Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Laconically, the case of the prosecution against the appellant is that on 24.02.2017 at around 09:00 p.m., at the footpath near Narain Trust, Tikri Bhawan, DDU Marg, Delhi (hereinafter also referred to as the 'spot/place of incident/incident spot'), the appellant, namely, Kuldeep, used criminal force against the complainant/victim/prosecutrix, Ms. 'R' (identity withheld1, hereinafter referred to as the 'victim/complainant/prosecutrix'), with the intention to outrage her modesty by putting his hand under her kurta and pressing her breasts and by scratching over her neck and putting her on the ground. Further the appellant is stated to have used criminal force against the complainant/victim/prosecutrix with the intention of 1 Birbal Kumar Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3464; X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 279 and Saleem v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 3 HCC (Del) 365: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2190 disrobing her by trying to remove her clothes as well as threatened to kill her by saying, "agar shor machaya toh jaan se maar dunga", thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 354/354B/506 part II of IPC. Notably, consequent upon Ld. Trial Court's taking cognizance of the offence on 03.05.2017, charges under Sections 354/354B/506 part II of IPC were framed against the appellant on 21.09.2017 and the trial commenced. During the course of trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses. On conclusion of prosecution evidence as well as upon recording of appellant's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellant as well as by/on behalf of State before the Ld. Trial Court. Consequently, as aforementioned, the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order, while holding the appellant guilty of the offences, punishable under Sections 354/354B/506 part II of IPC, sentenced him in the manner, as noted hereinabove.

11. Relevantly, the complainant/prosecutrix/victim, PW1 Ms. 'R' in her testimony before the Ld. Trial Court deposed that on 25.02.2017 at around 09:00 p.m., when she was going to Hanuman Temple, Connaught Place, on her way through DDU Marg Road (footpath), the appellant came and caught hold of her from behind and he put his hand on her mouth as well as threatened her by saying, "agar shor machaya toh jan se maar dunga". Subsequently, as per PW-1/complainant, the appellant put his hand insider the complainant's wearing shirt and started pressing both her breasts and thereafter, the appellant pulled her wearing slacks downward and tried to outrage complainant's modesty as the appellant, Kuldeep, was pulling her wearing slacks and tried to make her naked. The complainant further deposed regarding her raising an alarm, as the hands of the appellant was/got removed from her mouth. Consequently, the appellant ran away from the spot, whereupon the complainant called the police. As the police reached the spot, the complainant gave her complaint vide Ex. PW1/A. IO also prepared a site plan on the complainant's insistence vide Ex. PW1/B. IO also investigated the matter from the people residing in the nearby slums (jhuggi). Further, as per the complainant, some dweller told the IO, appellant's address. Thereafter, the IO went to the appellant's house and arrested him vide arrest memo bearing Ex. PW1/C as well as the complainant's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded before the concerned MM on 25.02.2017, Ex. P-1. Significantly, similar averment regarding the appellant grabbing hold of the complainant from behind at the spot on 24.02.2017 at around 09:00 p.m.; pressing her mouth, threatening the complainant by uttering, "agar shor machaya toh jan se maar dunga"; putting his/appellant's hand inside the complainant's kurta as well as pressing both her breasts; subsequently, pulling her slacks down; and thereafter, fleeing from the spot after the complainant's raising an alarm, finds mention in her complaint, Ex. PW1/A. Concomitantly, the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. corroborated regarding the appellant grabbing hold of her from behind at the spot on 24.02.2017 at around 09:00 p.m., putting his/appellant's hand inside the complainant's kurta as well as pressing both her breasts; subsequently, pulling her slacks down; the appellant uttering, "aaj tujhe nahi chorunga, agar police mein complaint kiya, toh meri zamanat ho jaayegi, aur tum zinda nahi bachogi"; and subsequently, fleeing from spot after seeing arrival of some persons.

(Emphasis supplied)

16. Consequently, to recapitulate, in order to disregard the testimony of a witness, it is imperative that the same is replete with material improvements, contradictions and variation. In contrast, law provides for due concession for marginal variations and normal discrepancies in the statement/testimony of a witness, which are bound to occur due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Consequently, when the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix in the instant case is analyzed, mindful of aforenoted revered principles, this Court finds itself difficult to be convinced with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the complainant's/victim's testimony is unreliable and worthy of rejection. In fact, in this regard, this Court further unambiguously reiterates that the prosecutrix/victim/complainant in her deposition before the Ld. Trial Court echoed the entire incident, as stated by her in her complaint, inter alia to the effect that on 25.02.2017 at around 09:00 p.m., when she was going to Hanuman Temple, Connaught Place, on her way through DDU Marg Road (footpath), the appellant came and caught hold of her from behind and he put his hand on her month as well as threatened her by saying, "agar shor machaya toh jan se maar dunga". Subsequently, the appellant put his hand inside the complainant's wearing shirt and started pressing both her breasts and thereafter, the appellant pulled her wearing slacks downward and tried to outrage complainant's modesty as the appellant, Kuldeep, was pulling her wearing slacks and tried to make her naked. The complainant further deposed regarding her raising an alarm as the hands of the appellant was removed from her mouth. Consequently, the appellant ran away from the spot, whereupon the complainant called the police. In her said deposition, the complainant/victim further affirmed the factum of police reaching the spot of incident and the complainant/victim getting the site plan prepared on the said date of Shivratri as well as of the apprehension of the appellant, on the day following the day of Shivratri.

17. Unquestionably, there do appear to be some omissions/inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant in her complaint as well as her deposition before the Ld. Trial Court on one hand and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, on the other in so far as they relate to arrest and identification of the appellant by the police upon the information received from secret informer/dwellers of jhuggi in distinction to his apprehension at the behest/upon identification of the complainant, respectively. Further, there also appears to be some omission as to the appellant's acquaintance with the complainant as well as the exact words uttered by the appellant at the relevant point in time, however, the said variations cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as material, glaring or striking, so as to discredit the otherwise cogent and consistent stand of the victim/complainant in so far as it relates to the presence of the appellant at the spot on 24.02.2017 at around 09:00 p.m., i.e., the date of incident; the appellant grabbing the complainant from behind, appellant's putting his hand on the complainant's mouth as well as threatening to kill her; the appellant thereafter, putting his hand inside the complainant's wearing shirt and starting to press both her breasts and thereafter, appellant's pulling her wearing slacks downward with an attempt to make her naked and thereby, outraging her/complainant's modesty; the police reaching the spot of incident; and the complainant/victim getting her complaint/statement recorded before the concerned police officials on the day, following the incident (next day to Shivratri). In fact, the said material particulars have even withstood the test of cross examination, conducted by/at the behest of the appellant before the Ld. Trial Court on 13.02.2018 and 07.08.2018. Apposite to note here that the complainant's deposition in her cross examination dated 13.02.2018 regarding the appellant not being known to the complainant cannot be read in the manner as suggested by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, to the effect that the complainant was not even aware of the identity/name of the appellant at the relevant point in time. Needless to mention, the complainant persistently deposed about the appellant being a frequent visitor in the jhuggis near her house and being often seen playing cards and drinking near the roadside in open area with his fellow persons living in the jhuggis. Therefore, the complainant's statement that the appellant was not known to her cannot be read in a manner as to state that she was not even aware of the identity of the appellant, especially when no such question appears to have been put to the complainant in her cross examination. Evidently, knowledge of a person is distinguishable from awareness of identity of a person, even on a general parlance. Concomitantly, it is reiterated that neither any question not any suggestion pertaining the same was even put to the complainant in her detailed and elaborate cross examination held on 13.02.2018 and 07.08.2018 before the Ld. Trial Court. Needless to mention, the same is despite the fact that the appellant was duly identified by the complainant/victim before the Ld. Trial Court.