Delhi High Court
State (Gnct Of Delhi) vs Fakrey Alam on 1 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 1st February, 2017
+ CRL.L.P. 61/2017
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with
SI Jitender Joshi, PS Aman
Vihar.
versus
FAKREY ALAM ..... Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 1826/2017
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 180 days in filing
the leave to appeal petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
Crl.L.P. 61/2017
1. Fakrey Alam, the respondent herein was tried for offence punishable
under Sections 509/506 IPC and vide the impugned judgment dated 29 th
April, 2016, acquitted by the learned Trial Court. The reasoning of the
learned Trial Court for acquitting the respondent after discussing the
evidence of the witnesses is as under:-
"6. In the present case, complainant did not remember the
day, month and year when the incident occurred. She stated that
the incident took place at her house. The said area is residential
area. No public witness has been joined in the investigation. It is
not the case that no public was present at the spot. PW2 has
stated that there were neighbors of the complainant present at the
spot but none of the neighbors have been examined in the
investigation by the IO for reasons best known to him.
7. Moreover, there are various contradictions in the version
of the complainant and the police witnesses which make their
version full of doubt and thus, lack credit. In her complaint
Ex.PW3/A she has stated time of incident as 8 pm in the evening
whereas in her statement recorded as PW3, she deposed that the
incident took place at 8 am when she was working in her house.
PW2 Ct. Dharamveer stated to have accompanied the IO to the
place of incident. He stated that at about 7.30 pm, one lady i.e.
complainant came to the police station and gave her complaint on
20.01.2013. He stated the name of the IO as HC Satish. The
incident took place at 8 pm as per complaint Ex.PW3/A. It is not
clear how the complainant could reach the police station at 7.30
pm i.e. even prior to the incident taking place. This amounts to
contradiction in the version of the complainant and the PW2.
Moreover the name of the IO in this case is not HC Satish as
stated by PW-2. The IO is ASI Satyaveer. PW-4 stated that he
recorded the statement of the complainant on reaching the place of
incident. Whereas PW2 Ct. Dharamveer stated that complainant
came to the police station and gave her complaint. Hence, there is
contradiction in the version of the police witnesses as well. The
DD entry no.28PP relied upon by the prosecution is regarding a
quarrel between husband and wife and not between neighbours.
In the present case the accused is neighbour of the complainant.
Thus, there are various lacana in the prosecution version which
does not inspire confidence."
2. Learned APP for the State submits that merely because the
complainant did not remember the date, month and year when the incident
took place, the same would not belie her version. Further the statement of
the complainant was sufficient and the same could not be ignored for want of
corroboration by independent witnesses.
3. The complainant PW-3 in her deposition stated that she did not
remember the date, month and year of the incident however Fakrey Alam,
the respondent herein used to misbehave and abuse her in filthy language
and also threatened to kill her. She further stated that he used to come in
front of her house at office times and abuse her.
4. No doubt, merely because the complainant did not tell the date, month
and year of the incident or there is no witness to corroborate, the testimony
of the complainant could not be belied/discarded. But a perusal of the
testimony of the complainant reveals that the same is vague and general in
nature. Moreover, what words were used by the respondent which amounted
to abuse in filthy language have not been stated.
5. In view of the evidence of the complainant which is vague and general
in nature not describing the alleged offence committed by the respondent, the
view expressed by the learned Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt cannot be said to
be a perverse view warranting interference. No case is made out for grant of
leave to appeal.
6. Petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 01, 2017
'v mittal'
