State vs .

Vijay on 17 November, 2016

Delhi District Court

State vs . Vijay on 17 November, 2016
In The Court of Ms. Shefali Barnala Tandon, MM, Mahila Court, NW,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Vijay
FIR No. 725/14
U/s : 354 IPC
PS : Ashok Vihar
JUDGMENT

S.No. of the Case : 305/2 - 15/12/14

Unique ID No. : 528443/2016
Date of Commission of offence : 24.11.2014
Name of the Complainant : Ms. A ( name withheld)
Name of the accused person : Vijay
S/o Sh. Prakash Lakhan
R/o B-155, Sangam Park,
R.P. Bagh Delhi.
Offence Complained of : U/s 354 IPC
Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Date of order : 17.11.2016
Final order : Acquitted

Brief Reasons For Such Decision:

1. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.2014 at about 12:00 noon, at Avlon Unisex Salon &
Spa, Shop No.B-4/ST, A Phase II, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Ashok Vihar
accused misbehaved with the complainant Ms. A(name withheld) by touching her breast with
intention to outrage her modesty and committed offence punishable u/s. 354 IPC.

2. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge sheet before this Court on 15.12.2014.
Thereafter, vide order dated 05.12.2015, charge for commission of offence punishable U/s 354 IPC
was framed against accused Vijay. The said charge read over to the accused to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution cited as many as seven witnesses namely (1)
Complainant Ms.A (name withheld), (2) Smt. Babita, (3) Prem Sagar, (4) DO/HC Satyaveer, (5)
W/Ct. Reena Sharma and (6) MS. Meenu Kaushik, Ld. MM and (7) IO/SI Prem Pal.

4. PW1/Complainant Ms.A (name withheld) stated that she did not want to depose anything in this
case. She further deposed that nothing had happened to her.

On being resiling from her previous statement given to the IO, she was cross examined by Ld. APP
for the State and statement Mark A was read over and explained to her, which she denied in toto and
stated that she had not made any such statement to the police, though she admitted her signatures
on the same at point A. She voluntarily stated that police had obtained her signature on blank

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/106181381/ 1

 State vs . Vijay on 17 November, 2016

papers. She denied that on 24.11.2014 at about 12 noon she went to Avlon Unisex Saloon and Spa,
shop no. No.B-4/ST, A Phase II, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. She further denied that one boy was doing Spa
and the said boy ie., the accused started doing her shoulder massage and during the same spread his
hand on her breast. She further denied that she objected to the same and thereafter, washed her
hairs and returned to her Fufaji's house. She further denied that she narrated the entire incident to
her Bua, who called the police on no. 100. She failed to identify the accused. She admitted that her
statement was recorded by Ld. MM which is Mark B but voluntarily stated that the said statement
was made under pressure of her family member. She denied to have made statement Mark C. She
further denied that accused was arrested in her presence, though, admitted her signature on arrest
memo of the accused marked as Mark D. She further denied that accused was arrested on her
identification and arrest memo was prepared in her presence. She also denied that accused present
in the Court misbehaved with her while she went to the aforesaid saloon in the manner narrated in
the complaint. She further denied that she is deposing falsely as she has been won over by the
accused or that she compromised the present matter.

5. PW-2 Babita also deposed that she does not know anything about the present matter and nothing
happened to her niece. On being resiling from her previous statement given to the IO, she was cross
examined by Ld. APP for the State and statement Mark X was read over and explained to her, which
she denied in toto and stated that she had not made any such statement to the police. She denied
that on 24.11.2014 at about 12 noon her niece went to Avlon Unisex Saloon and Spa. She further
denied that accused misbehaved with her niece at the aforesaid shop/saloon. She further denied that
her niece came to her and narrated the incident and then she called police on number

100. She further denied that accused was arrested in her presence on identification of her niece. She
has further denied that she is deposing falsely as she has been won over by the accused or that she
has compromised the matter with him.

6. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the material witnesses i.e. the complainant and PW-2 in the
present case have turned hostile and has not alleged anything against the accused, therefore other
witness made by the prosecution need not be examined as they all are formal witnesses, hence,
nothing remains to be tried in this case.

Ld. APP for State has submitted that PW-3 Prem Sagar, is only witness to arrest of the accused,
hence, he is only a formal witness.

Heard. Record perused.

The case of prosecution is based upon the complaint made by the complainant namely Ms.A (name
withheld). Hence, the deposition of above said witness was of utmost importance to support its case.
Prosecution examined PW/complainant Ms.A (name withheld), but she did not support the case of
prosecution at all. She did not even identify the accused. On being resiling from her previous
statement recorded U/s 164 Cr. PC, she was examined by Ld. APP for State after obtaining the
permission of the Court but despite lengthy cross examination by Ld. APP for the State nothing
incriminating could come on record against the accused. Even PW-2 did not support the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/106181381/ 2

 State vs . Vijay on 17 November, 2016

prosecution case and has not alleged anything to the accused and despite her lenghty
cross-examination also by Ld. APP for State nothing incriminating could come on record against the
accused.

7. Considering the fact that the material witnesses ie., complainant PW-1 Ms. A (name withheld) and
PW-2 Babita have not supported the prosecution case, the Court is of the considered opinion that
recording of other official witnesses would be a futile exercise, hence PE was closed. Since there was
no incriminating evidence against the accused, his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC was dispensed with.

8. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The record has also been perused
carefully.

9. As has already been pointed out that the material witnesses i.e. PW-1 complainant Ms.A (name
withheld) and PW-2 have turned hostile and failed even to identify the accused, in these
circumstances, it can be safely held that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of
accused Vijay. Accordingly, the accused namely Vijay is acquitted in the present FIR bearing
No.725/14, PS Ashok Vihar, U/s 354 IPC.

Acquitted person is directed to furnish Acquittal Bond u/s 437 (A) Cr .PC for a sum of Rs.10,000/-
on record.

Announced and dictated in the open Court today i.e. On 17.11.2016.

(Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM, Mahila Court, North-West Rohini Courts, Delhi All pages are duly
signed.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/106181381/ 3