IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY]: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST), MAHILA COURT03, DWARKA, NEW DELHI [CASE NUMBER] 2.Unique [CASE NUMBER] 3.Title of the case : State Vs. [ENTITY]. FIR No. 79/13, PS Dwarka North 4.Date of institution : 24.09.2013 5.Date of reserving Judgment : 04.08.2015 6.Date of pronouncement : 04.08.2015 J U D G M E N T :
(a) The date of commission 23.03.2013 (b) The name of complainant [ENTITY] D/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o B6, Plot No.7, Balaji Apartment, CGHS Ltd, Sector3, Dwarka, New Delhi. (c) The name of accused [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY]. R/o A28, Plot No.7, Balaji Apartment, CGHS Ltd, Sector3, Dwarka, New Delhi. (d) The offence complained of 354/ 509 [ACT] (e)The plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty (f)The final order Acquitted (g)The date of such order 04.08.15 Brief facts for the decision of the case
1. The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint was filed by [ENTITY] D/o Sh [ENTITY] (hereinafter called the complainant) at PS Dwarka North against [ENTITY]. She stated that [ENTITY] is her neighbour and lives in the B7, Plot No.7, Balaji Apartment, CGHS Ltd, Sector3, Dwarka. He makes pass vulgar/lewd comments and suggestive remarks and blows whistles at the complainant. He also tries to physically waylay her in the gallery and behaves in a very cheap manner with the intention to molest her and physically assault her. She further stated that [ENTITY] makes it a point to be in the gallery when their door opens and being fat he blocks most of the narrow gallery and complainant either has to stop or squeeze through the space. [ENTITY] takes full advantage of the complainant and pinches her or tries to fondle her. It is further alleged that once he held the waist of complainant and tried to make her fall. He and his family members daily harass the complainant and she fears the safety of herself and her daughters. Few neighbours also harass them by telling the maid, car cleaner and kachra cleaner not to work or clean their house.
2. On the basis of above complaint, FIR was lodged against [ENTITY] (hereinafter called the accused) for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT].
After completion of the investigation, challan was filed by the IO against accused [ENTITY] under [SECTION] A/509 [ACT].
3. The aforesaid chargesheet was filed before the court on 24.09.2013, whereupon the cognizance of the offence was taken against accused [ENTITY]. The provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] was complied on 24.01.2014.
4. After hearing the arguments, charge was framed against accused [ENTITY] for the alleged commission of the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] to which accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and instead claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. During the course of the trial, prosecution cited as many as Eight witnesses. out of which 5 witnesses namely PW [ENTITY], PW [ENTITY], PW [ENTITY], PW [ENTITY] and PW [ENTITY] were public witnesses and 3 witnesses namely PW DO/[ENTITY], PW/ [ENTITY], PW/ SI [ENTITY] were formal witnesses.
6. PW1/ [ENTITY] deposed that he was the president of the Balaji Society in the year 2013. In March, 2013 and on one more occasion, when he came to know about the quarrel between the parties, he along with some others members of Managing Committee visited the house of the complainant and tried to pacify her. They also visited the house of accused [ENTITY] and tried to make him understand to reside peacefully.
During his crossexamination by Ld defence counsel, he admitted that accused had given a written complaint to him about the throwing of garbage by the complainant in front of his gate. He also admitted that throwing of garbage was the main reason of exchange of hot words between the complainant and accused
7. Except PW [ENTITY], all the other public witnesses including the Victim [ENTITY] became untraceable and therefore, Prosecution Evidence was closed on 04.08.2015. Remaining witnesses were formal witnesses and no purpose would have been served by examining them.
8. Statement of the accused under [SECTION] [ACT] was dispensed with as nothing incriminating had come on record against the accused.
9. Accused stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence and as such, the defence evidence was closed.
10. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed by both the parties.
I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and the accused and have perused the record of the case.
11. First of all let us quickly go through the relevant sections and the necessary ingredients.
[SECTION] of [ACT] defines Assault or criminal force to a woman with the intention to outrage her modesty : "Whoever, assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
[SECTION] of [ACT] defines Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman : "Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
12. Now let us examine the prosecution evidence brought on record against the accused.
13. In order to prove the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] against the accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused passed indecent remarks against the complainant and tried to physically assault her with the intention to outrage her modesty.
14. In the entire deposition of PW1/ [ENTITY], there is no whisper about any incident of passing vulgar/ lewd remarks by the accused against the complainant which may have the effect of outraging her modesty. Hence, his evidence is not of much relevance as it has failed to throw any light on the allegations made by the complainant.
All the remaining public witnesses including the victim/ complainant [ENTITY] became untraceable and their testimony could not be brought on record and the most important testimony that could connect the accused with the offence in question got lost and hence, the ingredients of the offence in question remained unproved. Nothing has come on record to prove that accused misbehaved with the complainant [ENTITY] or used words against her with the intention to outrage her modesty.
15. In the judgment titled as "[PRECEDENT] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
" In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. "
16. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as [PRECEDENT].
17. Hence, it can be safely observed that no evidence is brought on record to prove the guilt of the accused [ENTITY]. In the light of the above said discussion, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts, hence, the accused [ENTITY] is acquitted from the charges framed against him. Bail Bond of the accused stands cancelled and surety stands discharged. Endorsement, if any, stands cancelled.
18. At this stage, accused [ENTITY] has furnished fresh bail bonds in compliance of [SECTION] [ACT] alongwith his current residential proof and latest passport size photograph. Same is accepted for a period of six months from today.
19. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ([ENTITY]) TODAY ON 04th August, 2015. MM, MAHILA COURTS03 DWARKA: NEW DELHI.