[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Ankit Jhamb on 9 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 384/2021
FIR No. : 85/2019
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 323/506(Part I)/509 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
Ankit Jhamb
S/o Sh. Jagdish Jhamb
R/o H. No. 193, Sector 13
Hisar, Haryana .... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Ms. Surya Singh
2. Name of Accused : Ankit Jhamb
3. Offence complained of : 323/506 (Part I)/509 IPC
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Between 08.02.2019 to
5. Date of commission of offence :
10.02.2019
6. Date of Filing of case : 18.01.2021
7. Date of Reserving Order : 28.03.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025
Convicted for the offence
9. Final Order :
punishable u/s 355 IPC
Argued by - Sh. Ujjwal Vikas, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Ajay Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rishabh Bansal and Ms. Sakshi Pareek, Ld. Counsel
for the accused.
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 1 of 29
"It is business of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused to
the satisfaction of the minds of the jury; but the doubt to the benefit of
which the accused is entitled to must be such as rational thinking, sensible
man fairly and reasonably entertains, not the doubt of a vacillating mind
that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and idle
skepticism. There must be doubt which a man may honestly and
conscientiously entertain."
Glanwille Williams
In the case at hand, prosecution could prove beyond the shadow of
reasonable doubt that the accused, being the husband of the de-facto
complainant, slapped her, spit on her, and thus subjected her to domestic
abuse. Accused was not able to show any crevices in the case of prosecution
which can, individually or cumulatively, be considered "reasonable doubt".
As such therefore, he stands convicted.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. Succinctly stated, the case of prosecution is that between 08.02.2019
to 10.02.2019, on multiple occasions, at H. No. A20/2, DDA, SFS Flats,
Saket, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, accused Ankit Jhamb
assaulted his wife/de-facto complainant Mrs. Surya Singh, thereby causing
her simple injuries, and while committing the aforesaid assault, the accused
had criminally intimidated her, and hurled abuses/comments at her with
intention to outrage her modesty. Thus, it is alleged that he committed
offences punishable u/s 323/506(Part I)/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused.
Cognizance was taken, and he was summoned to face trial. Copy of charge-
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 2 of 29
sheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter,
formal charge was framed against him for the offences punishable u/s
323/506(Part I)/509 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.
Proceedings then progressed to the stage of PE.
3. In support of its version, prosecution has examined four witnesses:
PW Name of PW Nature of Testimony
PW1 Ms. Surya Singh Complainant
PW2 Retired Colonel Sh. Uday Singh Father of complainant
PW3 Ms. Arti Caretaker/Governess of the
complainant's child at the
relevant time.
PW4 SI Jai Kishan IO
4. Accused admitted, as per Section 294 CrPC, the genuineness of
endorsement by DO (Ex A1), the present FIR (Ex A2), certificate u/s 65B
Indian Evidence Act (Ex A3), statement of complainant recorded u/s 164
CrPC by Ld. MM, Saket, New Delhi (Ex A4), and DD no. 33A dated
10.02.2019 (Ex A5). In view of the above said admission, rest of the
prosecution witnesses, all formal in nature, were dropped from the list of
witnesses to be examined. PE was closed thereafter.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused was given an
opportunity to explain the incriminatory material appearing against him at
trial, and his statement was recorded under Section 281/313 CrPC, wherein
he claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations levelled against him.
When specifically asked, he opted to lead DE in the affirmative.
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 3 of 29
Proceedings then progressed to the stage of DE.
6. The accused examined himself as DW1. He, inter alia, deposed as
under:
"The morning of 10.02.2019 was quite a normal morning. I woke up
around 10:30 am. After my daily routine and breakfast, I went out to park
outside home around 12:30 pm for a walk, and returned back around 01:50
pm. I am producing the activity record of Garmin smartwatch with
timelines, and with the Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act. The
activity record of Garmin watch is Ex DW1/A (Colly), and Certificate u/s
65B Indian Evidence Act is Ex DW1/B. I did not slap Surya. I did not
intimidate or abuse her. I did not spit on her."
7. No other witnesses were examined by the accused, and DE was
accordingly closed. Pertinently, after DE was concluded, prosecution was
given an opportunity to lead additional evidence u/s 311 CrPC.
Complainant/PW1 was recalled, further examined and cross-examined.
Thereafter, additional statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC.
Accused opted to not lead any further DE thereafter. Proceedings then
progressed to the stage of final arguments. Arguments heard. Record
perused. Considered.
8. In her testimony, PW1/Complainant Surya Singh stated that her
husband started abusing her physically soon after her marriage. She testified
that after getting married, she had moved to the US with her husband, and it
is there that the first incident of physical abuse took place. She stated that
after relocating back to India, her husband's behavior towards her got much
worse, and he started abusing her both physically and verbally, including
spitting at her on several occasions. She stated that on 08.02.2019, when
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 4 of 29
she was staying with her husband at the accommodation rented by him,
bearing address Flat no. 20/2, DDA Flats, Saket, New Delhi, she had a very
long discussion with him in which she tried to persuade him to make efforts
to get the marriage to work for the interest of their daughter, but to no avail.
She testified that her husband replied that he has been stuck in this
marriage, and did not want to continue to live with her, and also said that if
she wanted to continue to live in her his house, she would have to follow
his diktats. She further stated that she took all the insults with a view to
keep the relationship intact. She further testified that with the same mindset,
on 09.02.2019, she went with her husband and her daughter to Mughal
Gardens for an excursion, and returned back on 10th morning. She further
stated that she wanted to then discuss and plan for the Mundan ceremony of
her daughter, but disrupting a normal conversation, her husband suddenly
got hyper and started angrily pacing in the room. She deposed that her
husband snatched their daughter Aarya from her hands, then telephoned her
father, and told him that he would never get to meet their daughter. PW1
further deposed that after her father disconnected the call, her husband used
derogatory words against her father, "Tumhara baap isko paida karke gaya
hai, tumhara baap hizra hai, ganda khun gandi jaat ho tum log" . She
testified that she kept pleading with her husband all the while to return their
daughter back, fruitlessly. She deposed that she also told her husband that
she would be inclined to record a video of his behavior and send it to the
police, after which her husband handed over her daughter to her. She
deposed that thereafter her husband spit on her and tried to slap her thrice,
but she somehow managed to protect herself. She testified that at that time,
her husband was in a violent rage, pacing from one room to another in the
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 5 of 29
house. She deposed that her daughter's nanny, namely Aarti, was also
present there, and tried to pacify her husband/the accused, but to no avail.
She testified that her husband then slapped her, and it is at that moment that
she called the police. She said that police officials reached the house, but
tried to pacify the situation by counseling her to settle the matter amicably
with the accused. She deposed that at that moment also, she told the
accused that if he would apologize to her in writing, she would not take any
action against him, but her husband/the accused refused to do so. She stated
that she and her husband/the accused then reached the police station
concerned, where also she begged him for a written apology and an
undertaking that he would not physically abuse her in the future, but he
refused to do so. She deposed that she then gave her complaint to the PS
concerned, being Ex PW1/A, on the basis of which the subject FIR was
registered. She detailed that on the day of the incident, that is 10.02.2019, it
finally dawned on her that her husband had always wanted to end this
marriage. She detailed that even during the time that she was in family-way,
she had undergone a lot of stress on account of the physical abuse as well as
the mental abuse which she suffered at the hands of her husband. She
testified that she has not filed any other cases alleging domestic violence,
etc. against her husband so as to focus on the upbringing of her daughter,
and her own career. In her testimony, she also relied upon her complaint Ex
PW1/A, and her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, being exhibit PW1/B.
She testified that on the day of the incident, the accused also used the
following derogatory words against her:
"moti bhains tere se kon shadi karega firse", "mai chala jaunga to
tumhara kya hoga or divorse ki bi dhamki dete the ki ma bap kabtak
rahenge, masia, friends kab tak rahenge, apni socho tumhara kya hoga,
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 6 of 29
agar apni nahi hai to bache ki socho use kon dekhega".
9. It is seen that in her examination in chief, the complainant cogently
and vividly described the assault committed upon her by the accused. In her
cross examination, the witness remained steadfast and sure footed. Her
version as regards the strained domestic relations between her and her
husband, and the abuse meted out to her by her husband prior to the day of
the incident in question, remained unchallenged during her cross
examination, except for a few stray suggestions, which are bereft of any
probative value. Her version as regards the prior cruelty is relevant in terms
of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and contextualizes the events
of the incident alleged. Ld. Counsel for accused canvassed that since
complainant continued to live with the accused despite prior cruel actions,
she can be deemed to have condoned the prior acts. While this argument
would be more suited to matrimonial litigations, even if it is considered in
the case at hand, the cruelty of her husband can be deemed to have been
revived on the day of incident as alleged, and the accused cannot seek any
benefit of fact that complainant continued to live with him despite his prior
cruel actions, until the day of incident as alleged.
10. Moving ahead, it is noticed that accused failed to show any material
inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness. PW1 was asked when the
conversation regarding the planning of Mundan ceremony for her daughter
had taken place, to which she replied that the conversation took place
multiple times, including on 10.02.2019. She was then confronted with her
statement, Ex PW1/B, recorded u/s 164 CrPC, wherein it is stated that the
conversation had taken place on 09.02.2019, to which the witness explained
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 7 of 29
that the conversation had taken place multiple times and it had also taken
place on 09.02.2019. When asked about the possible time at which the
incident had taken place, the witness stated that the incident must have
taken place between 11 AM and 12:30 PM. During course of arguments, ld.
counsel for the accused vehemently argued that this constitutes a major
contradiction in the version of the witness, in as much as she stated in her
examination in chief that the incident had taken place on the morning of
10.02.2019. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same is not a
contradiction, much less a contradiction of the nature as would lead the
Court to discredit the entire version of the witness, since the witness could
not be expected to remember the exact time of the incident, given that her
testimony was recorded nearly five years after the incident had transpired,
and her testimony pertains to an incident of assault, which would have been
inarguably traumatizing for her. It is seen that during her testimony, the
witness was asked where her baby was when the accused had given a call to
her father to which she replied that the baby was in her arms. Then she was
also confronted with her examination in chief wherein she had stated that
the accused had first pulled her baby from her arms and had then called her
father. Ld. counsel argued that this is also a contradiction in the version of
the witness. In the considered opinion of this Court, slight discrepancy in
the version of the witness as to the exact moment when the accused had
pulled her baby from her arms cannot be termed a contradiction, much less
a major one. Human memory is prone to certain lapses, especially the one
which are attributable to stress. Given the nature of the assault described by
the witness, it cannot be termed unnatural that the witness fumbled on
minor details. Furthermore, in her cross examination, she categorically
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 8 of 29
stated that the accused spit on her several times, but she cannot state exactly
if the baby was in her arms at the relevant time or in the hands of the
accused. She even stated that she cannot remember exactly how many times
the accused spit at her. When it was put to her that in her complaint Ex
PW1/A, she had written that the accused had spit on her only once, she
answered that when her complaint was recorded, she was under a huge
amount of stress, was shivering all the time, and could not possibly be
expected to have written all about the atrocities. The explanation given by
the witness in her testimony inspires the confidence of this Court. A woman
having undergone such assault at the hands of her own husband, could not
have possibly be expected to remember eidetically, minute to minute, each
incident as it happened. The complaint given by her and the version set
forth by the witness in her examination in chief are largely consistent with
each other, and a few discrepancies in the version of the witness do not in
any manner dent the prosecution version, in fact. Given the explanation of
the witness regarding her state of mind at the time of the incident, these few
discrepancies pale into insignificance.
11. In her cross examination, the witness was also asked questions like
when the accused attempted to slap her thrice, was it before or after he had
spit on her, and where was her baby when her nanny tried to intervene and
pacify the accused. To all these questions, the witness replied by saying
that she does not remember the exact chronology of the events, and stated
that because of the amount of stress that she was under, she does not
remember such exact details. In the opinion of this Court, nitpicking at the
testimony of the witness for these minor contradictions did not benefit the
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 9 of 29
case of the accused in any manner. The witness remained steadfast in her
version as regards the broader contours of the incident as it happened, and
her failure to specify the exact chronology of certain very traumatic events
is human, and does not discredit her. In fact, the very fact that the witness
honestly spoke that she does not remember the events of the day in great
chronological detail show that she is a credible witness who made no
attempt at embellishing her testimony whatsoever, and that her testimony
has a ring of truth around it. In her cross examination, the witness
elaborated that she had called the police after the accused had slapped her,
that she had gone to the police station in the police van where she had
written her complaint Ex PW1/A, and where her father, her aunt, and her
cousin were also present. She also detailed that when she had gone to the
police, her baby was with her mother at her paternal house in Saket, and
that she had dropped her baby there, and en-route to the police station at the
suggestion of the police officials also. The version of the witness to the
extent that she had called the police after being allegedly slapped by the
accused, that she had gone to the police station where the accused had also
reached and that she had given her complaint were not challenged in any
manner by the accused person, not even by way of any contrary suggestion.
12. Having noted that the accused admitted at least the fact that the
complainant had called over the police to their house, to plug loopholes in
the version of the witness, he confronted her with the fact that her
complaint Ex PW1/A contains certain subsequent entries after her original
complaint ended. The witness stated that she wanted to write the additional
facts, and the additions were made at the time when she had given the
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 10 of 29
complaint in original itself. She denied the suggestion that the additions
were done at the behest of her father or her legal counsel. Pertinent it is to
also note here that if the witness had indeed taken the help of a legal
counsel, the complaint could have been drafted by her with a lot of legalese
at the first instance itself, without any additions at the fag end of it. The
very fact that her complaint is devoid of any legal jargon, and contains
certain additions also shows that she did not falsely try to embellish her
complaint in any manner.
13. In her cross examination, the witness admitted that certain
photographs from her excursion to Mughal Garden with her husband and
her daughter on 09.02.2019 were shared by her on the family group, being
Ex PW1/D1. Ld. counsel for accused argued during the course of final
arguments that the very fact that the witness had shared these photographs
on the family group shows that the entire story about the incident has been
concocted by her, in as much as if she was really abused, she would not
have participated on WhatsApp group chat. Per contra, ld. APP for the State
argued that the photographs were sent by her prior to the incident, when the
witness had no idea that she was soon going to be assaulted by her own
husband. This Court finds the explanation given by ld. APP for the State to
be tenable. As per the photographs Ex PW1/D1, they were shared by the
complainant on the family group at 11:10 AM. The explanation of the
complainant that she had sent the photographs much before the argument
broke out between her and the accused leading to the alleged incident
appears to be believable. The witness had nowhere denied that she had
taken a trip with her husband to Mughal Gardens a day prior to that of the
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 11 of 29
incident, and infact, explained that she went there with a view to mend their
differences. Her sharing of the photographs of such excursion can be
construed in the same light. The fact that she had shared certain
photographs on WhatsApp group in no way discredits or makes
questionable her testimony as a whole regarding the incident.
14. In her examination in chief, the witness also placed reliance on the
video made by her on the day of the incident contained in the pendrive
Mark XP, as well as the certificate u/s 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam in
support of the video, being Ex P1. An objection to the certificate was taken
by the accused. The said objection appears to be meritless. The certificate
ought to have been filed u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since it was
filed in pending proceedings. Upon its perusal, it is seen that the certificate
meticulously complies with the aforesaid provision. PW1 duly proved the
video, which shows a part of the incident, when the accused was arguing
with the complainant. Only a few suggestions were given to the witness
regarding the fact that the video has been doctored, and that the footage
thereon has been modified. There is no gainsaying that suggestions have no
probative value, and in no way establish that the video put forth by the
complainant regarding the incident is forged or fabricated in any manner.
The same also further fortifies her version as regards the incident as it
transpired.
15. From the testimony of PW1, prosecution version that the accused
assaulted the complainant by spitting on her, and slapping her in the
presence of their child's nanny Arti, stands established. The case of
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 12 of 29
prosecution receives further fortification from the testimonies of remaining
witnesses examined by it.
16. PW3 Arti testified that she used to work as the nanny of
complainant's daughter at the relevant time. She testified that on the
relevant day at about 12.00 noon, she heard that the accused was hurling
abuses at the complainant. She testified that while she does not remember
the exact words which were used by the accused, she remembers that they
were filthy. She testified that the accused also slapped the complainant on
her cheek in her presence, and that the complainant was crying and was
requesting the accused to hand over the child back to her. She also testified
that the accused spat on the complainant, and snatched baby Aarya from her
arms. She testified that the complainant then told the accused that she
would record the incident on her mobile phone so as to transmit the video to
the police, and thereafter ended up giving a call to the police officials. She
testified that she does not know the reason for the altercation between the
parties, as she had been working at the household of the complainant for
only about 15 days when the incident took place. In her testimony, the
witness correctly identified the accused. When cross examined by ld. APP
for the State in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, she
testified that while she does not remember the exact date of the incident or
the exact address where it took place, she remembers that complainant's
house was situated near Saket Metro Station. Now, this witness is an
independent witness and has materially corroborated the version of the
complainant. Perusal of the cross examination of the witness reveals that
the accused nowhere challenged the version of the witness to the extent that
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 13 of 29
she was working as nanny of his daughter at the relevant time, and was
present at his house at the relevant time. Rather, attempt was made to
discredit the witness by showing that she is an interested witness. She was
asked if she had received any summons from the Court, to which the
witness stated that she had not received the summons and that she had
appeared in Court upon telephonic intimation by the complainant. At this
juncture, it is pertinent to advert to certain orders of this Court, such as the
one dated 24.02.2024, whereby PW Arti was first summoned by the Court,
the order dated 22.03.2024, wherein it was noted that process could not be
served upon her, and she was directed to be served through the ACP as well
as the DCP concerned, and finally, the order dated 27.04.2024, wherein it is
noted that PW Arti could not be served even through the DCP concerned,
but had entered appearance on that day. It was noted by the Court prior to
recording of the testimony of the witness itself that her presence had been
procured by the complainant. Even before the witness started to testify, the
Court was cognizant of the fact that her presence had been secured by the
complainant. That is to say, there was no attempt at the part of the
complainant to shield this fact from the Court. If the complainant had
indeed influenced the witness in some manner, the said fact would not have
been admitted by the complainant in the Court as unequivocally. Further, it
is seen that PW3 in her cross examination categorically stated that she has
not received any directions from the complainant w.r.t. the manner in which
she had to depose, and that also specified at the time her testimony was
being recorded that 5-6 years had already lapsed from the date when she
had left the employment of the complainant, and that she was working at
another household. All of these factors show that the witness was not in the
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 14 of 29
control of the complainant in any manner, and there was no reason for her
to falsely depose before the Court.
17. In her cross examination, the witness stated that she does not
remember who was holding the child when the accused had slapped the
complainant. At the cost of reiteration, such a discrepancy in no way
discredits the version of the witness. She testified that she had joined her
duty on the day of the incident at about 08.00 AM, and that there was no
quarrel between the complainant and the accused in the morning time. She
categorically testified that she had never worked at the house of the father
of the complainant, and was not acquainted with the complainant prior to
joining the employment of the complainant. She testified that she had
joined the employment of the complainant after she was recommended to
the complainant by her friend. In no manner could the accused establish that
the witness was tutored by the complainant in any manner. In fact, it is
noticeable that the witness also did not try to embellish her testimony in any
manner, and categorically testified that she does not remember certain
details, such as if the excursion to Mughal Garden had taken place exactly a
day prior to the incident or not, or whether the complainant was driving her
car when she had dropped her and her child at her father's house after the
incident, en route the police station. Merely because the witness
categorically admitted that she had not received any summons and she was
contacted by the complainant to come and testify in the Court is not
sufficient to discredit the version of the witness. Her testimony supports the
version of complainant, and lends credence to the prosecution case.
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 15 of 29
18. Father of the complainant, retired Colonel Uday Singh, took the
witness stand as PW2. He also testified that on the day of the incident, her
daughter with her husband was residing at A Block Saket. He testified that
at about 01:30 PM, on that day, he got a call from his daughter who was
very disturbed and was crying, and told him that the accused had
misbehaved with her. He testified that his daughter told him that accused
had verbally as well as physically abused her, and had slapped her and had
snatched her daughter from her as if in a frenzy. He testified that he tried to
pacify her daughter, but her daughter told her that she has already made a
call to the police, upon which he told her daughter that he would reach the
police station. He testified that when he went to the police station, he was
shocked to see that his daughter was in a very disturbed state, and that he
also observed that the accused with a number of his relatives was also
present in the police station. He testified that his daughter then submitted
her complaint to the IO. In as much as the witness testified qua conduct of
her daughter subsequent to the incident, the testimony of the witness is
relevant in terms of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The witness
described how he had received a call from her daughter, and how upon
reaching the police station he could see the amount of distress his daughter
was in. The testimony of the witness adds credibility to the version of the
complainant herself by succinctly establishing her conduct subsequent to
the incident in question. In his cross examination, the witness categorically
admitted that the accused did not abuse the complainant in his presence,
although he had physically abused her. When confronted with his statement
u/s 161 CrPC, the witness stated that he had not mentioned the said fact in
his statement as the said statement was supposed to be brief . His admission
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 16 of 29
of the fact that he is not an eyewitness to the incident in no way furthers the
cause of the accused. At the cost of reiteration, the testimony of the witness
is valuable in as much as it establishes the subsequent conduct of the
complainant, establishes that she was distressed when he had gone to the
police station, and thereby lends credibility to the version of the
complainant as regards the incident itself. The failure of the witness to
testify anything as regards the phone call made by accused to him during
the incident is also a minor lapse, and lapses of such nature are not fatal to
the prosecution case, given that core of testimony of the witness appears
reliable.
19. The testimony of PW4 SI Jai Kishan/IO is formal in nature and
corroborates the version of the complainant and supports the prosecution
case. He testified that the investigation of the case was marked to him on
21.02.2019. He testified that he prepared the tehrir on the basis of the
complaint given by the complainant on 10.02.2019, being Ex PW4/A on the
basis of which the subject FIR was registered. He testified that after the
registration of the FIR, he contacted the complainant, went to the place of
incident, made the site plan Ex PW4/B, and recorded supplementary
statement of the complainant. He testified that he thereafter recorded the
statement of the father of complainant as well as her housemaid. He
testified that he then made local enquiry and tried to record the statement of
the neighbours of the complainant as well, but none of them cooperated in
the investigation, which fact was duly mentioned by him in the case diary.
He testified that he then got the statement of complainant recorded u/s 164
CrPC. He testified that he then arrested the accused vide memo Ex PW4/C,
and released him after he furnished bail. He testified that he then prepared
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 17 of 29
the charge sheet and filed the same before this Court. The witness correctly
identified the accused. In his cross examination, the witness accepted as
correct the suggestion that the complaint dated 10.02.2019 was not directly
given to him by the complainant. The said admission is neither here nor
there, as in his examination in chief itself, the witness had stated that the
complaint was marked to him for investigation on 21.02.2019 after the
transfer of the first IO. The witness further admitted as correct the
suggestion that he had not examined the complainant before the registration
of the FIR. Even the said fact does not aid the accused in any manner, as in
terms of proper procedure, the investigation had to succeed the registration
of the FIR, and there was no occasion for the IO or SHO PS concerned to
examine the complainant prior to the registration of the FIR, where he was
satisfied that a cognizable offence had been committed against the
complainant. The witness testified that the police officials had gone to the
place of incident on 10.02.2019, but was unable to point out the relevant
record from the case. In view of the fact that the relevant DD entry in this
regard Ex A5 has been admitted by the accused himself, which was brought
on record by the prosecution u/s 311 CrPC, after the testimony of the
witness was recorded, this portion of the testimony of the witness also does
not help the accused in any manner. The witness admitted that he had not
collected any MLC of the complainant, but it is not the case of prosecution
anyway that complainant sustained injuries of a nature that she had to go to
the hospital. It is seen that no material gap in the prosecution case could be
pointed out by the accused during the cross examination of this witness as
well.
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 18 of 29
20. All in all, it is seen that the prosecution could convincingly and
persuasively established its case against the accused. It established that the
assault as alleged by the complainant during which the accused slapped her
and spit on her after snatching her baby from her arms indeed took place in
the presence of PW3 Ms. Arti.
21. Now, the testimony led by the accused on record shall be examined.
DW1/accused testified that on the day of the incident alleged, he woke up at
about 10:30 am, and thereafter, having finished his morning routine and
breakfast, went out for a walk near the park around his home at about 12:50
pm, and returned back only at 01:50 pm. In support of his testimony, he
relied on the activity recorded in his Garmin watch Ex DW1/A, and
certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex DW1/B. He testified that
he never slapped or assaulted the complainant in any manner. In his
testimony, the witness only relied upon the record of his activity in his
watch, which device shows that his physical activity peaked between 12:30
pm and 01:50 pm. The said data nowhere shows that the accused had
indeed stepped out of the house, making it impossible for the incident as
alleged to have taken place. Besides the same, the accused did not bring on
record any evidence of a nature as would discredit the prosecution case. He
testified that police officials had come to his home on the day of the
incident at about 03.00 pm, and when this portion of the testimony is
viewed in conjunction with the testimony of PW1 who said that she had
called the police immediately after the accused had slapped her, it can be
deduced that the complainant did not testify correctly as regards the time at
which the incident as alleged transpired. The same, however, does not
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 19 of 29
detract in any manner from rest of the prosecution case, given the cogent
and clear testimony of the complainant in other respects, as has already
been detailed above, and the fact that in his own cross examination, the
accused admitted that after he returned back from the house, an argument
had ensued between him and the complainant, and whereupon he had also
called the complainant's father at about 02.00 pm. While not admitting that
he abused the complainant, the accused at least admitted that the argument
had taken place between him and the complainant, which further fortifies
the prosecution case, and nullifies the defence taken by him that as he was
out for a walk, no fight had taken place between him and the complainant,
and the complainant's version is false. In any other respect also, the accused
was not able to offer on record any evidence as would discredit the version
of the complainant. He gave vague answers when confronted with the video
footage showing him aggressively talking to the complainant, and his
testimony does not inspire confidence.
22. To challenge the prosecution case, the accused relied upon the
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kailashben Mahendrabhai
Patel Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2024 INC 737, wherein it has been held
that an FIR can be quashed even after filing of the charge sheet. Ld. counsel
for the accused argued that it has been noted in the case that where the
charge sheet is a reiteration of the contents of the complaint/FIR, it deserves
to be quashed. In the considered opinion of this Court, reliance on the
judgment is misplaced, as the said judgment pertains to the scope of Section
482 CrPC. In any event, in the case at hand, the charge sheet is not merely
consisting of the reiteration of the contents of the complaint, but other
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 20 of 29
material as well, such as the statements of other witnesses u/s 161 CrPC and
statement of complainant recorded u/s 164 CrPC, and it cannot be held that
no investigation took place after the registration of the subject FIR.
23. Reliance has also been placed by the accused on the judgment titled
State of Karnataka Vs. N.K. Shanthappa, MANU KA 0137 1996, wherein it
was held that non-examination of the is IO also fatal to the prosecution
cases. The same also is of no relevance, given the fact that the IO in the
case has been examined by the prosecution duly.
24. Accused has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court titled SL Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU SC 0115
1972, wherein it has been held that the onus to prove the case is on the
prosecution, and it never shifts to the accused. The said principle is a
salutary principle of criminal jurisprudence, and it is noticed that in the case
at hand, the prosecution has been able to successfully discharge the burden
placed upon it to prove the material ingredients of the offence against the
accused.
25. From the scrutiny of material on record, it stands established that:
a) The accused used to abuse the complainant frequently.
b) That on 10.02.2019, the accused forcibly snatched the
complainant's daughter from her lap, slapped he,r and used derogatory
words against her and her father
c) That the accused spit on the complainant
d) that the incident had taken place in presence of PW Arti.
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 21 of 29
26. It now remains to be examined whether the act of the accused as
aforesaid constitutes the offences he has been charged with.
Re: 323 IPC
27. Ld. counsel for accused argued that the offence of Section 323 IPC
does not stand established against the accused, in as much as the
prosecution did not prove any MLC, the version of the complainant that she
had suffered simple hurt is not believable. Ld. counsel for the accused
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court titled Ramesh
Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC
668. It is seen that in the said judgment, the version of the complainant was
that he had been beaten up by the accused and had sustained various
injuries, but could not corroborate the same with a medical report. In the
facts of the case at hand, however, it is not the case of the complainant that
accused inflicted several injuries upon her. Rather, it is her case that she
was slapped by the accused. In such a case, her MLC cannot be insisted
upon. It is a well settled position of law that proving of an MLC is not a
sine qua non for establishing the offence punishable u/s 323 IPC. Reliance
at this juncture can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Lakshman Singh Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2021 SC 3552.
28. Accused has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court titled Mrs. Veeda Menezes vs Yusuf Khan And Anr, AIR 1966
SC 1773. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court concerned had taken the
view that the harm caused by the appellant to respondent Robert after
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 22 of 29
slapping him was so trivial, and the injury that resulted was so slight, that a
person of ordinary sense and temper placed in the circumstances in which
the appellant and the said respondent were placed may not have reasonably
complained for that harm. In terms of Section 95 IPC, the Hon’ble Apex
Court upheld the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
However, in the said judgment, it still held that there can be no absolute
standard degree of harm which may be regarded as so slight that a person of
ordinary sense and temper would not complain of the harm. The Hon’ble
Apex Court held that a soldier assaulting his Colonel, or a policeman
assaulting his Superintendent, etc., commit offences, the heinousness of
which cannot be determined merely by the actual injury suffered by the
officer concerned, etc., for the assault would be wholly subversive of
discipline. Now, in the facts of this case, it was not specifically argued that
the harm caused to the complainant by the accused is trivial in nature and
the accused is entitled to benefit of Section 95 IPC. Even if such argument
is considered to have been raised by the accused in view of the reliance
placed upon him on this judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is
of the considered opinion that in the facts of the case wherein the accused
has slapped his wife, a grown woman, especially in the presence of her
infant child as well as the child’s nanny, cannot be said to have caused harm
so trivial as an ordinary person would ignore. The act of the accused cannot
be said to be covered by the general defence contained in Section 95 IPC.
29. Ld. counsel for accused also argued that since the complainant never
testified in her testimony that she had suffered actual physical or bodily
injury on account of the accused slapping her, the accused cannot be
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 23 of 29
convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 IPC. Bare perusal of Section
319 IPC, which defines the term hurt, reveals that causation of bodily
injury, inter alia, is a sine qua non for the completion of offence of
voluntarily causing hurt as defined in Section 323 IPC. In the judgment
titled Padmakumar Vs. State of Kerala, dated 05.11.2024, in Crl. Rev.
Petition 1160/2016, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that in order to
prove the offence u/s 323 IPC, it is not enough for the prosecution to prove
that the accused slapped the complainant, but the prosecution is required to
specifically also prove that the act complained of has caused bodily pain,
disease or infirmity to the complainant. It was held by the Hon’ble Court
that in the absence of any evidence to prove that the act of accused had
caused actual bodily pain to the complainant, the prosecution did not
succeed in proving the act of accused amounted to voluntarily causing hurt
as per Section 321 IPC. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay in Raju Dashrath Sadar & 3 Others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, Thr. PSO Washim, dated 22.01.2019 in Crl. Appl. no.
636/2005. In the said case also, it was held that in view of the evidence of
the complainant being conspicuously silent in view of the assault made on
him, he was feeling any bodily pain, it cannot be held that the ingredients of
Section 319 IPC have been proved by the prosecution. From the conspectus
of these judgments, it is clear that the prosecution is not merely required to
prove the causation of an act for establishing the offence punishable u/s 323
IPC, but also that the act resulted in causation of actual bodily pain, disease,
or infirmity. In the facts of the present case, PW1 Surya has not testified in
as many words that she suffered any actual bodily pain as a result of the
accused slapping her. As such, it cannot be held that the prosecution was
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 24 of 29
able to prove the ingredients of the offence, punishable u/s 323 IPC against
the accused categorically.
Re: 506 IPC
30. The accused has also been charged for the offence punishable u/s 506
IPC. However, in her entire examination in chief, the complainant did not
testify that the accused had threatened or criminally intimidated her in any
manner. As such, the accused stands acquitted of the offence punishable u/s
506 IPC as well.
Re: 509 IPC
31. The accused has next been charged for the offence punishable u/s 509
IPC. Section 509 IPC provides as under:
“Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. –
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.”
31.1 The essential ingredients of Section 509 IPC are as under:
i) Intention to insult the modesty of a woman;
ii) The insult must be caused by:
a) uttering any words, or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any
object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that the gesture or object shall
be seen by such woman, or
b) intruding upon the privacy of such a woman.
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 25 of 29
32. In the case at hand, it stands proved that the accused spit on the
complainant during the assault. Now, judicial notice can be taken of the fact
that spitting can be considered to be a gesture of insult, disdain and
disregard. The act of a husband spitting upon his wife, during an argument
is quintessentially an act which can be held to be done with the intention to
insult the woman. However, it cannot be said to be an act done to insult the
modesty of a woman. Section 509 IPC provides for the offence of insulting
the modesty of a woman, and is an offence aimed at preventing the insult to
a woman which would be felt by her because of her sexuality. At this,
juncture, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi titled Varun Bhatia Vs. State & Anr, 305 (2023) DLT 56, in which
it was held that the question in each case is whether in the facts of the case a
reasonable man would think that the act was done with the intention of
outraging the modesty of the woman or with the knowledge that it was
likely to do so. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that the test of
outrage of modesty is therefore whether a reasonable man will think that the
act of offender was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the
modesty of the woman. In the case at hand, the act of spitting by the
husband on the wife is one which by every reasonable standard can be
considered to be an act intended to insult a woman, but not an act as would
insult her modesty. As such therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for
the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC.
33. In the facts of the case at hand, it stands establish that the accused
spit on the complainant, and slapped her. In terms of Section 349 IPC, it is
established that the accused used criminal force against the complainant. In
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 26 of 29
spitting upon the complainant and slapping her, in the presence of the
nanny/governess of their child, the accused used criminal force against her,
with the intention to dishonour her. The intent of dishonouring the
complainant is writ large on the facts of the case. As such, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the accused committed the offence punishable
u/s 355 IPC.
34. For the said offence punishable u/s 355 IPC, no separate charge has
been framed against the accused. However, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the said fact is not likely to prejudice the accused in any manner.
While Section 355 IPC does not find mention in the charge framed against
him, it is specified in the charge that the accused had assaulted the
complainant. The accused also cross-examined the complainant, in detail,
on each aspect of the assault committed by him. From the cross-
examination of the complainant, and the evidence led by the accused in the
affirmative later on, it is clear that the accused was given a full and fair
trial, and he understood entirely the nature of offence for which he was
being tried. As such, the requirement of law in framing the exact charge to
the accused stands substantially complied with. The accused had the
knowledge that it was alleged against him that he assaulted the
complainant, and did some act to insult her modesty. While it does not stand
proved that the accused sexually insulted the modesty of the complainant,
it does stand proved that he assaulted her and used criminal force against
her with the intention of dishonouring her. As such therefore, this Court is
inclined to convict the accused for the offence u/s 355 IPC. At this juncture,
this Court seeks guidance from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 27 of 29
Court in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of UP, AIR 2004 SC 1990. In the said case,
charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC was framed against the
accused, but the accused was convicted u/s 306 IPC, in view of the fact that
every aspect of the prosecution case had been put to him. Reliance can also
be placed on the pronouncement of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Laxmi
Narayan Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), dated 08.07.2013 in Crl. Appl. no.
62/2009, wherein though charge for the offence punishable u/s 304 (Part II)
IPC, the accused was ultimately convicted for the offence punishable u/s
323 IPC. It would be of relevance to advert to Section 221 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 at this juncture as well, which provides that even
in the absence of a formal charge for an offence, accused can be convicted
for it, if the charge for the said offence could have been framed against the
accused in the alternate basis the material on record. In the case at hand,
while framing charge for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC, intended to
prevent insult to the modesty of a woman, charge for the offence punishable
u/s 355 IPC, which is gender neutral and penalizes assault done with the
intent to dishonour a person, could have been framed. Since the accsued got
the opportunity to substantially rebut the evidence qua the said charge at
trial, he can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 355 IPC
in terms of Section 221(2) CrPC. Reference can be made to pronouncement
of Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Prema S. Rao and Anr vs Yadla Srinivasa Rao
and Ors, AIR 2003 SC 11, wherein convicting the accused for the offence
punishable u/s 306 IPC, while the charge for the offence punishable u/s
498A IPC was framed against the accused only, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that Section 221 CrPC safeguards the powers of the Court to convict
an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts of
State vs. Ankit Jhamb
FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 28 of 29
the case, he could have been charged with it.
35. In conclusion, accused Ankit Jhamb S/o Sh. Jagdish Jhamb is
convicted for the offence punishable u/s 355 IPC.
36. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convict free of cost. Let he
be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Pronounced in open Court on Digitally signed by 09.04.2025 in the presence Medha Medha Arya Date: of accused. Arya 2025.04.15 17:01:37 +0530 (Medha Arya) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.04.2025 State vs. Ankit Jhamb FIR No. 85/2019, PS: Saket Page 29 of 29
[ad_2]
Source link