Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 509 indian penal code in State vs . Gulshan Kumar on 22 July, 2014Matching Fragments
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case filed by SI Arun Kumar (hereinafter referred as IO) against Gulshan Kumar FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 1 of 10 (hereinafter referred as accused) on the complaint of Smt. Anamika (hereinafter referred as complainant) for committing offence under section 509 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 05.08.2004, the DD entry no.3A was registered at PS Rajouri Garden at 10.30 am from PCR that at Raja Garden, red light one DTC driver has slapped a woman. The DD entry was handed over to the IO who along with Ct. Bhupender proceeded to the spot. Complainant was present at Subhash Nagar Turn. One DTC bus no. DL1P 2523 was also found present at the spot. IO recorded statement of the complainant who stated that driver of the DTC bus of route no. 851 misbehaved with her, abused her and slapped her. She also stated that the accused asked her to get down from the bus in a rubbish language. When other passengers objected on the conduct of the accused, he also started quarreling with them. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR was registered through Ct. Bhupender under Section 509 IPC. The accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 2 of 10 filed.
3. Copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C were supplied to the accused.
On 18.03.2005, notice for the offence under Section 509 IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution's evidence.
Evidence recorded during trial
4. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
5. PW1 SI Viplesh was the Duty Officer at PS Rajouri Garden on 05.08.2014. He exhibited the FIR as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
11.I have heard final arguments put forth by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. S. K. Sood.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
12.It is alleged against the accused that he used abusive language against the complainant and misbehaved with her and also insulted her modesty during the incident. Accused is facing trial for committing offence under section 509 IPC. Before proceeding further I would like to reproduce section 509 IPC as under:
16.Another important aspect which is missing in this case is that complainant has not deposed about the words or sounds or gestures of the accused due to which her modesty has been insulted. In absence of these relevant facts, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused under section 509 IPC. It was expected to the complainant to state about what abuses or words were used by the accused due to which she felt insulted. The court cannot presume those words until and unless same have been FIR No.605/04 PS Rajouri Garden 8 of 10 brought on the record by the complainant herself. In fact, the driver of a bus is duty bound to take care of the well being and safety of the passengers. If any mishappening occurs then it is the only driver who will be held responsible for the injuries suffered by any passenger. Therefore, objection of the accused against the conduct of the complainant seems to be reasonable. He argued with the complainant on account of his duty and out of his concern towards safety of the complainant and other passengers. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that conduct of the accused was appropriate and does not fall within the ambit of section 509 IPC.