Delhi District Court
State vs Horam on 27 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Horam
FIR No : 63/2019
U/s : 323/506/34 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020046982020
2. Date of commission of offence : 20.04.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 25.01.2020
4. Name of the complainant : Savita
5. Name of accused, parentage & : 1. Horam
address S/o Maha Singh
2. Puram Mal @ Titu
S/o Horam
3. Naveen Kumar
Yadav
S/o Horam
All R/o VPO Khar
Khari Jatmal, New
Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 323/506-II/509/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 27.05.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. APP for the State
Ms. Mamta Mayer, Ld. Counsel for accused
persons.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 1 of 32 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:20:56
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.04.2019 at
about 07:00 PM, at Village Kharkhari Jatmal in front of House of
Horam, Post Khaira, J. P. Kalan, Delhi, accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention criminally intimidated
complainant Savita for her life and used abusive language against
her and held her hand in order to ourtage her modesty her with
danda on her head and thereby committed the offences
punishable under Sections 323/506-II/509/34 of IPC, for which
FIR no.63/2019 was registered at the police station Jafarpur
Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer
(hereinafter, “IO”) undertook investigation and on culmination of
the same, the chargesheet against the accused persons was filed.
The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the
accused persons and summons were issued to the accused
persons. On their appearance, copy of the chargesheet was
supplied to the accused persons in terms of section 207 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC“). On
finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge
under Sections 323/506-ii/509/34 of IPC was framed against
accused persons Horam and Puran Mal on 21.12.2021 and charge
for offence punishable under Sections 323/506 IPC was framed
against accused Naveen Kumar on 24.05.2022. The accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 2 of 32 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:21:02
+0530
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and
documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt: –
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 Savita
PW-2 Rati Ram
PW-3 Dr. Mahendra Kumar Meena
PW-4 Retd. SI Om Prakash
PW-5 ASI Suresh
PW-6 ASI Rambir Singh
PW-7 SI Awadh Kishore
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant
Ex.PW1/B Site plan
Ex.PW1/C Statement of Ms. Savita recorded u/s 164 Cr.
P. C.
Ex.PW3/A MLC no.1684/19
Ex.PW4/A Arrest memo qua accused Horam
Ex.PW4/B Arrest memo qua accused Puranmal @ Tinu
Ex.PW4/C Arrest memo qua accused Naveen Kumar
Ex.PW4/D Personal search memo qua accused Horam
Ex.PW4/E Personal search memo qua accused Puranmal
@ Tinu
Ex.PW4/F Personal search memo qua accused Naveen
Kumar
Ex.PW5/A Computerized FIR
Ex.PW5/B Certificate u/S 65B of IEA
Ex.PW5/C Endorsement on rukka
Ex.PW6/A GD no.20A dated 20.04.2019
Ex.PW7/A Tehrir
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS
Ex.A1 Statement of victim u/S 164 Cr. P. C.
4. Prosecution examined the following witnesses and the same are
as follows:
PW1 Savita (complainant) deposed that on 20.04.2019, in the
evening time, she was going to her house from the fields, thenDigitally signed
by ABHINAVFIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 3 of 32 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.27
16:21:07
+0530
one Puran Mal S/o Horam who was in a drunk condition, hit her
on her shoulder by his shoulder ( mere kandhe se kandha mara)
and started using abusive words against her. Upon asking as to
why he was using abusive words against her, the accused said
that he would do so as he pleases. Thereafter, she came back to
her house and took her husband to the house of Puran Mal.
Puran Mal came out of the house while using abusive words
armed with a danda and he hit him with the said danda. She
stated that she fell unconscious and thereafter, Naveen and
Horam had scuffled with her husband and when she regained her
consciousness, she came back to her house. She stated that they
made a complaint against the accused persons at PS Jafarpur
Kalan after about 3-4 days when she got relief from her injuries,
she lodged the present FIR against the accused persons. The
witness correctly identified the accused persons present in the
court. As PW1 did not support the case of prosecution on certain
facts, the Ld, APP was granted permission to put her questions in
the nature of cross-examination, wherein she stated that incident
took place at about 07:00 pm. She stated that accused had also
tried to tease her and she had told the said facts to her husband at
her house and they went to the house of accused Puran Mal. She
stated that when accused Puran Mal came out of his house while
uttering abusive words, she objected to the same and co-accused
Horam and his younger son Naveen were also present at the spot
at the time of incident. She stated that the accused persons had
threatened her of dire consequences and thereafter her husband
called on 100 number and PCR vehicle came at the spot and took
her to RTRM Hospital where she was medically examined. She
stated that as she was in pain, she did not get her statement
recorded and after four days, she alongwith her husband went to
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 4 of 32 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.27
16:21:11
+0530
the police station and got her statement recorded Ex.PW1/A. She
stated that on 24.04.2019 after registration of FIR upon her
statement, the police official prepared the site plan at her instance
Ex.PW1/B. She stated that the police officials searched for the
accused persons but none of them were found and on 30.04.2019,
she came to Dwarka Courts and her statement was recorded by
Ld. MM Ex.PW1/C. In the cross-examination, she stated that her
husband was unemployed and does the work of cattles etc. The
road leading to the fields in her village was a busy road. She
stated that she had registered around 4-5 more written police
complaints against the accused persons and the police officials
came and warned the accused persons but did not take any action
against them on those complaints. She stated that on some
occasions, ASI Om Prakash came to the spot and warned the
accused persons. She stated that she knew accused Puranmal
since last 17-18 years and after seeing the statement dated
12.07.2022 recorded by Ms. Deepika Goyal Shokeen, the then
Ld. MM (Mahila Court) marked as Mark PW1/D1, she stated that
her statement was recorded by Ld. MM in her chamber
previously in the present matter. She stated that she had
mentioned the time of incident in her statement U/s 164 Cr.PC as
7:00 pm and Puranmal came from the side of the field along with
his two children. She stated that police came to her house and
recorded her statement and she did not remember if she had told
in her statement U/s 164 Cr.PC that Purnamal had consumed
alcohol.
5. PW2 Rati Ram deposed that on 20.04.2019, his wife Savita went
for a walk towards fields and at that time, her neighbour
Puranmal S/o Horam met her and hit his wife by his shoulder and
started verbally abusing her. He stated that he was drunk at that
Digitally signed
by ABHINAVPage 5 of 32
AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.27
16:21:17
+0530
time and thereafter, his wife came to home and disclosed about
the incident to him. He stated that on previous occasions also
accused Puranmal had verbally abused his wife and thereafter, he
alongwith his wife went to the house of accused Puranmal to
complain about the conduct of the accused. Thereafter, he
alongwith his wife reached at the house of accused persons and
he called the accused from outside the house, all the three
accused persons namely, Horam, Naveen and Puranmal came out
and Naveen started fighting with him and caught hold of him.
He stated that accused Horam caught his wife by her hands and
accused Puranmal hit her with a danda and his wife fell down and
got unconscious. He stated that she gained her consciousness
after she sprinkled some water on her and thereafter, she called
the police on 100 number. Thereafter, they were taken to RTRM
Hospital by the police officials. He stated that FIR was registered
by the police officials and his wife was medically examined. He
stated that he did not sustain injury and IO recorded his
statement. The witness correctly identify all the accused persons,
present before the court. In the cross-examination, he stated that
no FIR and criminal complaint were pending against him in any
court. He stated that on 20.04.2019, he was at his house and his
wife told “Puranmal ne mujhe kanda mara” but he had not seen
the incident. He stated that his wife reached at house at about
6:30/7:00pm and PCR came at their house and took him and his
wife to RTRM hospital and got medically examined. He stated
that he narrated complete statement to the police officials on
same day and after that they came back to their house.
6. PW3 Dr. Mahendra Kumar Meena deposed that on 20.04.2019, he
examined patient Savita and referred the patient to Senior
Resident Orthopedic Department and Surgery Department for
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 6 of 32 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:21:21
+0530
further treatment and he prepared MLC no.1684/19 of injured
Savita Ex.PW3/A.
7. PW4 Retd. SI Om Prakash deposed that on 01.07.2019, further
investigation of the present case was marked to him and on
02.07.2019, he arrested the accused Horam, Puranmal @ Tittu
and Naveen Kumar vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B
and Ex.PW4/C and conducted their personal search vide personal
search memos Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F. He stated
that as offences committed by the accused persons were bailable
in nature, he released the accused persons after furnishing bail
bonds. He stated that during investigation, he also recorded
statement of witnesses u/S 161 Cr. P. C. and after completion, of
investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned
Court. The witness correctly identified the accused persons
present before the court. In the cross-examination, he stated that
he visited the spot where the abovesaid incident took place but no
eye-witness was found at the spot. He stated that no CCTV
camera was installed in or around the spot and no weapon was
recovered from the spot or at the instance of accused persons. He
stated that he was not the eye-witness of the incident and during
investigation, he did not record statement of any public person
except the statement of husband of complainant Rati Ram. He
stated that accused persons were arrested at PS and they came to
the PS on their own. He stated that he did not know the DD
number by which incident report received at PCR and name of
the complainant was not mentioned in PCR call.
8. PW5 ASI Suresh deposed that on 24.04.2019, at about 09:15 pm,
SI Awadh Kishore handed over to him rukka for registration of
FIR and accordingly, he registered the computerized FIR
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 7 of 32 16:21:26
+0530
Ex.PW5/A. He stated that he handed over the certificate u/S 65B
of IEA to him Ex.PW5/B and made endorsement on rukka vide
Ex.PW5/C. Thereafter, he handed over copy of FIR and original
rukka to SI Awadh Kishore.
9. PW6 ASI Rambir Singh deposed that on 20.04.2019, he received
PCR call regarding the incident at Village Kharkhari Jatmal near
Sunder Ki Shop and the description of incident was quarrel and
the same was marked to SI Avadh Kishore telephonically. He
stated that he prepared GD no.020A (general diary number) dated
20.04.20219 at about 07:23 pm regarding the same Ex.PW6/A
(OSR) and also made entry of the same in the roznamacha. In the
cross-examination, he stated that in GD no.020A Ex.PW6/A the
description and the time of the incident were not mentioned. He
stated that neither the name of the persons between whom the
incident happened was also not mentioned. He stated that there
was no record or material placed in the charge-sheet to show as
to how information was received by him after GD no.20A
Ex.PW6/A was recorded and the information was received in PS
through CCTNS system.
10. PW7 SI Awadh Kishore deposed that on 20.04.2019, he received
DD no.20A and after receiving DD, he alongwith Ct. Narender
reached at the spot. He stated that after reaching the spot, they
came to know that the injured was already shifted to RTRM
Hospital in PCR van. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Narender
reached at RTRM Hospital and after reaching there, he came to
know that injured/complainant namely Savita W/o Ratiram
admitted in hospital vide MLC no.1684/19. He stated that he
asked her to give her statement but she refused to give the same
as she was not in condition to give her statement. Thereafter, he
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 8 of 32
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:21:31
+0530
and Ct. Narender left the hospital and reached at PS. He stated
that on 24.04.2019 complainant herself came at the PS alongwith
her husband and he recorded her statement, on the basis of which
he prepared tehrir Ex.PW7/A. He stated that he also prepared the
site plan at the instance of complainant and also recorded
statement of complainant and her husband u/S 161 Cr. P. C. He
stated that on 30.04.2019, he also got recorded statement u/S 164
Cr. P. C. of complainant and thereafter, further investigation was
marked to ASI Om Prakash. In the cross-examination, he stated
that he was not aware of the fact that it was mentioned in the FIR
that he went to RTRM hospital after receiving information
regarding Savita being admitted for treatment although the said
fact was mentioned in FIR. He stated that he went to the hospital
after he went to the spot of incident from where he got to know
that injured was referred/ admitted in RTRM hospital. He stated
that he did not make any arrival and departure entry and he did
not make any entry regarding any MLC prepared in regard of DD
no.020A dated 20.04.2019. He stated that he had not moved any
formal application in RTRM hospital for recording statement of
injured Savita and injured Savita herself refused to give her
statement and for the same reason, he did not make any
application. He stated that when he asked her she stated that she
was unwell and having headache and she would give her
statement on the next date. He stated that the fact that she stated
to him that she was having headache was not mentioned
anywhere in entire charge-sheet. He stated that he recorded the
statement of injured Savita on 24.04.2019 at PS when she came
alongwith her husband at about 07:00 pm but he did not record
the statement of any public person/ eye-witness when he visited
the spot first and many houses and shops were surrounded the
Digitally signed
by ABHINAVPage 9 of 32
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:21:36
+0530
spot. He stated that he did not receive complete information
regarding DD no.020A and he did not record statement of Ct.
Narender U/s 161 Cr. P. C. and same was recorded by IO ASI Om
Prakash. He stated that no CCTV camera was seized by him as
no CCTV camera was installed at the spot. He stated that no
notice was served by him to any public person/ neighbor for not
joining the investigation and no recovery was effected from
accused or at his instance during investigation.
11. On account of admission of accused persons u/s 294 Cr.P.C,
remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal
proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was
dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined; hence,
P.E. was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
12. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow
the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statements
of the accused persons were recorded on 04.06.2024 without oath
under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC, wherein they have stated that
they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present
case. They further stated that they want to lead defence evidence.
13. DW1 Gagneshwa Chaudhary deposed that SBI issued Kiosk login
ID in the name of Naveen Kumar Yadav KO ID 1A79435
(biometric). As per their record Naveen Kumar login abovesaid
ID by using his abovesaid ID on 20.04.2019 from 09:46 am to
10:17 am, 11:30 am to 12:03 pm, 12:10 pm to 12:55 pm, 02:25
pm to 02:42 pm, 02:42 pm to 03:14 pm and 06:09 pm to 06:38
pm. He stated that for the same, he submitted the print data for
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
Page 10 of 32
AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.27
16:21:41
+0530
the same (when and what time accused Naveen Kumar used his
ID on 20.04.2019) Ex.DW1/1. He also submitted the
appointment certificate in the name of Naveen Kumar
Ex.DW1/2. He brought up the authority letter in the name of
Naveen Kumar issued by SBI to use Kiosk operator ID
Ex.DW1/3. In the cross-examination by Ld. APP, question was
put to him by Ld. APP that was it possible that the Kiosk ID
holder open his ID by using his biometric and thereafter he could
leave the spot with Kiosk to be operated by other users. He
replied yes it is possible but after some time the Kiosk gets
locked again which needs to be opened by using the Kiosk ID
only by the same ID operator.
ARGUMENTS
14. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the
accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration
to the material appearing on record.
15. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of
the offences are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that
prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the
commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their
testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence
has proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is
prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
16. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the
State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that the entire case of the
prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from
the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Page 11 of 32
Date:
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:21:47
+0530
the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed
to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the
accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
17. The allegations levelled against accused are segregated into two
parts. The first set of allegation revolves around commission of
offence u/s 323/506(II)/34 against all accused namely Puranmal,
Naveen and Horam. The second set of allegations are for the
offence under section 509/34 IPC against accused Puranmal and
Horam only.
18. Let us deal with the both set of allegations against the accused
persons together as the allegations qua both the offences are
closely connected to each other. The main allegation of the
complainant is that accused Horam and Puranmal used abusive
language to criminally intimidate her holding her hand with the
intention of outraging her modesty thereby committed offence as
charged against the accused person.
19. Before delving into the merits of case, it is apposite to delineate
the ingredients of the offence for which the accused has been
tried. The accused Horam and Puranmal have been charged for
the offence under Section 323/506(II)/509 of the IPC whereas
accused Naveen has been charged for the offence under Section
323/506(II)/34 of the IPC, which are reproduced hereunder for
reference:
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.–Whoever, except in the
case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 12 of 32 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:21:51
+0530
503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any
injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or
reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to
cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which
he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person
is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat, commits criminal intimidation.
509. 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.
20. The offence under the section 509 of IPC will be attracted if a
person intending to insult the modesty of a 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 as held in M. M. Haries Vs. State of
Kerala (16.02.2005 – Crl. M.C. No.9717 of 2002). The legislative
object behind section 509 of IPC is that a woman must be
protected not only from physical aggressions made in the course
of outraging her modesty, but she should also be shielded from
various other acts which do not involve even a touch. Legislature
was quite aware that a woman’s modesty can be insulted or
outraged in various ways. A mere word, a wink, a touch or even a
look would suffice to insult the modesty of a woman. Physical
advances may not be necessary in all cases. Everything depends
on the intention of the mischief-maker and the manner in which
he conveys his intentions. It is evident that legislature intended
that any aggression into a woman’s modesty whether by any
word, deed, touch or look need be curbed and deterred.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 13 of 32 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:21:56
+0530
21. Therefore, the gravamen of section 509 IPC is the intent to ‘insult
the modesty’ of a woman. It is a settled position of law that there
is 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 IPC, merely insulting a woman is not sufficient and
insult to the modesty of a woman is required to have been done
as held in Abhijeet J.K. v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker
703). However, the term ‘modesty’ is not defined in IPC. It has
been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the essence of
a woman’s modesty is her sex, i.e., modesty is a virtue which
attaches to a female owing to her sex. As stated in the case of
Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra: (2004) 4 SCC
371), wherein it was held that,
“What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere
defined. The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. The
culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The
reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not
always decisive. Modesty in this section is an attribute
associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue
which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a
woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual
intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a
woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is
sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate
intention having such outrage alone for its object. As indicated
above, the word “modesty” is not defined in IPC. The Shorter
Oxford Dictionary (3rd Edn.) defines the word “modesty” in
relation to a woman as follows: “Decorous in manner and
conduct; not forward or lewd; Shamefast; Scrupulously chaste.”
“From the above dictionary meaning of “modesty” and the
interpretation given to that word by this Court in Major Singh
case [AIR 1967 SC 63 : 1967 Cri LJ 1] the ultimate test for
ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the
action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one
which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.”
22. The above position was also noted in Rupan Deol Bajaj v.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
1059], wherein it was held that since the word ‘modesty’ has not
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 14 of 32 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:22:01
+0530
been defined in the Indian Penal Code we may profitably look
into its dictionary meaning. According to Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary (Third Edition) modesty is the quality of being
modest and in relation to woman means ‘womanly propriety of
behavior, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct.
The word ‘modest’ in relation to woman is defined in the above
dictionary as ‘decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or
lewd; shame fast’. Webster’s Third new International Dictionary
of the English Language defines modesty as “freedom from
coarseness, indelicacy or indecency’ a regard for propriety in
dress, speech or conduct”. In the Oxford English Dictionary
(1993 Ed) the meaning of the word ‘modesty’ is given as
“womanly propriety of behavior, scrupulous chastity of thought,
speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of
shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse
suggestions”. Therefore, based on the aforesaid precedents, it is
evident that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty
has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as
could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense
of decency of a woman, keeping in mind that the essence of a
woman’s modesty is her sex.
Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof
on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The
presumption of innocence of the accused must be rebutted by the
prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the
guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be
weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
23. In the instant case, the allegations made by complainant Savita in
her examination-in-chief are that on 20.04.2019 in the evening
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 15 of 32 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.27
16:22:05 +0530
time, when she was going to her house from the fields, accused
Puran Mal, who was in a drunk condition, deliberately hit her on
her shoulder with his shoulder/shouldered her ( kandha mara) and
started using abusive words against her. PW1 further stated that
when she confronted as to why Puran Mal did so he started using
abusive words. PW1 further stated that thereafter she came back
to her house and took her husband PW2 Rati Ram to the house of
accused Puran Mal and when they reached his house, Puran Mal
came out of his house using abusive words armed with a danda
and he hit her with the said danda whereafter she fell
unconscious. PW1 further stated that other accused Naveen and
Horam had scuffled with her husband and when she regained her
consciousness, she came back to her house. PW1 specifically
stated that after she got relief from her injuries, she moved her
complaint at PS J. P. Kalan after 3-4 days.
24. At this stage, it needs to be highlighted that when PW1 did not
disclose the entire fact, Ld. APP sought permission to ask
question in the form of cross-examination whereafter PW1 stated
the time of incident as 07:00 pm and further stated that co-
accused Horam and Naveen were also present at the time of
incident who had scuffled with her husband. She further stated
that her husband Rati Ram called at police 100 number
whereafter PCR came at the spot and took them to RTRM
Hospital where she was medically examined. She further
clarified that after four days she went to PS and got her statement
Ex.PW1/A recorded.
25. Ld. counsel for accused persons has vehemently argued that
complainant has falsely instituted the present complaint and
falsely implicated the accused persons as there is no material to
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Page 16 of 32
Date:
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:22:10
+0530
support her version and as such there is improvement and
contradiction in the version of complainant and due to previous
inimical relations between the parties, complainant with the help
of police falsely implicated the accused persons.
26. Before evaluating the testimony of complainant and other
prosecution witnesses, it is relevant to pursue the complaint
Ex.PW1/A of the complainant which was recorded by the police
official SI Awadh Kishore on 24.04.2019. In her complaint, PW1
Savita had stated that accused Puran Mal @ Tittu had hit her
(kandhe se kandha) with intent to tease her. Thereafter, she
alongwith her husband went to the house of accused Puran Mal
where Puran Mal started using abusive language and hit her on
her head with a danda whereafter she became unconscious. In her
complaint Ex.PW1/A, complainant has also stated that other
accused Horam and Naveen were also present at the spot caught
hold of her and also scuffled with her husband and threatened
them. She further stated that her husband called 100 number
whereafter PCR came at the spot and took them to RTRM
Hospital for treatment.
27. At this stage, it is relevant to pursue the statement of complainant
u/S 164 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW1/C recorded during the course of
investigation. Complainant stated in her statement u/S 164 Cr. P.
C. that around 06:00 pm when she had gone to her agricultural
field her neighbor namely Tittu came in front of her and stuck his
shoulder on her forcefully and when she confronted him, said
Tittu started abusing her. She further stated that she went to the
house of that Tittu and complained to his mother but then Tittu
again came there and brought one danda from inside the house
and started hitting her with the said danda. She further stated that
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 17 of 32 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.27
16:22:13
+0530
in the meantime father of Tittu also came and grabbed her hand
and his father also started beating her whereupon she became
unconscious. She further stated that thereafter neighbors came
and poured some water on her face upon which she regained her
consciousness.
28. Upon pursuing the statement of complainant Ex.PW1/A
alongwith her statement recorded u/S 164 Cr. P. C., it is clear that
nature of accusation and version of incident as stated in both the
statements are slightly different. Complainant has not stated
anything regarding her going to the house of accused Puran Mal
with her husband Rati Ram and the presence of third accused
namely Naveen in her statement u/S 164 Cr. P. C. Furthermore,
complainant stated that neighbors came at the spot when she
became unconscious whereafter she regained consciousness but
neither her original complaint Ex.PW1/A nor her court testimony
as PW1 mentions the presence of any neighbor.
29. Interestingly, in the statement on oath recorded of complainant
Savita in FIR no.111/19 PS J. P. Kalan Mark PW1/D1 as
confronted by counsel for accused during the testimony of PW1
wherein she stated the same fact about being shouldered by
accused puranmal whereafter she went to his house where she
was beaten up by accused puranmal’s father. Remarkably,
complainant in the testimony of said case stated that accused
puranmal was intoxicated but she stated nothing about accused
Naveen being present there.
30. The fact that complainant PW1 stated in her statement under
Section 164 Cr. P. C. that after the alleged incident she became
unconscious and she only regained consciousness when some
neighbors came and poured water on her face. However, the said
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 18 of 32 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:22:18
+0530
version was not stated by complainant consistently in her court
testimony. Further, neither any public person was involved in the
investigation nor complainant specifically gave details of the said
neighbor which could have lent credence to the version of
complainant. Keeping in view the contradictions /improvement
as already discussed in the preceding paragraphs in the version of
complainant and the fact that both the parties have pending cross-
cases against each other, thereby in-cumulative version of
complainant in the present case becomes highly suspicious.
31. Upon careful evaluation of the statements as made by
complainant at different stages regarding the alleged acts of the
accused persons against her, there seems to be improvement /
addition in the version of complainant qua the nature of
accusation/ statement used by the accused against her and
regarding the presence of all accused persons. Complainant has
not constantly stated the same allegation against the accused
persons at different stages and before different forums. As noted
above there are slightly different statements used by the
complainant during her Court testimony and during her recording
of statement under section 164 Cr.PC which makes her version
untrustworthy as the said variation of statements does not
naturally fit into the accusations as stated to have been made by
the accused in the background of the situation when the same
were made.
32. Now, it is a settled law that while the use of abusive language by
accused is undoubtedly uncivilized and inappropriate, it cannot
automatically be concluded that such language was intended to
outrage the modesty of women. Mere insults or offensive
remarks, though condemnable, do not necessarily meet the legal
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 19 of 32 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:22:23
+0530
threshold for the offense of outraging modesty, which requires a
clear and deliberate intent to harm a woman’s dignity as settled
by various case laws. Therefore, even if the version of the
complainant is believed to be true, it must be carefully assessed
whether it rises to the level of a criminal act under the law.
33. Further, it has already been noted above that mere insult is
different from an insult to the modesty of a woman. In the present
case, the initial incident happened when complainant was
allegedly returning back from the fields whereafter the accused
puranmal abused her. No other witness of the incident was
examined except PW2 Rati ram who is the husband of the PW1,
who himself stated that her wife disclosed to him about the said
incident. PW2 is not eye witness of the incident rather he is a
hearsay witness.
34. Therefore, while the definition of abusive language/ verbal abuse
does include ‘insults’ within its meaning, it cannot be equated
with insult to modesty of a woman. The court cannot presume
that the filthy/ abusive language used amounted to insulting the
modesty of the complainant and the prosecution was required to
prove the same. However, the prosecution has failed to prove/
show/ bring on record the nature/ wording of insults which were
hurled towards the complainant. Apart from the allegation of
usage of abusive/ filthy language, there is nothing specific on
record which points towards the guilt of the accused persons. As
noted above, the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex.
35. Even if the version of the complainant is believed to be true, it
appears that merely abusive language were exchanged between
the two parties and neither the presence of all accused persons is
stablished beyond doubt nor the injuries as stated by the
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 20 of 32 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.27
16:22:28
+0530
complainant is made out to be inflicted by the accused persons.
The alleged abusive language appears to have been made in the
context of a quarrel/ fight and as such there is no evidence on
record that the said language was used with any sexual overtones.
Furthermore, no intention could be drawn from the prosecution
evidence for which the accused persons intended to outrage the
modesty of the complainant by use of those words.
36. It is relevant to mention the findings given by Hon’ble Apex
Court in case titled as Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978)
4 SCC 161, which are as follows: –
“A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely
possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common
sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is
proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some
flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is
argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the
meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from
being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. Vague
hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation”.
In B.N. Mutto & Another v. Dr. T.K. Nandi (1979) 1 SCC 361,
the Court observed thus:
“It stems out of the fundamental principle of our criminal
jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any
reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly balanced
views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede
the existence of a reasonable doubt. But, fanciful and remote
possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle an accused
person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a
duality of views, the possible view in favour of the accused must
be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the
preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of
another view will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of
any doubt. It is, therefore, essential that any view of the evidence
in favour of the accused must be reasonable even as any doubt,
the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be
reasonable. “A reasonable doubt”, it has been remarked, “does not
mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through
the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or
other, it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of
reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon
Digitally signed
by ABHINAVFIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 21 of 32 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:22:33
+0530
reasons. [Salmond J. in his charge to the jury in R.V. Fantle
reported in 1959 Criminal Law Review 584.]”
37. In our administration of criminal justice an accused is presumed
to be innocent unless such a presumption is rebutted by the
prosecution by producing the evidence to show him to be guilty
of the offence with which he is charged. Further if two views are
possible on the evidence produced in the case, one indicating to
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view
favourable to the accused is to be accepted. In cases where the
Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the
accused the benefit of such doubt should go in favour of the
accused. At the same time, the court must not reject the evidence
of the prosecution taking it as false, untrustworthy or unreliable
on fanciful grounds or on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
38. The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole having
regard to the totality of the evidence. In appreciating the
evidence, the approach of the court must be integrated not
truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of the evidence
in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of the accused
has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt
or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion about the
guilt of the accused, the Court has to appreciate, analyse and
assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of
probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. It
must be added that ultimately and finally the decision in every
case depends upon the facts of each case.
39. In the present case, reasonable doubt has certainly arisen as to the
version stated by the complainant. Seeing in the perspective of
the inimical relations between the complainant and accused
persons, the evidence brought by the prosecution falls short of
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 22 of 32 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:22:38
+0530
proving the offence with which the accused person is charged. As
such, none of the essential ingredients of the offence with which
the accused persons are charged stands fulfilled in the present
case. Taking into account the infirmities as stated above in the
version as put forward in the testimony of PW1, a doubt is
certainly created and in the absence of any corroborating material
the testimony of the complainant does not inspire any confidence,
thereby in cumulative making the case of complainant highly
suspicious. These lacunas in cumulation with inconsistencies
creeping into the oral evidence of the complainant as highlighted
in the foregoing paragraphs gives rise to possibility of false
implication of the accused persons in the present case and these
are sufficient grounds to raise reasonable doubt on the story of
prosecution.
40. Furthermore, it is relevant to see as to how the incident was
reported to the police. As per PW1 who stated that her husband
called at 100 number whereafter police came at the spot. PW2
Rati Ram also stated the same that he had called 100 number. As
per PW7 SI Awadh Kishore who stated that on the date of
incident 20.04.2019, he received DD no.20A and after receiving
the same, he alongwith Ct. Narender went to the spot.
41. The said DD no.20A Ex.PW6/A was prepared by PW6 ASI
Rambir Singh, who stated that he was working as duty officer on
20.04.2019 when he received PCR call regarding incident at
Village Kharkhari near Sunder Ki Shop with description of
incident as quarrel whereafter the same was marked to ASI
Awadh Kishore. It is stated by PW7 when they reached at the
spot, they came to know that injured person was already shifted
to RTRM Hospital in PCR van. The said fact is corroborated by
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 23 of 32 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:22:43
+0530
MLC of complainant Ex.PW3/A which mentions that the patient
was brought by HC Satish Kumar.
42. Now it is the version of complainant that she had gone to PS for
lodging her complaint 3-4 days after the incident after she got
relief from her injuries. Perusal of the case file reveals that PW7
ASI Awadh Kishore after reaching the hospital asked
complainant to give her statement but her statement was not
recorded as she herself stated that she was not in a condition to
give her statement. PW7 in his cross-examination stated that he
had not moved any formal application in RTRM Hospital for
recording statement of injured Savita. No application was moved
by the IO before the treating doctor to ascertain the fact whether
injured was in a condition to give her statement or not. It is
evident that IO proceeded on the statement of injured that she
was not in a condition to give her statement. As evident the
formal statement of injured was recorded on 24.04.2019 i.e. four
days after the alleged incident. The delay in recording the
statement of complainant PW1 is not properly explained by both
the injured and IO as it is apparent upon pursuing the MLC
Ex.PW3/A that she was not in such a medical condition which
prevented her from getting her statement recorded.
43. At this stage, it is relevant to mention the case law Sekaran Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 2294 of 2010 ,
wherein it was held that;
“11.We start with the FIR, to which exception has
been taken by the appellant urging that there has been
no satisfactory explanation for its belated registration.
It is trite that merely because there is some delay in
lodging an FIR, the same by itself and without
anything more ought not to weigh in the mind of the
courts in all cases as fatal for the prosecution. A
realistic and pragmatic approach has to be adopted,
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 24 of 32 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:22:47
+0530
keeping in mind the peculiarities of each particular
case, to assess whether the unexplained delay in
lodging the FIR is an afterthought to give a coloured
version of the incident, which is sufficient to corrode
the credibility of the prosecution version.
In cases where delay occurs, it has to be tested on the
anvil of other attending circumstances. If on an
overall consideration of all relevant circumstances it
appears to the court that the delay in lodging the FIR
has been explained, mere delay cannot be sufficient
to disbelieve the prosecution case; however, if the
delay is not satisfactorily explained and it appears to
the court that cause for the delay had been
necessitated to frame anyone as an accused, there is
no reason as to why the delay should not be
considered as fatal forming part of several factors to
vitiate the conviction.”
44. Thus, it is settled law that unexplained delay in recording the
statement of injured suggests the possibility of fabrication and
the testimony of injured may be viewed with suspicion. In the
present matter, it is the version of injured that after she got relief
from injuries, she went to the PS for moving her complaint. It is
un-natural that the person who has been beaten up by three
persons did not disclose the complete facts immediately to the IO
who had reached at the hospital where injured was being given
medical treatment. Since from the prospective that even the PCR
call also mentioned the description of incident as quarrel,
complainant/PW1 has not been able to effectively and
satisfactorily explain the delay in getting her statement recorded
in time.
Inimical Relations
45. Furthermore, ld. Counsel for accused persons has vehemently
argued that complainant Savita is in a habit of moving false
complaint in the police station not only against accused persons
but also against various persons of the village. To support her
arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused persons had confronted the
Digitally signed
Page 25 of 32
by ABHINAV
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:22:52
+0530
complainant in her cross-examination with copy of RTI reply
dated 10.01.2023 Ex.PW1/D3. Ld. Counsel for accused persons
further confronted the complainant with the certified copy of
statement recorded in case FIR no.111/19 PS J. P. Kalan
Ex.PW1/D1 alongwith copy of FIR no.158/19 PS J. P. Kalan
Ex.PW1/D2. It is the version of counsel for accused persons that
complainant deliberately files false complaint against residents of
village only to harass them.
46. At this point, it is also relevant to highlight that cases in which
parties are inimical with each other due to cross litigations and
the same aspect was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Dalip Singh &Ors. vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC
364, wherein the position of a witness who has inimical
relationship with the accused was discussed. Relevant extract of
the judgment is reproduced below:
“A witness is normally to be considered independent
unless he or she springs from sources which are
likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the
witness has cause, such as enmity against the
accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily
a close relation would be the last to screen the real
culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is
true, when feelings run high and there is personal
cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in
an innocent person against whom a witness has a
grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be
laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of
relationship far from being a foundation is often a
sure guarantee of truth.”
47. This aspect was also dealt by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in
the case of State of Orissa vs. Madhusudan Sahu & Ors. 2007 Cri
LJ 440 wherein it was held as under:
“It is to be borne in mind that the parties involved in
the case are inimical to each other and large number
of litigations is going on between them. While the
accused persons propagate the plea that because of
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 26 of 32 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:22:56
+0530
this enmity, they have been falsely implicated, the
prosecution has come up with the suggestion that the
attack on P.W. 6 was carried because of the enmity.
Enmity between the parties is a double-edged
weapon. The effect of enmity is to be considered in
the case according to the circumstance and evidence
available on record. What is settled is that once
enmity exists between the parties, the evidence
adduced by the parties are to be scrutinized with
great care and caution and every mitigating
circumstance has to be given importance.”
48. Similar observation was made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 886 of 2012
decided on 3rd March 2012 wherein the Hon’ble Court has held
that if parties are on inimical terms, then each and every piece of
evidence available on record has to be scrutinized and analysed
carefully.
49. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that wife of accused
Horam had filed a complaint against complainant Savita for
which FIR kno.158/19 u/S 323/254/34 IPC was registered in PS
J. P. Kalan which is Ex.PW1/D2. Further, another case as filed by
complainant Savita against the accused persons is FIR no.111/19
PS J. P. Kalan in which statement of complainant Savita was
recorded as PW1 for which certified copy Ex.PW1/D1 was
placed on record by Ld. Counsel for accused persons. It is
evident that apart from the present case FIR, the abovementioned
cross-case are pending between the parties. Therefore, as stated
in the above mentioned case laws, it is imperative that testimony
of complainant and its witnesses are to be closely scrutinized
when the opposite parties are having hostile relations between
them. The need for corroboration by independent witness and
material cannot be stressed enough as the same ensures reliability
and accountability. Conviction solely based on inimical witness
testimony is generally avoided unless the testimony is
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Page 27 of 32
Date:
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:23:01
+0530
intrinsically reliable and probable. Such relations are to be taken
into account while appreciating the testimony of injured.
50. Further the other allegation against all the accused persons is for
the commission of offence u/S 323/34 IPC. It is the specific
version of injured PW1 that she was hit by a danda by accused
Puran Mal whereafter she had fallen unconscious and she had
gone to her house after regaining consciousness. As already
discussed in preceding paragraphs, it is the version of PW1 that
matter was reported to police by her husband PW2 who called
police at 100 number which was received by PW6 ASI Rambir
and the said incident was marked to PW7 SI Awadh Kishore. As
stated by PW7, who after receiving the DD no.21A Ex.PW6/A
who reached the spot where he came to know that the injured was
shifted to RTRM Hospital by PCR van and PW7 thereafter, came
to know that PW1 Savita was admitted in hospital vide MLC
no.1684/19. Interestingly, there is no MLC of injured
complainant/ PW1 on record. When the said question was put to
IO PW7 who submitted in his cross-examination that he did not
make any arrival departure entry of him either proceeding to the
spot or to the hospital. PW7 further stated that he did not make
any DD entry regarding any MLC being prepared with respect to
DD no.20A dated 20.04.2019. As already discussed IO PW7 has
further stated that he never moved any formal application at
RTRM hospital for recording statement of injured Savita.
51. The absence of any document from RTRM Hospital makes the
entire case of complainant doubtful as she herself stated that after
a period of four days from the date of incident, she alongwith her
husband had gone to police station for getting her statement
recorded. Neither the complainant nor the IO had brought any
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 28 of 32 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:23:06
+0530
medical document on record which could have corroborated the
factum of injuries on the body of complainant. Non-production of
such vital evidence gives rise to adverse inference to be drawn on
the case of complainant. Further, it gives weightage to the
arguments of the defence that IO is involved with complainant to
falsely implicate the accused persons when the most basic
document like medical report of the injured is not procured by
the IO despite going to the RTRM Hopital. Such lapse on the part
of IO being the investigating officer gives rise to suspicion that
IO was not acting fairly as it not only jeopardise the case of
complainant but also gives rise to the fact that accused were
implicated without necessary material / evidence against them.
52. Viewed in the light of the delay in lodging of the FIR and on
threadbare consideration of the other evidence on record, the
circumstances surrounding the alleged act of shouldering against
the complainant with intention to outrage her modesty and
subsequent act of beating which is not supported by any medical
document on record despite the version of complainant that she
remained in hospital and intimidation do not clearly and
unequivocally point to the involvement of the accused persons
and their false implication cannot be wholly ruled out.
53. This Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably faile to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in these
circumstances, it is not safe to convict accused person for offence
under Section 323/509/34 IPC.
54. The other set of allegations against the accused persons revolves
around commission of offences u/s 506(II)/34 IPC. Following are
the essentials of the offence of Criminal Intimidation as defined
under section 503 IPC:-
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
Page 29 of 32
AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.27
16:23:11
+0530
a. It must be a positive act of causing threat to a person;
b. It must be directed towards his person, property or reputation;
c. It must be directed towards the person or reputation or
property of anyone in whom the victim is interested;
d. It must be done with the intention of causing alarm to such a
person; or
e. It must cause him to do something which he is not legally
bound to do or refrain him from doing something which he is
legally bound to do.
55. Let this court examine the fact whether the prosecution has
proved its case against the accused persons u/s 506 IPC or not.
As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, mere
words do not constitute an offence u/s 506 IPC against accused
and there should be evidence to show that acts, gesture or words
of the accused have caused alarm to the complainant to prove an
offence u/s 506 IPC against her. Reliance in this regard, can be
placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court on section
506 IPC in Manik Taneja & Anr. vs State of Karnataka & Anr,
(2015) 7 SCC 423. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that: –
“It is the intention of the accused that has to be
considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated
comes within the meaning of ‘Criminal intimidation’.
The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the
complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do
any work. Mere expression of any words without any
intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to
bring in the application of this section. But material has
to be placed on record to show that the intention is to
cause alarm to the complainant.’
56. In the present case, as discussed above no evidence has been
brought on record by the prosecution to prove the fact that the
threat extended to the complainant/PW1 had caused any alarm to
her or due to the threat, she had omitted from any of her work. In
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
ABHINAV Date:
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 30 of 32 AHLAWAT 2025.05.27
16:23:16
+0530
fact, nothing has been stated by the complainant PW1 in her
testimony that accused persons gave her such threat by which she
was alarmed to such an extent that she was unable to perform her
day-to-day functions. Neither in her testimony as PW1 nor in her
statement recorded u/S 164 Cr. P. C. complainant has stated
anything specific anything against accused persons. In fact,
nothing was stated by PW1 in her testimoney qua intimidation
given by any of accused persons. In the opinion of this court, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s 506 IPC as there is
nothing on record to suggest that threat extended to the
complainant has caused any alarm to her and due to the alleged
threat, she was alarmed to such an extent that she was not able to
carry out her daily life. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs
the inconsistency/ improvements/ additions which has been
observed in the various versions of complainant, the testimony of
complainant does not inspire any confidence. Thus, in the
absence of any evidence to the effect that no alarm has been
caused to the complainant due to the threat extended by the
accused persons, no offence u/s 506(II) IPC is made out against
the accused persons.
Conclusion
57. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution
evidence, both oral and documentary, including the surrounding
circumstances leads to the only conclusion that prosecution
suffers from serious infirmities and thereby leading to irresistible
conclusion that accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
Since prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt against accused person thereby accused 1. Horam S/o Late
Maha Singh, 2. Puran Mal @ Titu S/o Horam and 3. Naveen
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
Page 31 of 32
AHLAWAT
FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.27
16:23:21
+0530
Kumar S/o Horam are hereby acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 323/506(II)/509/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
on 27.05.2025 in the presence ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
of the accused person.
2025.05.27
16:27:50 +0530(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/27.05.2025This judgment contains 32 pages and each page has been signed
by me. Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.27
16:27:55
+0530(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/27.05.2025FIR No.206/2021, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Sunder Singh Dagar Page 32 of 32