Delhi High Court
Ms.G vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 24 September, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 24th September, 2018
+ CRL.L.P. 618/2018
Ms.G ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Ashok K. Garg, APP for the State
with SI Bhagat Singh, PS Ashok
Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No. 32769/2018 (Delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 537 days in filing
the leave to appeal petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 618/2018
1. As per the requirement of law, identity of the petitioner is withheld.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 9th January, 2017, whereby the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent No.2 for the
offences punishable under Sections 323/354D/509 IPC, the petitioner/
complainant has preferred the present leave petition.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16th September 2018 on
receipt of a call regarding a quarrel, ASI Tahir and Ct. Babu Lal went to the
spot. Statement of the petitioner/complainant was recorded vide Ex.PW-3/A
wherein she stated that on 14th September, 2013 when the petitioner was
going to the college, respondent No. 2 followed her at Deep Market, Ashok
Vihar and tried to talk to her despite clear indication of disinterest by her.
On 16th September 2013, the respondent No. 2 went to the Jhuggi of the
petitioner and asked her brother about her. When the brother of the
petitioner confronted respondent No. 2 and refused to tell the whereabouts
of the petitioner, a tiff took place between them. On this statement of the
petitioner, FIR No. 273/13 vide Ex.PW-1/A was registered for offences
punishable under Sections 354D/509/323 IPC at PS Ashok Vihar.
4. Ct. Babu Lal arrested respondent No. 2 vide arrest memo Ex.PW-2/A
and conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW-2/B. Site plan (PW-5/B) was
prepared at the instance of the petitioner. Statement of the petitioner was
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW-3/B. On completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed. Charge was framed for offences
punishable under Sections 354D/509/323 IPC.
5. Prosecution examined six witnesses. Petitioner was examined as
PW-3. In her testimony, she deposed that in sync with her statement made to
the police. She further stated that respondent No. 2 used to pressurize her to
get married to him. After the registration of FIR, the family members of
respondent No. 2 came to her house and pressurized her to withdraw her
complaint. She further stated that on 11th December 2013, respondent No. 2
came along with two of his friends, caught hold of her, pulled her hand and
immediately ran away. After narrating the incident to her mother, both of
them went to the police station and made a complaint against the respondent
No.2 vide Ex.PW-3/C. When they returned to their house, respondent No.2's
elder brother Munna came to their house and threatened to kill them. They
again went to the police station where the mother of the respondent No. 2
slapped her brother. Due to fear they shifted their house from Wazirpur to
Nangloi.
6. Brother of the petitioner was examined as PW-4 who stated that
respondent No.2 had started beating him, threatened to kill him and his
family when he refused to give him any information regarding his sister. He
further stated that he told the entire incident to the mother of respondent No.
2 who told him that respondent No. 2 is not an obedient child and he should
file a complaint against him. He made a call to the police on 100 number.
7. Respondent No. 2 in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
stated that he has been falsely implicated as he had a quarrel with the brother
of the petitioner due to which the petitioner and her family members were
jealous of him.
8. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted respondent No. 2 for the
offences punishable under Sections 354D/509/323 IPC on the ground that
the allegations of beatings are not substantiated by testimony of any public
witness even though the place of incidence was a crowded residential area
nor proved by way of MLC. The petitioner did not report any incident of
stalking despite the allegation that respondent No. 2 had been stalking her
for the last two years. She had only filed a complaint after the occurrence of
the quarrel between her brother and respondent No. 2. There are material
contradictions in the testimony of the petitioner and her brother. In her
examination in chief, the petitioner stated that she filed the complaint
against respondent No. 2 on 14th September 2013 whereas in her cross-
examination she stated that she had not filed any complaint against
respondent No. 2 other than the present case. The complaint by the
petitioner to the police is dated 12th December 2013 whereas she reported
the occurrence of the incident of stalking as 14 th September 2013. She has
not furnished any proper justification regarding why she did not report the
incident of 14th September 2013. The petitioner's whereabouts on 16th
September 2013 are doubtful as in her statement before the police she stated
that she was at home when respondent No.2 gave beatings to her while in
her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she had
gone to her college. Furthermore, the petitioner has not mentioned any
incident regarding pressurization for marriage or abuses being hurled by
respondent No. 2 in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In
order to invoke the provisions of Section 509 it was essential for the
petitioner to narrate the actual words/gestures used by respondent No. 2 but
the same have not been disclosed by the petitioner. The petitioner stated that
she along with her mother went to the police station and got their statement
recorded whereas the Investigating Officer stated that he reached the spot
and recorded the statement.
9. Findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are a plausible view
on the evidence led by the prosecution. Hence, the impugned judgment
acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be perverse warranting
interference of this Court.
10. Leave to appeal petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
'vn'
