Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

EVIDENCE OF THE CASE: -

03. To substantiate its case, prosecution has examined Six (6) witnesses in support of its case.

04. PW1/Ms. Krishna Malik (complainant) has deposed that from the year approximately 2006-2007, accused Kishore Kumar was residing at second floor of the house in which she was residing. She further stated that on the day of janmashtami of 2009, she raised objection to panditji of the temple situated near her house, to lower the voice of the loudspeaker which used to be run in the temple but the panditji of the temple did not pay any heed to her objection. She further deposed that FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 2 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:

GARG GARG 2025.09.27 17:27:51 +0530 thereafter, she made complaint in this regard to the concerned SDM and he had issued an order to lower the voice of the loudspeaker so that it remained only in the premises of the temple. Thereafter, all the persons from the locality had gathered and formed a society against her (PW1) and asked her to leave the locality. She further deposed that the accused Kishore Kumar, who was residing at the second floor was interested in buying the first floor, in which she was residing. She further deposed that whenever, the members of the locality used to do ' kirtan' in the temple, she called the police to lower the voice of the loudspeaker and accused Kishore Kumar used to abuse her on those occasions. PW1 further deposed that as she was a patient of migraine and therefore, she used to keep herself mum. She further deposed that the member of the locality also associated the accused. Complainant/PW1 also deposed that the accused used to say that 'randi tu tuition ke naam pe dhanda karti hain' and also used vulgar and abusive language towards her and her daughter. She further deposed that on her complaint, a kalandara was made against the panditji. After some time, in December 2011, a kalandara for use of abusive and vulgar language was also prepared against the accused. She further deposed in May 2012, an order was issued from the Court of SEM and a bond was executed by the accused. Thereafter, in February 2012, accused had vacated the second floor and shifted to somewhere else in Geeta Colony. PW1 further deposed that however, after leaving the premises, the accused used to visit the locality and whenever he got chance, he used abusive and vulgar language against the complainant. Accused has threatened her that 'main tujhe jaan se marva dunga, tere upar tezab phek dunga, teri beti ko uthwa lunga' and he also threatened PW1 that all the locality members are still with him and he can do FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 3 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:

19. Complainant has relied on copy of one kalandra 'Mark C' and she has deposed that in December 2011, a kalandra was prepared against the accused relating to the use of abusive and vulgar language by the accused. However, perusal of document 'Mark C' reveals that the said kalandra u/s. 111 of Cr.P.C. pertained to the dispute regarding the voice of loudspeaker and the accused was directed to maintain peace in the area. The said document nowhere supports the case of the complainant that the accused had used abusive language against her whenever she had called the police to lower the voice of the loudspeaker. Complainant has also relied on one CD pertaining to the incident in question. Complainant has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not offer the CD to the investigating agency. Similarly, IO of the Case PW6/SI Vikas Kumar has deposed before the Court that the complainant or her daughter did not hand over any CD (audio recording) to him regarding the incident. Complainant has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation as to why she withheld the aforesaid crucial piece of evidence from the investigating agency and did not supply the said CD to the IO at the stage of FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 11 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:

20. Another point that warrants attention is that there is no specific reference to the words used or the contextual details of the abusive/vulgar language used by the accused in the complaint Ex.PW1/A. Although, the complainant has deposed before the Court that the accused used to abuse her whenever she has called police for use of loudspeaker and her daughter (PW2) has deposed that due to the objection of the complainant on use of loudspeaker, accused held the grudge against the complainant and he used to abuse her and the complainant, however, no such contextual details attributing any motive to the accused to abuse the complainant and her daughter are mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the present FIR or the charge sheet although, the previous litigation finds mention in the aforesaid documents. It is settled law that mere assertion of 'filthy language' being used by the accused or 'indecent gestures' being made by him are insufficient to constitute the offence u/s. 509 of IPC. In the case of Madhushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka, (2025) 3 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that the ultimate test for ascertaining as to whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender and sufficiency of material to establish intention or knowledge of the offender to insult the modesty. The Hon'ble Apex Court opined that the FIR No. 494/2013 State vs. Kishore Kumar Page No. 12 of 15 PS Geeta Colony Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date: