Delhi High Court
Yogendra vs The State Of (Nct) Of Delhi on 15 September, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: September 7, 2016
% Judgment Delivered on: September 15, 2016
+ CRL.REV.P. 382/2016
YOGENDRA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. S. Prasad, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP
with SI Sunil Kumar, PS
Govind Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Crl.M.A. 8379/2016
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the
revision petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
Crl.Rev.P. 382/2016 & Crl.M.B. 1031/2016
1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order
dated 20th February, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
upholding the order of conviction of the Petitioner passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate on 07th July, 2015 under Sections 354/451 IPC and
order on sentence dated 26th August, 2015 sentencing the Petitioner to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
`2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section
451 IPC.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 23rd December, 2012 DD No.
19A was received at 6:38 P.M. stating that there was a quarrel at House No.
224, Gali No. 16. TKD Extension. PW-4, HC Krishan Kumar recorded the
statement of PW-3 on the basis of which FIR was registered. PW-3 stated
that he worked as a mason and his wife PW-1 worked in a factory. They
both were not at home. When he returned at around 6:15 P.M. after work,
the prosecutrix PW-2 told him that Yogender who was her 'mausa', had
come at their house. Yogender was drunk and he pressed the breasts of the
prosecutrix and went away. When PW-3 went to Yogender's room to
complain about the incident, he started quarrelling with PW-3 as a result of
which PW-3 called the police. Accordingly FIR No. 691/2012 was
registered on the complaint of PW-3 under Sections 354/451 IPC at PS
Govind Puri. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after recording the prosecution evidence
and statement of the petitioner, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
noted above. Aggrieved by the judgment and order on sentence, the
Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 20th February, 2016 and upheld
the judgment and order on sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that there is contradiction
with respect to time when the alleged incident took place. The prosecutrix
PW-2 in her cross-examination stated that her mother came around 12:00 in
the afternoon and the alleged incident took place before she came. However,
as per the rukka forwarded by PW-4, Krishan Kumar for registration of FIR,
the time of incident was mentioned as 6:00 P.M. No independent public
witness was examined and produced for corroborating the incident. The
prosecutrix was also not medically examined. Thus, there was no
corroboration of her version even on this count.
4. Per contra learned APP for the State submits that the impugned
judgments suffer from no illegality. No corroboration can be there to the
version of the prosecutrix as she was alone at home. There is no
contradiction in the time of the incident as deposed to by the witnesses.
5. After satisfying that the prosecutrix was capable to understand the
questions, give rational answers and competent to depose correctly about the
incident, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the prosecutrix.
She deposed that her mother had gone to her work place and she was alone
at home. When she was cooking food, the petitioner entered the room and
started molesting her. He caught hold of her breast and pressed them. She
pushed the petitioner when he touched her and made him to go out of the
house. The petitioner was her 'mausa'. During her cross-examination, she
stated that the petitioner had come to her house in a drunken condition. She
left the house after the petitioner misbehaved with her and went to a lady in
the neighbourhood. Her mother came home around 12 in the afternoon and
the incident took place before her mother had come. She had stayed in the
neighbourhood till 8:00 P.M. She stated that her medical examination was
not conducted and she had not received any injury. During her re-
examination, she stated that when she was coming to the Court, her mother
had told her to narrate the whole incident before the Court.
6. PW-1 the mother of the prosecutrix deposed that the prosecutrix
informed her about the incident when she came home around 7-8 P.M. She
corroborated the version of the prosecutrix.
7. PW-3 the father of the prosecutrix deposed in sync with his statement
made before the police.
8. The version of the prosecutrix that the incident took place before
12.00 PM when her mother came back from work is required to be ignored
in view of the consistent version of the parents who stated that they came
back in the evening. Further if the mother of the prosecutrix would have
come back at 12 noon there was no reason for the prosecutrix to have stayed
in the house of the neighbour till evening.
9. Considering the evidence on record, it is evident from the cogent and
credible testimony of the prosecutrix that the petitioner entered the house of
the prosecutrix and outraged her modesty by pressing her breasts. When the
prosecutrix was alone, there could not have been corroboration by
independent witness. Since no injuries were received by the prosecutrix,
there was no necessity for conducting the medical examination of the
prosecutrix. I find no reason to interfere with impugned order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge. The revision petition and application are
dismissed.
10. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for
updation of the Jail record.
11. TCR be returned.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
'vn'
