Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Mohd. Farhan – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 220 of 2020
Decided On : 10-05-2023
Criminal Force - Offences Against Women - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - 341, 354, 354-D - The court discussed the provisions of Section 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and their interpretation in the context of the case. The court emphasized the importance of the testimony of the complainant in women-related offences and highlighted the sufficiency of the same to prove the prosecution case. The court also addressed the issue of minor discrepancies in witness testimonies and their impact on the case. The judgment upheld the conviction of the revisionist for the offences under Section 341 and 354 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the revisionist used criminal force upon her by snatching her dupatta and hitting her on the breast, thereby outraging her modesty. The revisionist claimed that he had a love affair with the complainant and was called by her to hand over an earphone at a specific location. The court analyzed the testimonies of the complainant and other witnesses, as well as the defense evidence presented by the revisionist.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of the complainant and another witness to be cogent and reliable, establishing the occurrence of the incident and the guilt of the revisionist. The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the sufficiency of the complainant's testimony in proving the prosecution case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the impact of minor discrepancies, and the sufficiency of the complainant's testimony in women-related offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The sufficiency of the complainant's testimony in proving the prosecution case, the impact of minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity were the key legal principles established by the court.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the revisionist for the offences under Section 341 and 354 of the IPC, dismissed the appeal, and directed the revisionist to surrender to undergo the remaining sentence.
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist U/s 397/401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting-aside the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2020 passed by Ld. ASJ-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vide which the appeal of the revisionist was dismissed and Order/Judgment dated 16.09.2019 and order on sentence dated 22.10.2019 passed by Ld. MM-01, Mahila Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vide which the revisionist was convicted for the offences punishable U/s 341 & 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year for the offence punishable U/s 354 IPC with fine of Rs.1000/- and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 month for the offence punishable U/s 341 IPC with fine of Rs.500/-.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 30.11.2015, a PCR call vide DD No. 31-A was received at PS Kamla Market and the same was entrusted to ASI Jagpal Singh. ASI Jagpal Singh alongwith staff reached at the spot i.e. in front of Gate of Zakir Hussain College, Delhi and met with complainant and her maternal aunt. ASI Jagpal Singh recorded the statement of the complainant, wherein, the complainant alleged that on 30.11.2015, she was going towards bus stand and when she reached in front of gate of Zakiar Hussain College, a boy namely Mohd. Farhan (revisionist herein) who was sitting already there on a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-10-S 1677, stopped her and held her hand on which complainant tried to get her hand released but revisionist Mohd. Farhan used criminal force upon the complainant and hit her on the breast.
3. According to the complainant when she started shouting, Mohd. Farhan (present revisionist) ran away from the spot and left his motorcycle on the spot. Complainant further alleged that revisionist had also committed such offence earlier about 6 months ago but the matter was settled amicably due to intervention of family members and after that incident, Mohd. Farhan (present revisionist) did not stop and started stalking again.
4. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, a case U/s 323/341/354-B IPC vide case FIR No. 501/2015, P.S. Kamla Market was got registered and investigation went underway.
5. During the course of investigation, motorcycle No. DL-10-S 1677 was seized and later on revisionist Mohd. Farhan was arrested on 01-12-2015. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet against the present revisionist was filed before the Court of Ld. MM on 08.02.2016 and the Ld. MM vide order dated 06.02.2017, framed the charge U/s 341/354/354-D IPC against the revisionist to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined 6 witnesses. After the closing of the prosecution evidence, statement of the revisionist U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Revisionist also led his defence evidence and in his defence he examined himself as DW-1.
7. After the completion of the trial, Ld. MM-01, Mahila Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vide impugned judgment dated 16.09.2019 convicted the revisionist for the offence U/s 341 & 354 IPC and vide impugned order on sentence dated 22.10.2019 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year for the offence punishable U/s 354 IPC with fine of Rs.1000/- and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 month for the offence punishable U/s 341 IPC with fine of Rs.500/-.
8. The revisionist preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2019 and impugned order on sentence dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Ld. MM-01, Mahila Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi before the Court of Sessions and the Ld. ASJ-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide judgment dated 24.02.2020 dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist.
9. Now the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2019
The sufficiency of the complainant's testimony in proving the prosecution case, the impact of minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity.
Substantive sentence can be reduced if incident is old one.
Procedural lapses in recording victim statements do not invalidate prosecution if evidence sufficiently proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Procedural lapses in the recording of victim statements do not invalidate the prosecution's case if sufficient evidence independently establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 319 Cr.P.C. is being quoted as power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
