Delhi High Court
State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Brijesh @ Rahul on 20 January, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 20th January, 2017
+ CRL.L.P. 33/2017
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kr. Garg, APP with
SI Shyam Sunder PS Sector-23,
Dwarka.
versus
BRIJESH @ RAHUL
..... Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 1191/2017
For the reasons stated in the application 50 days delay in filing the
leave to appeal petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 33/2017 & Crl.M.A. 1073/2017 (for leave to appeal)
1. The respondent has been acquitted of the charge for offence
punishable under Section 354D IPC in FIR No.372/2013 registered at PS
Dwarka, Sector-23 vide the impugned judgment dated 24th August, 2016
challenging which the State prefers the present leave to appeal petition along
with application seeking condonation of delay.
2. FIR was lodged on the written complaint of the prosecutrix who
alleged that she was a student at Noida. Two-three months ago the
respondent who was a resident of village Bhartal called on her mobile phone.
Later he met her a number of times on the way and started following her till
Metro Station whenever she went to the college. She told him not to do so a
number of times. On 5th December, 2013 he followed her till her college and
enquired from her college. She stated that same has disturbed her studies.
3. In her deposition before the Court she reiterated her allegations in the
complaint. However, in cross-examination the complainant admitted that
she knew the sister and niece of the respondent. She also identified 24
photographs wherein she was present with the respondent, his sister and
niece though she denied sending messages to the respondent from the mobile
phone belonging to her father. She was confronted with the printouts of the
messages. She further denied that she wanted to marry the respondent
however her father did not like the friendship and thus she falsely implicated
the respondent.
4. In defence, the respondent produced Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel to
show in whose name the mobile phone existed. Further two other witnesses
were examined who stated that the respondent was running a shop, the
complainant was regularly visiting his shop and wanted to marry the
respondent. However, since the family of the complainant did not approve
the alliance, they were planning to perform Court marriage but the
complainant was beaten up by her family members where after she stopped
coming to the respondent.
5. In the light of this evidence of the complainant and the defence, the
learned Trial Court noted that besides the testimony of the complainant there
was nothing to corroborate her version. Though her specific allegation was
that the respondent used to follow her at the Metro Station, however the
investigating officer made no efforts to collect the CCTV footage of the
Metro Station. Further except one date, there was no specific date or time
when the respondent followed her. No enquiries were made from the college
or from the students. It was also not stated by the complainant as to from
whom the respondent enquired and what he enquired. Though the learned
Trial Court did not consider the photographs produced by the defence as they
were produced without a certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act
but from the messages between the parties, learned Trial Court held that the
defence was probablized. The Court also noted that no proper investigation
was done by the investigating officer.
6. Considering the evidence of the prosecution and the defence led, the
impugned judgment acquitting the respondent cannot be held to be a
perverse judgment warranting interference. CRL.L.P. 33/2017 & Crl.M.A.
1073/2017 are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 20, 2017
'ga'
