technical lapse on the part of the IO/ Investigating agency, it does not wash away the incident. The whole procedural technicalities/procedural defects while recording the statement of the complainant by the IO and non joining of public witnesses does not falsify the incident.
8. It is not the case that the sole testimony of the complainant/ victim can not be relied upon. The complainant and her brother have duly supported and reiterated their version in the Court. Their statement is credit worthy as no contradiction in their testimony could be raised despite cross examination. Not even a single question has been put to the brother of the complainant that he borrowed any money from the accused has been put during cross examination. The defence has failed to advance any justifiable reason for the complainant and the witnesses to depose against them. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses has remained blemish free and there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the said witnesses regarding the occurrence of incident.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the above discussions all the ingredients of the offence u/s 323/354A/457 FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 9 of 12 IPC are satisfied against accused. It is clear that the accused trespassed in the house of the complainant /victim at night, voluntary caused hurt to her and her brother and made unwelcome physical contact and advances towards the complainant. Hence, accused stands convicted for the offence U/s 323/354A/457 IPC. Put up for hearing on the quantum of sentence on 16.02.2016.
Announced in open Court on this 12th day of February, 2016 Susheel Bala Dagar Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court02,North West Rohini Courts, Delhi All pages signed.
FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 10 of 12 FIR No. 576/14 PS Sultanpuri State v. Govinda 16.02.2016 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict with LAC Shri Pradeep Parihar.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Ld. Counsel for convict submits that convict is 26 years of age. This is the first involvement of the convict in any offence and he has shown genuine remorse for the same. Convict undertakes not to indulge in any similar offence in future. Convict is having clean antecedents with no previous involvement. It is submitted that a lenient view may be taken against the convict.
Ld. APP for the State has opposed the aforesaid submissions of the convict and has submitted that the maximum punishment be awarded to the convict, so that a deterrent message be sent to the society and like minded people be discouraged from entering into crime against woman. Heard. Record perused.
The sentencing is a delicate act in which the Court is required to take the over all view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the sentence FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 11 of 12 should serve prolific purpose of serving the society at large. The convict must be awarded such a sentence, which discourages the other like minded people of the society from such offences.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, and by balancing the mitigating or extenuating and aggravating factors, I am of the opinion that the convict be sentenced to simple imprisonment for the period already undergone for the offence u/s 354A/323/457 IPC. Convict has already remained in JC for 239 days i.e. from 30.05.2014 to 19.09.2014 and 12.10.2015 to 16.02.2016. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. is given to the Convict. Convict be released, if not required in any other case. Ordered accordingly. Copy of the order be given to the convict, free of cost today itself. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court Susheel Bala Dagar th On this 16 day of February, 2016 Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 576/14 State v. Govinda Page Number 12 of 12