Delhi court sends strong message - Girl and Women to face legal consequences for falsely accusing and fabricating false evidence
While digging http://judis.nic.in/ found out that in the fast track Delhi court for POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) majority ~90% cases were false and girls (less than 18 years old) and their mothers or sisters are blatantly abusing the POCSO. This Special law (POCSO) is also being misused and abused freely by women (including Girls) folk to settle the personal score and for oblique motives and is turning out to be another weapon of Legal Terrorism.
Truely Feminism in India has trained Girls to become a part of Legal Terrorism network.
There were other cases where the judge pulled Police for the Shoody investigation which shall be posted soon.
Interesting Media is not highlighting these cases for reasons known to all !
Men and Boys wake up !
-----
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. : 194/13
ID No. : 02401R0596392013
FIR No. : 87/13
Police Station : Gulabi Bagh
Under Section : 323/354/506/34 IPC
r/w Section 8 POCSO
State
Versus
Karnail Singh
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Pal
R/o 10613, Gali No. 5
Pratap Nagar, Delhi
.........Accused No. 1
Deepa
W/o Karnail Singh
R/o 10613, Gali No. 5
Pratap Nagar, Delhi
.........Accused No. 2
Date of Institution : 21.11.2013
Date of judgment : 19.05.2014
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Sh. Sachin Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Sethi,
Advocate, counsel for both the accused persons.
J U D G M E N T (ORAL) : -
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 1of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
1. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on July 03,
2013 at about 9 PM, complainant (PW1) along with her two sisters, namely,
PW2 and PW3 came to the police station Gulabi Bagh and lodged a
complaint with duty officer that accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa
had beaten them. Said intimation was recorded vide DD 21A (Ex.PW10/C).
Constable Anjela was directed to record the statement of complainant
(PW1) and thereafter DD No. 21A was assigned to SI Vijay. ( since the
complainant and her sisters are victim of sexual assault, their identity is
withheld and they are referred to as PW1, PW2 and PW3).
2. It was alleged that complainant (PW1) got recorded her
statement Ex.PW1/B wherein she alleged that on July 03, 2013 at about 8
PM, she along with her two sisters, namely, PW2 and PW3 was going to
doctor's clinic as her sister PW3 had sustained burn injury on July 02,
2013. It was alleged that when they reached near Temple opposite to gali
No. 6, accused Karnail Singh, who resided in their neighbourhood came
there and started teasing her and passed indecent gestures and when
complainant protested, accused Karnail Sinigh scratched her mouth and
when her sister (PW2) raised objection, accused Karnail Singh had torn her
salwar. It was alleged that when her another sister (PW3) raised objection,
accused Karnail Singh hit on her chest and torn her suit from front side. It
was further alleged that in the meantime Deepa wife of Karnail Singh also
came there and both of them started beating complainant and her sisters. It
was alleged that accused Karnail Singh had threatened if report be lodged
to the police, he would kill complainant and her sisters. It was further
alleged that earlier also Karnail Singh had made several attempts to tease
her. Complainant and her sisters were got medically examined.
Complainant was found sustaining blunt injury whereas no fresh injury was
found on the person of PW2. On her statement, an FIR for the offence
punishable under Section 323/354/354A/354B/509/34 Indian Penal Code
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 2of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
(IPC in short) was got registered. During investigation, statement of PW2
and PW3 was also got recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr. P.C. in short). Their torn clothes were seized. During
investigation, statement of all the victims were got recorded under Section
164 Cr. P.C. It was alleged that since PW2 was found minor, provisions of
Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO in
short) was also added.
3. It was alleged that accused Deepa w/o Karnail Singh was
granted anticipatory bail on July 15, 2013. On October 21, 2013, accused
Karnail Singh was arrested. He was found involved in numerous other
cases.
4. After investigation, challan was filed against accusd Karnail
Singh for the offence punishable under Section 323/354/354B/509/506/34
Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offence Act whereas accused Deepa was challaned for the offence
punishable under Section 323 of IPC.
5. Aftercomplying with the provisions of Section 207 Code of
Criminal Procedure, a charge for the offence punishable under Section
354/354A/354B/324/506 IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act was
framed against the accused Karnail Singh whereas a separate charge
against both the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section
323/34 IPC was framed, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has
examined as many as following 10 witnesses.
PW1 Complainant, material witness but turned hostile.
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 3of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
PW2 Sister of complainant, material witness but turned
hostile.
PW3 Sister of complainant, material witness but turned
hostile.
PW4 Geeta, neighbour, material witness but turned
hostile.
PW5 SI Vimal Dutt, second investigating officer.
PW6 Kamlesh, material witness but turned hostile.
PW7 Uncle of complainant (in order to conceal the
identity of victim, his identity is also withheld )
PW8 Father of victims (in order to conceal the
identity of victims, his identity is also withheld )
PW9 Smt. Siksha Devi, neighbour, material witness but
turned hostile.
PW10 SI Vijay Investigating officer.
7. Inview of the testimony of material witnesses, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence on May 09,
2014.
8. Since, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused
persons, their examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. was dispensed
with.
9. Learnedcounsel appearing for the accused persons
sagaciously contended that though prosecution has examined all the
material witnesses, yet none of the witnesses has uttered even a single
word against the accused persons. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
fairly conceded that the testimony of material witnesses examined by
prosecution are not sufficient to prove the culpability of accused persons as
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 4of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
all the material witnesses turned hostile. However, he submitted that
suitable action should be taken against the complainant and her sisters
who have resiled from their previous statements made on oath under
Section 164 Cr. P.C.
10. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for both
the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful
consideration to their contentions.
11. Prosecutionhas set up a case against the accused persons
that when complainant along with her sisters was going to doctor's clinic on
July 03, 2013, accused Karnail Singh met them on the way near Temple
opposite to gali No. 6 and thereafter he passed indecent gestures towards
complainant and when she raised objection, he scratched on her mouth
and when her sister PW2 raised objection, accused Karnail Singh torn her
salwar and when her another sister PW3 raised objection, accused Karnail
Singh torn her kamiz from front side. In the meantime, Deepa wife of
accused Karnail Singh also joined him and thereafter they gave beating to
the complainant and her sisters. However, when complainant PW1 and her
sisters PW2 and PW3 graced the witness box, they all turned hostile
completely and did not support the prosecution case in any manner.
Though, complainant and her sisters were examined at length by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, yet during their cross-examination nothing
could be extracted which may help the prosecution to prove the culpability
of accused persons. Thus, the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are not
helpful to the prosecution to prove the culpability of accused persons.
12. Prosecutionhas also set up a case that PW4, PW6 and
PW9 also reached the spot after hue and cry and they also witnessed the
said incident but all the said witnesses also turned hostile completely and
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 5of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
did not support the prosecution case in any manner. Admittedly, PW7 and
PW8 were not the eye witnesses and they came to know about the incident
later on. Thus, their testimony is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the
culpability of accused persons. Moreover, both the witnesses also turned
hostile completely and did not support the prosecution case in manner.
13. Remainingwitnesses are PW5 SI Vimal Dutt to whom further
investigation was assigned and PW10 who conducted the investigation. In
view of the fact that material witnesses turned hostile completely and they
did not support the prosecution in any manner, their testimony is also not
helpful to prosecution to prove the guilt of accused persons.
14. Fromthe aforesaid discussion, it becomes abundantly clear
that there is no iota of evidence against the accused persons, thus,
prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused
persons, thus, I acquit both the accused persons from all the charges.
15. Now, coming to the next contention raised by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor as to whether it is a fit case to take legal
action against the complainant and her sisters.
16. Itis undisputed fact that during investigation complainant and
her sisters made statement on oath under Section 164 Code of Criminal
Procedure and their statements are Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/C
respectively.
17. PW1complainant lodged an FIR against the accused
persons by making her statement Ex.PW1/B that when she along with her
sisters, namely, PW2 and PW3 reached near Temple opposite to gali No.
6, accused Karnail Singh S/o Suraj Pal, R/o 10613, Gali No. 5, Pratap
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 6of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
Nagar, Delhi who resided in her neighbourhood came in front of her and
started teasing her and passed indecent gestures and when she raised
objection, accused Karnail Singh scratched her mouth and when her sister
PW2 raised objection, accused Karnail Singh torn her salwar and when her
another sister PW3 raised objection, accused Karnail Singh hit on her
chest and torn her suit (shirt) from front side. In the meantime, Deepa wife
of accused Karnail Singh also came there and she also started beating
them. It was further alleged that accused Karnail Singh had threatened
them, if complaint was made to the police, he would kill the complainant
and her sisters and further alleged that previously also accused Karnail
Singh had made several attempts to tease her. Thus, from her complaint
Ex.PW1/B, it becomes clear that complainant and her sisters knew
accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa previously. Similarly,
complainant in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. (Ex.PW1/A) made
specific allegations against the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa.
Similarly her sisters i.e.PW2 and PW3 in their statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr. P.C., which are exhibited as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/C
respectively made specific allegations against both the accused persons.
18. Frombare perusal of the FIR and the statement of witnesses
recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., it can be culled-out that they knew
the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa previously. However, when
complainant appeared in the witness box, she turned hostile completely by
deposing that when they reached near Mandir outside their gali, there was
no light in the area and some boys came there along with 2-3 girls and they
were abusing them and when they raised objection, they started scuffling
with her, consequently, she sustained injury on her cheek. She further
deposed that when scuffling took ugly turn, they had also started scuffling
with her sisters (PW2 and PW3) and in the said scuffling, shirt and salwar
of her sisters (PW2 and PW3) were torn. She further deposed that since
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 7of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
there is no electricity in the area, she could not see the face of that persons
and females and further deposed that she was not sure whether she could
identify anyone of them or not. She further deposed that they did not inform
the police; rather someone from public made a call to police and further
deposed that she did not go to the police station along with her sisters and
further deposed that on the next day they went to police station and at that
time she was accompanied with her Bua and her sisters. She further
deposed that someone from crowd told her that probably Karnail Singh and
his wife Deepa were among the assailants and further deposed that she
did not give any statement to the police. She further testified that no one
had given any threat either to her or to her sisters. During crossexamination conducted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she
deposed that she did not know Karnail Sinigh. However, stated that she
knew his wife Deepa and admitted that she is residing in her
neighbourhood. She failed to identify the accused Karnail Singh. She
categorically denied the prosecution version that accused Karnail Singh
and his wife Deepa were the assailants. She admitted that none had given
any threat her either today or previously and she was not under any
pressure. She further deposed that she did not know whether on the basis
of her complaint Ex.PW1/B and statement made under Section 164 Code
of Criminal Procedure (Ex.PW1/A), accused Karnail Singh and his wife
Deepa were arrested and further deposed that she did not know whether
any other person was arrested on basis of her above said complaint and
statement. She further deposed that police did not inform her about the
action taken on her complaint.
19. Fromthe deposition of PW1, it becomes clear that she had
completely resiled from her complaint Ex.PW1/B and the statement made
under Section 164 Cr. P.C. (Ex.PW1/A). On the contrary, she tried to set
up new case that she had disclosed the name of accused Karnail Singh
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 8of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
and his wife Deepa because some unknown person told her that probably
they were the assailants but she could not see the face of assailants due
to darkness in the area. Similarly, PW2 also turned hostile stating that
there was no electricity in the area and scuffled had taken place with 2-3
boys and her salwar was torn during the scuffle. Similarly, shirt of her sister
(PW3) was also torn during the scuffle and further deposed that none had
torn their clothes. She admitted that no threat was given to her and also
admitted that she had made a statement Ex.PW2/A under Section 164 Cr.
P.C. During cross-examination conducted by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, she stated that she did not know any person by the name of
Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa and she failed to identify both the
accused persons. Though she admitted that she had made allegations
against the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa in her statement
under Section 164 Cr. P.C. but stated that she had made allegations
against them at the instance of police because police advised them to
make allegations against the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa
because public persons told the police that assailants might be Karnail
Singh and his wife Deepa. When a court question was put to her, she
admitted that she had made false allegations against the accused Karnail
Singh and his wife Deepa in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C.
(Ex.PW2/A) but took the plea that she did so as she could not see
assailants and public persons told her that assailants were Karnail Singh
and his wife Deepa. However, when a question was put to her whether she
could tell the name of public persons who told her about the same, she
replied that she cannot tell their name. She also stated that she did not
inform learned Metropolitan Magistrate that she had made allegations
against accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa at the instance of
unknown public persons or police officials. She deposed that she did not
know whether police had arrested Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa on the
basis of her statement and statement of her sisters made to the police.
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 9of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
However, she admitted that no threat was given to her.
20. Fromher testimony, it becomes clear that she had impleaded
accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa at the instance of some
unknown persons and none had torn their clothes but the same were torn
during scuffle with some unknown persons. It is also clear that accused
Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa were not responsible for the alleged
incident.
21. Similarly, PW3 turned hostile completely by deposing that
the quarrel had taken place with 6-7 persons and 2-3 ladies and in that
process someone had pushed complainant and scratched on her face. In
the meantime, some ladies assaulted her and her sisters (PW1 and PW2)
and in that process her shirt and salwar of her sister was torn. Police also
came there and she also admitted that she had made a statement under
Section 164 Cr. P.C. (Ex.PW3/A). During cross-examination conducted by
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she stated that she did not know the
accused Karnail Singh and failed to recognise him. She also denied the
suggestions that accused Karnail Singh had torn her shirt or salwar of her
sister or he also scratched the mouth of complainant. She also denied that
Deepa was was involved in the incident. She admitted that she was not
under any threat from any corner. She admitted that she had named
Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa in her statement Ex.PW3/C and admitted
that she had made false allegations against them in her statement under
Section 164 Cr. P.C. but took the plea that she did so because public
persons told her that assailants were Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa and
further admitted that she made allegations against them before police at
the instance of said public persons but stated that she cannot tell their
name. She further stated that she did not know whether accused Karnail
Singh and his wife Deepa were arrested by the police on the basis of her
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 10of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
statement and on the statement of her sisters. She further stated that she
told the police that she had disclosed the name of Karnail Singh and his
wife Deepa at the instance of unknown person but she did not disclose this
fact before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
22. Asper statement of PW1, PW2 and PW3, the alleged
incident had taken place on July 03, 2013 at about 8 PM. DD No. 21A
(Ex.PW10/C) was got recorded by complainant at 9.06 PM wherein
complainant had categorically named the accused Karnail Singh and his
wife Deepa. Thereafter, her statement was recorded by Constable Anjela
and in her statement Ex.PW1/B, she had made specifically allegations
against the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa and further alleged
that accused Karnail Singh was residing in her neighbourhood. Similarly,
PW2 and PW3 also made specific allegations against the accused Karnail
Singh and his wife Deepa. But when they entered the witness box, PW1,
PW2 and PW3 took the plea that they made allegations against the
accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa at the instance of unknown
public person as they could not see the face of assailants as there was
darkness in the area and public persons told them that probably the
assailants were Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa. Admittedly, this fact was
not disclosed by any of them either before police or before learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. If they had not seen the assailants, it was their
duty to inform the police that though they had not seen the assailants, yet
public persons told them the assailants might be Karnail Singh and his wife
Deepa. But complainant and her sisters failed to state so. Rather they
made specific allegations against the accused persons. Thus, it become
clear that either PW1, PW2 and PW3 have made a false statement before
this Court or they have made a false statement on oath before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P.C.
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 11of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
23. Falseevidence is defined under Section 191 Indian Penal
Code whereas fabricating false evidence is defined under Section 192
Indian Penal Code. Both are reproduced as under:
191. Giving false evidence– Whoever, being
legally bound by an oath or by an express
provision of law to state the truth, or being bound
by law to make a declaration upon any subject,
makes any statement which is false, and which
he either knows or believes to be false or does
not believe to be true, is said to give false
evidence.
Explanation 1.- A statement is within the
meaning of this section, whether it is made
verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2. - A false statement as to the
belief of the person attesting is within the
meaning of this section, and a person may be
guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he
believes a thing which he does not believe, as
well as by stating that he knows a thing which he
does not know.
192. Fabricating false evidence– Whoever
causes any circumstances to exist or [makes any
false entry in any book or record, or electronic
record or makes any document or electronic
record containing a false statement], intending
that such circumstances, false entry or false
statement may appear in evidence in a judicial
proceeding, orin a proceeding taken by law
before a public servantas such, or before an
arbitrator, an that such circumstances, false entry
or false statement, so appearing in evidence may
cause any person who in such proceeding is to
form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain
an erroneous opinion touching any point material
to the result of such proceeding, is said “to
fabricate false evidence”.
SC No. 194/13 Page No. 12of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another
24. As already stated that PW1, PW2 and PW3 either made false evidence before this Court or before learned Metropolitan Magistrate on oath under Section 164 Cr. P.C. Prima-facie their act amounts giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence as defined under Section 191 and 192 IPC. Indisputably, statements before learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and the complaint Ex.PW1/B were made within an intention that the same shall be used during judicial proceeding against the accused persons, thus prima-facie complainant and her sisters (PW2 and PW3) have committed an offence punishable under Section 193 IPC.
25. Nowquestion arises as to whether proceeding can be
initiated against the PW2 who was 17 years 9 months and 6 days old at the
time of alleged incident. As per record, her date of birth is October 28,
1995. Thus, she was minor a the time of incident but she was major when
she appeared in the witness box on April 24, 2014. Since, the offence was
committed on April 24, 2014 when she resiled from her previous statement,
thus, to my mind, there is no bar under law to proceed against her.
26. Nodoubt, under Section 22 of POCSO Act, no action can be taken against a child if child makes a false complaint or provides false information. To my mind, police cannot take any action against any child, if during investigation, it is revealed that the child had made a false complaint or information provided by him/her is false. But this does not empowers a child to make a false deposition in judicial proceeding. This further clears from Section 22 (1) of POCSO Act because the maximum sentence to furnish false information is up to six months or with a fine or both whereas to make a false statement on oath before the Court and to give false evidence or fabricate false evidence is punishable for imprisonment which may extend upto 7 years. This further makes it clear that Section 22 of POCSO Act does not empowers a child witness to make a false statement in judicial proceeding. Thus, I am of the view that Section 22 of the POCSO Act does not prevent the Court in any manner from proceeding even against the child witness, if there are sufficient reasons to believe that the child witness has made a false evidence or created a false or fabricated circumstance. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that in instant case PW2 was not a child at the time when she graced the witness box on April 24, 2014.
27. Itis pertinent to mention here that accused Karnail Singh was
arrested by the police on October 21, 2013 and he was released on bail on
December 21, 2013, thus, he remained in jail for two months on the basis
of allegations made by complainant and her sisters and now they very
easily stated they had made allegations against him at the instance of
some unknown persons. Thus, it becomes clear that accused Karnail Singh
has been deprived from his personal liberty for about two months on the
basis of allegations levelled by the complainant and her sisters.
28. Needlessto say that witnesses play a significant role in the administration of criminal justice. If witnesses be permitted to behave in such a irresponsible manner, it will become just impossible for courts to impart justice. If they (PW1 to PW3) have settled their dispute with accused persons out of the Court, they should have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in accordance with law for quashing of proceedings instead of making a false statement before the Court. It is pertinent to state that witnesses did not depose that they have settled the dispute with the accused persons. If witnesses like PW1, PW2 and PW3 are not checked or dealt with sternly wrong message would disseminate among public at large that witnesses can take somersault during trial at any point of time as per their whims and fancies without facing any consequences, thus, I am of the considered opinion that PW1, PW2 and PW3 deserve to face the consequences of their wrongful act.
29. Inview the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prima-facie there are sufficient material on record to show that PW1, PW2 and PW3 had committed the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC. Since, a complaint under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure is required to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 193 Indian Penal Code, this Court authorises Reader of the Court i.e.Sh. Amit Sharma to file a complaint against PW1 (Renu), PW2 (Barkha) and PW3 (Kiran) on behalf of this Court for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. He is further directed to submit the compliance report within three weeks from the date of judgment.
Conclusion :-30. Inthe light of the above discussion, I hereby, acquit both the
accused persons, namely, Karnail Singh and Deepafrom all the charges.
Sh. Amit Sharma, Reader of this Court is authorised and directed to file a
complaint against the complainant PW1 (Renu) and her sisters PW2
(Barkha) and PW3 (Kiran) before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 193 of Indian Penal
Code and submit the compliance report within three weeks.
31. Filebe consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court
on this 19th day of May, 2014
(PAWAN KUMAR JAIN)
Additional Sessions Judge-01
Central district, Tis Hazari, Delhi/sm
No comments:
Post a Comment