The prosecution must establish the evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction; any acquittal based on insufficient evidence is justifiable under law.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Criminal Appeal under Section 377(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed on behalf of the State seeking setting aside of Judgment dated 03.08.2019 whereby the Respondent, Vinod Bhardwaj has been acquitted under Sections 328/354/354D/384 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”){though convicted under S.323 and S.506(1) IPC}.

2. Also, enhancement of sentence awarded vide Order on Sentence dated 03.08.2019 whereby the Respondent has been sentenced only to fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506(I) IPC, in case FIR No. 0155/2014 dated 31.01.2014 registered under Sections 323/328/354/354A/354D/384/506 IPC at P.S. Vasant Kunj (South).

3. Brief facts are that a Complaint dated 31.01.2014 was filed by the Complainant/Prosecutrix against the Respondent/Accused Vinod Bhardwaj on the allegation that in the year 2013, while the Prosecutrix used to work as a maid at the rented house of the Respondent at Rangpuri, Delhi, she was administered some stupefying substance in a cold drink i.e., Pepsi by the Respondent and thereafter, her signatures were taken on some papers which were alleged to be marriage papers, to show that she was his wife. He also made her obscene video clippings.

4. The further allegations were that Respondent threatened her and told her to either to come to his room or else he would make the videos public in Newspaper and would also make them viral in the area of Mahipalpur and Rangpuri. He further threatened her that if she failed to come, he would throw acid on her face.

5. It was further alleged that when the Prosecutrix used to go for her work, the Respondent used to tease her on her way and also made an attempt to take her forcibly to his house. He used to tell the Prosecutrix that her mother had borrowed Rs.15,000/- from him and sought its return from the Prosecutrix, who in turn denied that any money was taken by her mother. It was further alleged that on 06.06.2013 in the evening, when the Prosecutrix was returning from her job, Respondent met her and threatened her to accompany him or else he would make the video clippings, viral.

6. The Prosecutrix then narrated the entire incident to her husband who went to the Respondent to enquire from him. The Respondent in response, gave beating to her husband and threatened that if he disclosed the incident to anyone, he would beat him up again.

7. On these allegations of the Prosecutrix, FIR No. 0155/2014 under Sections 323/328/354/354A/354D/384/506 IPC was registered on 31.01.2014 at P.S. Vasant Kunj (South).

8. The Chargesheet was filed. Charges were framed under Sections 328/354/354D/384/506 IPC on 10.09.2015. The additional charge of Section 323 IPC was framed on 21.03.2016 to which the Respondent pleaded not guilty.

9. The Prosecution examined 09 Prosecution witnesses, out of which, the most important witness was PW-1, the Prosecutrix.

10. The statement of the Accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the incrementing evidence. He also examined DW-1 Sandeep, his landlord in his defence.

11. The Ld. Trial Court, after considering the Prosecution evidence, acquitted the Respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 328/354/354D/384 IPC but convicted the Respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323/506(I) IPC vide judgment dated 03.08.2019. Th