Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. APP for State and defence counsel and have perused the record carefully.

FIR No. 391/2007 State Vs Sharda Shah

10. The complainant in her complaint has factually stated that on 6.6.2007 at night at about 11.30pm, the electricity had gone and her husband was also not present and she came out of her jhuggi and made her children lay on the cot in a park and she herself lied down on the table which was used for ironing clothes and at that time taking advantage of the darkness accused came there and laid himself on the same table besides the complainant and caught hold of her hand. She also stated that when she asked as to who is present there he told her to shut up and caught hold of her hand more tightly. In her cross examination she was confronted with her statement Ex. PW-1/A wherein it was not mentioned that accused caught hold of her hand and also asked her to shut up. Perusal of statement Ex. PW-1/A reveals that complainant has been consistent about her statement regarding the fact that due to disconnection of the electricity she had lied down on her table used for ironing the clothes and accused came and also lied down with her and when she asked as to who is there he asked her to shut up ad she immediately got down from the table and ran away and went to her children. From the statement it is clearly revealed that the accused had come to the complainant with a bad motive since there was no occasion for him to come and lie down on the table of the complainant used for ironing clothes, despite being well within the knowledge that complainant was sleeping there. The intention of the accused becomes crystal clear. As far as the contention of Ld. FIR No. 391/2007 State Vs Sharda Shah Defence counsel regarding the fact that the complainant did not mention in her statement that accused had caught hold of her hand is concerned, I am of the view that since the incident as narrated by the complainant in her statement Ex. PW-1/A was shocking, she seems to have mixed the same. Further, during her cross examination a suggestion was put to her that her husband was dealing in the business of illicit liquor and a litigation is also going on against her husband. Though it has nowhere been mentioned as to why the accused would be falsely implicated by the complainant. It has also been suggested to the complainant that as the accused had removed the complainant's table used for ironing the clothes he has been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case. In statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused has stated that the complainant had animosity against him as he had raised objection against their illegal business of liquor run by the complainant and her family members. Despite the fact that this question has been asked in the cross examination of complainant by the accused but the accused did not prove anything in defence regarding the litigations going on against the husband of the complainant. Merely putting up a question in cross examination, would not amount to proving a certain fact which is set forth as a story of defence. As far as catching hold of the hand of the complainant by the accused is concerned, though the same has not been admittedly written in the complaint Ex. PW-1/A, but complainant has stated in her cross FIR No. 391/2007 State Vs Sharda Shah examination that she had told the same facts to the police. It has to be borne in mind that the complainant is a labourer and is working in jhuggi and she might have not known as to what is written by the IO. In the present complaint the complainant has stated that she had gone to the police on the same date. PW-4 has stated that she had come on 7.6.2007 in the night at about 9.15pm. Ld. Counsel submits that since there is a delay of about one day in registration of FIR the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Complainant in her statement has categorically stated that the incident is of 6.6.2007 and she went to the PS on that very day in the night itself. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. The proceedings conducted by the IO are not under the control of the complainant who is lady and therefore the lapses on his part to record the statement in time would not entitle the accused to enjoy any benefit therefrom. Now let us assess the present facts in view of Section 354 IPC. Section 354 is reproduced here for the same of convenience.