Delhi District Court
State vs Nitin Badhana on 27 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KARANBIR SINGH, JMFC-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE Vs. NITIN BHADANA & ANR.
U/S 323/509/34 IPC
POLICE STATION PRASAD NAGAR
Date of institution of the case : 17.03.2018
Date of judgment reserved : 19.05.2025
Cr. Case No. : 6100/2018
Date of commission of offence : 10.03.2028
Name of the complainant : Rekha Batra R/o H.No. Z-490, Kendriya
Karmchari Aavas, Timarpur, Delhi.
Name of accused and address : 1) Nitin Bhadana S/o Sh. Gyan Chand
R/o H.No. Z-475, Timarpur, Delhi.
2) Gyan Chand S/o Sh. Lekh Ram R/o
H.No. Z-475, Timarpur, Delhi.
Offence complained of : Section 323-509-34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 27.05.2025.
Final order : Convicted.
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
1. The prosecution’s case, in nutshell is that on 10.03.2018 at about 10:15
p.m. in front of H.No. Z-475, Ground Timar, within the jurisdiction of PS Timar Pur,
both of accused persons intended to insult the modesty of the complainant by badly
abusing the complainant that the same shall be heard by the complainant and thereby
committed an punishable u/s 509/34 IPC. It is further the case of prosecution that on
KARANBIR State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 1 / 19
SINGHDigitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date: 2025.05.27
17:29:49 +0530
the aforesaid date, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention
assaulted and gave beatings to the complainant and caused simple injuries to
Jasvinder Batra and Balvinder Kumar and thereby committed offence u/s 323/34
IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. Charge-sheet was filed and upon taking cognizance, compliance with
Section 207 Cr.P.C. was made. Charge u/s 323/509/34 IPC was framed against the
accused.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined following
witnesses.
PW-1: Smt. Rekha Batra has deposed that she was working as a senior
administration assistant at INMAS, Ministry of Defence, DRDO, Timar Pur. Prior to
the incident, accused persons namely Gyan Chand and his son Nitin Bhadana (aged
about 23 years) were living at house no. Z-475. ‘ dono pita aur putra jab main ghar ke
baahar aati jaati thi, mujhe dekh kar ye dono comments pass karte the, jaise ki
beautiful hai, kya mast maal hai aur isi tarah ke aur comments pass karte the. Main
inke comments ignore karti thi kyunki inki reputation society mein achi nahi thi ‘. On
10.03.2018, at about 10:15PM, she was walking outside her house and her children
along with other children of the society were playing in a ground adjacent to house
no. Z-475. The wife of accused Gyan Chand, was threatening the children by saying
‘marte bhi nahi hai, ek aada mare to jaan chute ‘ and she was running behind the
children with a stone in her hand. The children who were playing told her that wife of
accused Gyan Chand was threatening them. ‘Maine unse request kari ki aap aise mat
KARANBIR State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 2 / 19
SINGH
Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date:
2025.05.27
17:29:54 +0530
boliye’. In the meantime, both accused persons reached at the spot ‘aur aate hi gyan
chand mujhe thappad marne laga. Gyan chand ne bola main teri gaand faad dunga. Tu
apne aap ko samjhti kya hai. Teri maa chod dunga. Aur accused Nitin ne mere baal
pakad ke mujhe niche jhuka ke kohni se meri peeth par vaar kiya aur mujhe niche
gira diya. Accused Nitin mujhe keh raha tha ki tu ek bazaru aurat hai. Tujhe nanga kar
dunga. Itne mein mere husband Jaswinder Batra mujhe dekh kar bachane aaye to
accused Gyan Chand ne unko gardan se pakad ke dhakka maar diya ‘. A person
namely Balwinder who was also residing in the vicinity also came to save us but
accused persons also gave beatings to him. People gathered at the spot and they saved
her from the clutches of both the accused persons. But accused Nitin kept saying
‘bhenchod, haram jaadi’ and also threatened them with dire consequences, ‘tere bacho
ko uthva dunga aur apna mu band rakhiyo’. Thereafter, She dialed 100 number call
and police reached at the spot. Police made inquiry at the spot and thereafter, She
along with her husband and other residents went to PS Timar Pur. Thereafter, she
handed over her written complaint to the police official which was Ex. PW1/A
bearing her signature at point A. On 20.03.2018, she came to the Tis Hazari Court
with one woman police official namely Meenakshi for recording her statement U/s
164 C.r.P.C. before Ld. MM, Ms. Rashmi Gupta. Her statement was recorded and the
same was Ex. PW1/B bearing her signature at point A. IO recorded her
supplementary statement.
PW-2: HC Awdhesh Kumar has deposed that on 17.03.2018, he was posted at
PS Timarpur as HC and was working as Duty Officer from 4 pm to 12 midnight. On
that day, at about 6.20 pm, he received a rukka from SI Meenakshi, on the basis of
which, he registered the present FIR. He brought the original FIR and carbon copy of
the same was Ex.PW2/A (OSR) bearing his signatures at point A. He also made his
endorsement on the rukka vide DD entry no.39A dt.17.08.2018 which was Ex.PW2/B
and which bears his signature at point A to A1. The certificate u/s 65B of the Indian
KARANBIR State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 3 / 19
SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.05.27
17:29:58 +0530
Evidence Act for proving the authenticity of computer was EX.PW-2/C bearing his
signature at point A. The copy of FIR and original rukka were given to WSI Neeraj
for further investigation.
PW-3: Smt. Seema Saxena has deposed that on 10.03.2018, she was residing at
Z-502, 1st floor, Timar Pur, Delhi. On that day, at about 10:15PM, she was taking a
walk with her friend namely Rekha Batra and 15-20 children from our society were
playing. Suddenly, the children came to them and complained to them that one aunty
was scolding them very badly and using abusive words. They went there to find out
the matter and tried to talk but suddenly wife of accused Gyan Chand started shouting
and howling. In the meantime, her husband came and he started using abusive words
and slapping Rekha Batra. She tried to pacify the matter but things were beyond
control and within no time, accused Nitin who was the son of accused Gyan Chand.
After seeing the quarrel between accused Gyan Chand and Rekha Batra, husband of
Rekha Batra also reached at the spot. Accused Gyan Chand gave beating to Husband
of Rekha Batra and accused Nitin was hitting Rekha Batra. Many neighbours also
reached at the spot. Thereafter, Rekha Batra dialled 100 number call and after some
time police official reached at the spot. She along with the complainant and other
members of the society went to the PS where police official made inquiry with her
and recorded her statement.
PW-4: Smt. Kirti has deposed that on 10.03.2018, at about 10:15PM, she was
available at her house and heard some noises coming from outside. Thereafter, she
took a peek outside her window and saw that accused Gyan Chand and accused Nitin
were having a quarrel with Rekha Batra and her husband. After seeing the same, she
went downstairs. The neighbour Balwinder also reached at the spot and tried to pacify
the quarrel, but both accused persons gave beating to him as well. She also tried to
intervene but the things were already out of control. Many neighbours also reached at
the spot. Thereafter, Rekha Batra dialed 100 number call and after some time police
KARANBIR
SINGH State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 4 / 19
Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date:
2025.05.27
17:30:03 +0530
official reached at the spot. She along with the complainant and other members of the
society went to the PS where police official made inquiry with her and recorded her
statement.
PW-5: Sh. Balvinder Kumar has deposed that on 10th day of month (not
remember) of the year 2018, he along with daughter came from a marriage ceremony
at about 10:00 p.m./ 10:15 p.m. When they reached their house, they heard a noise
from outside and they saw from the window of their house that accused Nitin was
pulling the hair of Rekha Batra and pushed her husband. He got down and tried to
pacify the matter to which accused Nitin gave him. His Ring and Kadda were
dropped on the road and the same were handed over to him by the public persons.
Public persons intervened and pacified the matter and thereafter, call at 100 number
was made. Police officials came at the spot. They went to the PS and their medical
examination was conducted. Thereafter, his statement was recorded.
PW-6: Retd. SI Ashok Kumar has deposed that on 10.03.2018, he was posted
as ASI at PS Timar Pur. On that day, in pursuance of DD No. 38-A, he along with Ct.
Ajay reached type-II, Quarter Mayor House. They met there with complainant
namely Smt. Rekha Batra and she told that the children were playing outside and
Gyan Chand and Omwati were threatening them. She also told that she along with her
husband requested Gyan Chand and Omwati to keep them playing as their exams are
over. The complainant also told that Gyan Chand and Omwati started quarreling with
her and hold her hair and also pushed her. After that she told that the son of Gyan
Chand and Omwati also came at the spot and started abusing the complainant in filthy
language. Thereafter, SI Lalit Chauhan inquired from Gyan Chand, his wife Omwati
and his son Nitin about the incident and they informed that children were making
noise and on our trying to stop them, Rekha Batra, Jaswinder and Balwinder started
to abuse then and also beat them. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Ajay got conducted
State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 5 / 19
the medical examination of Smt. Rekha Batra, Jaswinder Batra, Balwinder Singh and
Nitin on which doctor prepared M.E. and no injuries were reported. Both the parties
gave their complaints to him. Both the parties were raising allegations against each
other and were not ready to settle the matter. Thereafter, he produced both the parties
before the SHO concerned. SHO also tried to settle the matter but both the parties
were not ready to settle the matter. After the departure of both the parties, he went to
the quarter and inquired about the matter from there. As parties were not ready to
settle the matter, he informed the facts to the SHO and he prepared Kalandara U/s
107/150 Cr.P.C. which was then Ex. PW6/A bearing his signature at points A and the
kalandara was then before the hon’ble court. Thereafter, he produced the kalandara
vide DD no. 13-B dated 11.03.2018 U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. and M.E. Numbers 1072/18,
1070/18, 1071/18 and 1073/18 to the SI Lalit Chauhan and he seized the same vide
seizure memo which was then Ex. PW6/B bearing his signature at point A.
PW-7: Sh. Jaswinder Batra has deposed that on 10.03.2018, he was walking
near his house. At about 10:15 p.m., he heard some noises and when he came to the
spot, he observed that accused Nitin was holding the hair of his wife Rekha Batra and
his father Gyan Chand was beating his wife. They both were also abusing his wife.
When he tried to intervene, accused Gyan Chand slapped him and pushed him by
holding his neck. Lot of people gathered at the spot. When our neighbour Balwinder
tried to intervene, both the accused persons gave beatings to Balwinder Kumar.
Public persons present at the spot intervened and saved them from the accused
persons. His wife made a call at 100 number. Police officials came at the spot. Their
medical examinations were conducted. Police officials recorded of his statement u/s
161 Cr.P.C.
PW-8: Aarav Batra has deposed on 10.03.2018, at about 10-10:15PM, he along
with his sister Parineeti and other children from the society were playing inside the
State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 6 / 19
KARANBIR
SINGH
Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date: 2025.05.27
17:30:08 +0530
society. Then, a neighbour aunty started abusing them and asked them to go away
from there and showed the stone to them. His mother was walking nearby and he
went to her and narrated the incident. His mother went to that aunty and tried to
pacify the matter. But aunty started abusing his mother. Then the husband of that
aunty namely Gyan Chand and their son also came there and they both started
abusing his mother. Gyan Chand and his son namely Nitin Bhadana started beating
his mother. Then, his father Jaswinder Batra came there and tried to save his mother.
Accused Nitin gave beatings to his father and pushed him by holding his neck. Then,
our neighbour Mr. Balwinder came there and tried to pacify the matter but Nitin
Bhadana also gave beatings to him. Then, lots of people gathered there and his
mother made a call at 100 number. Police officials came there.
PW-9: Statement of Parineeti Batra has deposed that on 10.03.2018, at about
10-10:15PM, she along with her brother Aarav and other children from the society
were playing inside the society. Then, a neighbour aunty started abusing them and
told them that “tum log yaha shor machate ho” and she started chasing them with
stone in her hand. Her mother was walking nearby and they went to her and narrated
the incident. Her mother went to that aunty and tried to pacify the matter. But aunty
started abusing her mother. Then the husband of that aunty namely Gyan Chand and
their son also came there and they both started abusing her mother. Gyan Chand and
his son namely Nitin Bhadana started beating her mother. Then, her father Jaswinder
Batra came there and tried to save her mother. Accused persons slapped her father
and pushed her by holding his neck. Then, our neighbour Mr. Balwinder came there
and tried to pacify the matter but accused persons also gave beatings to him. Then,
lots of people gathered there and her mother made a call at 100 number. Police
officials came there.
KARANBIR
SINGH State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 7 / 19
Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date:
2025.05.27
17:30:12
+0530
PW-10: Insp. Lalit Chauhan has deposed that on 03.04.2018, he was posted as
SI at PS Timar Pur. On that day, the further investigation of the present case was
marked to him. On 04.04.2018, he recorded the statement of Jaswinder and
Balwinder Batra U/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 05.04.2018, he collected the copies of Kalandara
U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. vide DD No. 13-B and also collected the MLC 1070/18,
1071/18, 1072/18 (inadvertently mentioned in the charge-sheet as 1072/17) and
1073/18 and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW6/B bearing his
signature at point B. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of ASI Ashok U/s 161
Cr.P.C and discharged him. On 08.04.2018, he recorded the statements of neighbours
of complainant namely Seema and Kirti U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He also recorded the
statements of son and daughter of complainant namely Aarav and Pariniti U/s 161
Cr.P.C. On 12.04.2018, accused persons namely Nitin and Gyan Chand along with
Omwati came to the PS and he interrogated the said accused persons Nitin and Gyan
Chand. Thereafter, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the
concerned court for the judicial verdict.
PW-11: SI Minakshi, has deposed that on 17.03.2018, She was posted as SI at
PS Timar Pur. On that day, the complainant came to the PS along with her complaint
and she handed over the same to her. The said complaint was already Ex. PW1/A.
Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint she prepared the tehrir which was
Ex. PW11/A bearing her signature at point A and got the FIR registered. On
19.03.2018, she went to THC and moved an application for recording the statement
of the complainant U/s 164 Cr.P.C. which was already Ex. AD1 and the said
statement was Ex. PW11/B bearing her signature at point A. On 20.03.2018, she
along with the complainant went to the spot and she prepared the site plan which was
Ex. PW11/C bearing her signature at point A. The statement of the complainant was
recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. She also recorded the supplementary statement of the
complainant U/s 161 Cr.P.C. She got transferred and handed over the case file to the
State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 8 / 19
MHC(R).
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
5. After conclusion of this evidence, the prosecution evidence was closed
and statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
1) Accused Gyan Chand has stated that Smt. Rekha Batra, Balvinder,
Seema Saxena and Jasvinder and Ors abused his wife namely Smt. Omwati. When
his wife went to Rekha Batra and Ors asked them that it was about more than 10:00
p.m. and their children were shouting near their house. My wife asked the
complainant that exams of your children were over but his son is preparing for
competitive exams. At that time the above said persons abused and misbehaved his
wife. The written complaint Ex. PW1/A is dt. 17.03.2018 and it was not written on
the same day. On 10.03.2018, complainant her husband, other neighbours and
accused persons and his wife also went to the PS along with ASI Ashok Kumar and
ASI Ashok Kumar took the statement/ complainant of both the parties but no offence
was made out on the complainant, therefore, ASI Ashok Kumar filed the Kalandra u/s
107/150 Cr.P.C. against both the parties i.e. the complainant, her husband and
Balvinder and the second party was accused persons and my wife.
2) Accused Nitin Bhadana stated that it were Rekha Batra, Balvinder,
Seema Saxena and Jasvinder and Ors who misbehaved my mother he and his father
came at the spot and helped his mother. It was them who started the fight. It was
Rekha Batra Balvinder, Seema, Saxena and Jasvinder and Ors abused his mother
namely Smt. Omwati. When his mother went to Rekha Batra and Ors. Asked them it
was about more than 10:00 p.m. and their children were shoulting near our house. His
mother asked the complaint that exams of your children were over but his son is
KARANBIR
SINGH State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 9 / 19Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date:
2025.05.27
17:30:17 +0530
preparing for competitive exams. At that time the above said persons abused and
misbehaved his mother. The written complaint Ex. PW1/A is dt. 17.03.2018 and it
was not written on the same day. In continuation of what he has submitted above, on
10.03.2018, complainant her husband other neighbours and accused persons and his
mother also went to the PS along with ASI Ashok Kumar and ASI Ashok Kumar took
the statement/ complainant of both the parties but no offence was made out on the
complaint, therefore, ASI Ashok Kumar filed the Kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C.
against both the parties i.e. the complainant, her husband and Balvinder and the
second party was accused persons and his mother.
Both the accused persons did not lead defence evidence.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the
accused. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
7. It has been submitted by Ld. APP that prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubts. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has
submitted that there are glaring loop holes in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses. It has been submitted that the story of complainant is not believable as she
has changed her statements in the FIR as well as in the court. It has been submitted
that during her cross-examination, the complainant replied to most of the questions as
“I do not know”. It has been submitted that all the witnesses of prosecution are
interested witnesses and their testimony is not reliable. It has been submitted that Ex.
PW1/A is no reliable as the complainant has deposed that she gave said statement on
10.03.2018 whereas the said statement was given on 17.03.2018. It has been
submitted that PW Balvinder had consumed Alcohol which is visible in his MLC.
Reliance has been placed on Ashok Narang Vs. State, 12.01.2012, Bhimapa
KARANBIR
State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 10 / 19
SINGH
Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date:
2025.05.27
17:30:21 +0530
Chandrapa Hosamani and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (11) SCC 323, Thuliakali
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Citation not mentioned in written arguments), Ramanand
Yadav Vs. Prabhu Nath Jha (2003) 12 SCC 606.
8. I have gone through the written submissions and entire record and the
case laws for which the citation is mentioned in the written arguments.
9. At the outset, the accused persons have not disputed that there was a
quarrel b/w the accused persons and the complainant/ injured persons. They have also
not disputed that the children were playing and the dispute b/w the parties arose with
respect to the noise made by the children. It is their case that it was the complainant
who started the fight. It is further their case that the children were playing loudly after
10:00 p.m. and they were causing disturbance in the study of accused Nitin. They
have taken this ground in their written submissions as well as in the suggestions
given to the prosecution witnesses. They have taken the same stand in their statement
u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The law is well-settled that the facts admitted need not be proved.
Thus, the fact that children were playing in the society and there was a fight b/w the
parties stands proved. Further, the fact of injuries to the PWs Balvinder, Jasvinder and
Rekha Batra is also not disputed as the accused persons have admitted the MLC u/s
294 Cr.P.C.
10. Now, I shall deal with the argument with respect to the written complaint
filed by the complainant which is on record as Ex. PW1/A. It was submitted by Ld.
Counsel for the accused that the fight in question took place on 10.03.2018. It has
been submitted that on the said date, the complainant dialed 100 number call after
which SHO PS Timar Pur tried to settle the present matter b/w the parties. Since, the
parties did not settle, a Kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. was filed against both the
parties. It was submitted that on 17.03.2018, the complainant again gave fresh
KARANBIR
SINGH State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 11 / 19
Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date:
2025.05.27
17:30:25
+0530
complaint Ex. PW1/A upon which the present FIR was registered and was handed
over to SI Meenakshi for investigation. It has been submitted that the witness in her
examination in chief has deposed that Ex. PW1/A was given on 10.03.2018.
11. PW1 in her examination in chief has no where deposed that the
complaint was given on 10.03.2018. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused
that DD No. 38A is with respect to entry of complaint dt. 10.03.2018 where as
perusal of DD No. 38A would show that the same pertains to PCR call of the incident
and it has not pertains to the complaint of the complainant. Thus, the aforesaid
submission is contrary to record and same stands rejected. Merely, because the
proceedings u/s 107 and 150 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the police, the same is not a
reason to throw out the entire case of prosecution. It is noteworthy that the
proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C. are only limited for keeping security to maintain peace
and as such the said proceedings have no bearing on the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination, PW6 Retd. SI Ashok Kumar deposed that he prepared
the Kalandra as no cognizable offence was made out. However, the written complaint
PW1/A was never given to him. Further, his opinion as to whether cognizable offence
is made out or not is not binding on the court as the information given in the
complaint of complainant clearly shows that cognizable offence is made out. During
the cross-examination, the attention of the witness was drawn to undated complaint
which was marked as Mark X. The witness stated that it is not in her handwriting.
Thus, the aforesaid contention with respect to two complaints stand rejected. It
appears that the aforesaid argument was taken up only to create confusion. The
statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A, her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and her statement
in the court are clear. In any case, when the fact of fight taking place has already been
admitted by the accused persons, whether the complaint was made on 10.03.2018 or
17.03.2018 loses any significance. Had it been the case where the defence of accused
persons would have been that no fight ever took place or that they were not present at
KARANBIR
SINGH State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 12 / 19
Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date:
2025.05.27
17:30:30
+0530
the spot, the aforesaid argument could have been relevant. But in the present case, the
accused persons have taken the defence that the complainant started the fight. If such
was the case, they were very well within their right to initiate the criminal justice
system. Neither Mark X bear their signatures nor they have produced anything on
record to show that they started any criminal process against the accused. Further, the
MLCs Ex. AD4, AD2, AD3 and AD5 show that accused Nitin did not suffer any
injuries and there was no fresh complaint by him to the doctor whereas PW Jasvinder
has suffered injuries and PW Rekha Batra complained about pain. Thus, the
argument of accused persons that the complainant was aggressor is an after thought
and is liable to be rejected.
12. It was further argued by defence that there are contradictions in the
statements of complainant dated 17.03.2018 and a statement under section 164 of
CrPC. It was further submitted that there is contradiction between prosecution
witnesses with respect to throwing of stones by mother of accused Nitin. It is
noteworthy that the FIR was registered in the year 2018 and the statement of
witnesses was recorded in the year 2022-2024. Minor contradictions are bound to
occur after so many years and the witness is not expected to depose everything like a
parrot. Further, the answers of witnesses with respect to who was standing where
during the fight are also not relevant as during the fight, a witness is not expected to
remember how many persons were present and who was standing on the right side or
the left side. Thus, the aforesaid argument that the witnesses of prosecution did not
remember the incident in minute details is not relevant and it also stands rejected.
13. During the cross examination of PW1 there is no suggestion that the
accused did not say the abusive words to the complainant. Thus, the aforesaid
version of complainant with respect to the abuse made by them has gone unrebutted
and unchallenged in the cross examination.
State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 13 / 19
14. As far as the argument that the witnesses of prosecution know each other
or are injured witnesses, it is noteworthy that merely because the witnesses are
injured or know each other does not make them interested witnesses and their
evidence cannot be discarded solely on this ground. The law is well-settled that its the
quality of evidence that is to be seen by the court. The version of PW1, PW3, PW4,
PW5 and PW7, PW8 and PW9 is corroborated with respect to the fight which took
place, with respect to the beatings given by both the accused persons to the
complainant and with respect to the abuses made by both the accused persons to the
complainant. Accordingly, the aforesaid argument also stands rejected.
15. The law regarding injured witness is by now well settled. Where a
witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of
such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that
comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is
unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.
“Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness”. (Vide Ramlagan
Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2593; Malkhan Singh & Anr. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 12; Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983
SC 957; Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696; Bonkya alias Bharat
Shivaji Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra , (1995) 6 SCC 447; Mohar & Anr. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2002) 7 SCC 606; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan,
(2008) 8 SCC 270; Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC
477; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC
2261; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673).
16. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3)
SCC 235, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness
KARANBIR
SINGH
State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 14 / 19
Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date:
2025.05.27
17:30:35
+0530
should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on
the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence
on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during
the said incident.
17. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony
of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of
the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the
scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go
unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the
offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there
are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions
and discrepancies therein.
18. There have been no major discrepancies in the statement of PW1, PW5
and PW7. Thus, the evidence of aforesaid witnesses is reliable.
19. Allegations against the accused are for offence under Section 509 IPC.
20. Section 509 provides that “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 three years, and
also with fine”.
21. The essential ingredients of the offence are as follows:
a) Uttering any word with the intent that such words be heard by the
woman.
State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 15 / 19
b) The words spoken should be such that they intend to insult the modesty
of any woman.
c) Making any sound or gesture with the intention that such sounds or
gestures be heard or seen by the woman.
d) Exhibiting any object with the intent that such object be seen by the
women.
e) Intruding upon the privacy of a woman.
22. The main question that needs to be answered is whether the accused
uttered words with an intent to outrage her modesty. Mere utterance of abuses does
not automatically amount to outrage of modesty. In Abhijeet J.K. vs. State of
Kerala [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 703], the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that there
is a distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of insulting the
modesty of a woman. In order to attract Section 509, merely insulting a woman is not
sufficient and insult to modesty of a woman is required to have been done.
23. Section 509 criminalizes a ‘word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of
a woman’ and in order to establish this offence it is necessary to show that the
modesty of a particular woman or a readily identifiable group of women has been
insulted by a spoken word, gesture or physical act. In State of Punjab vs. Major
Singh [AIR 1967 SC 63], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the essence of a
woman’s modesty is her sex. The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her
body. Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping, the woman possesses
modesty. In Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill [AIR 1996 SC 309], it was held that if
the word uttered or the gesture made could be perceived as one which is capable of
shocking the sense of decency of a woman, then it can be found that it is an act of
insult to the modesty of the woman. In Basheer vs. Kerala [2014 KHC 5026], it was
held that there must be a definitive allegation of insult to the modesty of woman orKARANBIR State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 16 / 19
SINGHDigitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date:
2025.05.27
17:30:39 +0530
intrusion into the privacy of woman. The sine qua non for application of Section 509
IPC is that there must be an intention to outrage modesty of a woman. The word
“modesty” has not been defined anywhere in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor in
Section 354, and 509, of the IPC, 1860. In the Oxford English Dictionary one of the
meanings given for the word “modesty” is “womanly propriety of behaviour”. What
the legislature had in mind when it used the word modesty in Sections 354 and 509,
IPC was protection of an attribute which is peculiar to woman, as a virtue which
attaches to a female on account of her sex.
24. In Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill AIR 1996 SC 309 the Supreme Court
held that: “The ultimate test for ascertaining whether the modesty has been outraged
is, in the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of
shocking the sense of decency of a woman”.
25. In the present matter, the accused Gyan Chand uttered the words ” main
teri gaand faad dunga. Tu apne aap ko samjhti kya hai. Teri maa chod dunga”.
Further, the accused Nitin uttered the words ” tu ek bazaru aurat hai. Tujhe nanga kar
dunga”. Accused Nitin also abused the complainant by saying ” bhenchod, haram
jaadi tere bacho ko uthva dunga aur apna mu band rakhiyo” . The aforesaid words
clearly are not the words which simply insult any woman. These are the words which
are intended to insult the modesty of any women as the aforesaid words have the
capability to shock the sense of the decency of any woman. Saying Bazaru Aurat to
any woman would imply that she is a prostitute and the aforesaid words definitely
insult the modesty of a woman. Further, the words uttered by the accused are directly
aimed at her decency and modesty. Abusing the mother of complainant would
definitely shock her decency. As noted above, the aforesaid testimony of PW1 has
gone entirely unchallenged in the cross-examination as no specific suggestions have
State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 17 / 19
been given to deny the same. Accordingly, the court is of the view that the
prosecution has proved the offence u/s 509 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
26. In any case, even the sole testimony of complainant is sufficient but in
the present matter, the version of complainant is corroborated by other witnesses.
In Prithipal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 10, it was
observed as under:-
“49. This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the court can and may
act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is
no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single
witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. But if there are
doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not
the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured
principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether
the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.
The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence,
rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open
to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record
conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several
witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.” [See Vadivelu
Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367, Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14
SCC 150 and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91]
27. As far as offence u/s 323 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has to prove
that the accused caused simple hurt to the complainant. The definition of word hurt is
given in Section 319 IPC which provides that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. In the present matter, it is admitted that
fight b/w the parties took place. PW1 has deposed that accused Gyan Chand slapped
her and accused Nitin pulled her hair and threw her down. The same is corroborated
by PW3 who deposed that accused Gyan Chand slapped Rekha Batra, husband of
Rekha Batra and accused Nitin also hit Rekha Batra. PW3 has also corroborated the
same. PW4 has corroborated the version that both the accused persons gave beating
KARANBIR
SINGH
State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 18 / 19
Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
SINGH
Date:
2025.05.27
17:30:44
+0530
to PW Balvinder. PW5 and PW7 are the injured witnesses themselves and as noted
above, their testimony has been found to be reliable and there is nothing to discredit
the same. PW8 and PW9 have also corroborated the entire incident. The oral version
of witness is corroborated with the medical record Ex. AD2 to AD5 except Ex. AD3.
Thus, from the aforesaid testimony, the ingredients of causing bodily pain stand
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, both the accused persons stand
convicted for the offence u/s 323 of IPC as well.
28. Based on above discussion, the court is of the view that the prosecution
has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and both the accused persons stand
convicted of offence u/s 323/509/34 IPC.
This judgment consists of 19 pages and each and every page of this judgment is
digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.27
17:30:56 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Karanbir Singh)
COURT ON 27th DAY OF MAY, 2025. JMFC-02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/27.05.2025.
State Vs. Nitin Bhadana and Anr. Ct Case 6100/2018 PS Timar Pur PAGE NO. 19 / 19