* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 1303/2019 and Crl.M.B. 2196/2019
Reserved on : 15.01.2020
Date of Decision: 27.01.2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
PRADEEP LAL HANDALE ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.B.K Sahi, Mr. Manoj Kumar
Roy and Mr. Siddharth, Advocates
STATE ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for
State with SI Pradeep, P.S Lodhi Colony, New
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
1. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged
his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections
323/354 and 506 IPC in FIR No.178/2013 at P.S. Lodhi Colony.
2. Vide judgment dated 16.01.2017, the trial court convicted the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323/354 and 506
IPC. Further, vide order on sentence dated 23.01.2017, the petitioner was
sentenced to undergo S.I for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for
offence punishable under Section 354 IPC in default whereof to further
undergo S.I for 10 days. He was further sentenced to undergo S.I for one
year for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and S.I for a period of
one year for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Crl. Rev. 1303/2019 Page 1 of 5
3. In appeal, vide judgment dated 27.11.19, both the conviction as well
as the order on sentence were upheld. It is noted that fine of Rs. 1000/-
has already been paid by the petitioner.
4. Brief facts as noted by the Appellate Court are reproduced as under:-
“Prosecution version against appellant as unfolded during trial
is that on 04.11.2013, at about 12 noon near H. No. 212, Lodhi
Colony, New Delhi, appellant caught hold of the hand of the
complainant/victim and tried to pull her in his car. When
complainant raised hue and cry, appellant passed sexually
coloured remarks against her and threatened to kill complaint
and her. After completing investigation, the charge-sheet was
filed. The charges were framed under Sections 392/394/397/34
IPC to which the appellants pleaded not guilty. During trial, the
prosecution examined total of 12 witnesses husband. When
victim was going to Police Station for reporting the matter to
police, appellant came there in the car and started fighting with
complainant as a result of which complainant received injuries
on her head. FIR was registered after the conclusion of evidence,
final report was laid before concerned Metropolitan Magistrate
wherein appellant was chargesheeted under Section
354/354A/506/323 IPC. Thereafter, charge under same
provisions of law was framed against the appellant”.
5. Babita, the complainant was examined as PW-1. Rajni and Seema,
eye witnesses to the incident were examined as PW-2 and PW-3
respectively. Dharambir, husband of the complainant was examined as
PW-4. Dr. M. Sukumar who conducted the MLC of the complainant was
examined as PW-11.
6. Mr. B.K. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
testimony of the complainant is not believable as there are material
variations and contradictions in her statements. It was also contended that
the complainant held a grudge against the petitioner as on the previous day
Crl. Rev. 1303/2019 Page 2 of 5
a fight took place between husband of the complainant on one hand and
Chhotu and Babu on the other hand in which the petitioner had taken the
side of the latter. For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant had falsely
implicated the petitioner.
7. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, a
perusal of the complainant’s various statements reveal that whereas in her
testimony recorded in the Court it was stated that while returning at 12
noon the petitioner followed her and abused her husband and tried to pull
her inside the car but in her initial complaint it was stated that that while
she was returning at 12 noon , the petitioner was sitting in his car outside
his house when he tried to pull her inside the car and later while she was
returning along with her husband from the police station, the petitioner
came in his car and caught her hand because of which she received injury
on her wrist. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it was
stated that the petitioner was sitting in his car along with four other persons
when he tried to pull her inside the car. The petitioner’s sister and mother
also came and they also caught her hand. On hearing the noise, when
complainant’s husband reached the spot, the petitioner ran away.
From above, it is apparent that in her deposition, the complainant
has stated that the injury was received while she was returning from the
police station along with her husband but in her other statement recorded
during investigation it was stated that the injury on her hand was received
at the time when she was alone. In her testimony, the complainant did not
mention about the second incident at all.
8. The complainant’s husband in his testimony stated that he saw from
the window of his house that the petitioner was pulling his wife by her
Crl. Rev. 1303/2019 Page 3 of 5
hand. When he came out of the house, the petitioner threatened to kill him.
He along with the complainant went to the police station where their
complaint was not registered. Thereafter he went to the office of DCP at
Moolchand from where he came back to P.S. Lodhi Road. While they were
returning from the police station, the petitioner again misbehaved with him
and his wife. However, the complainant did not state on above lines in any
of her statements.
9. The two independent witnesses, namely Rajni and Seema have not
stated about the presence of the complainant’s husband at the spot. They
have not stated anything about any threats given to the complainant or her
husband. Both the witnesses were given the suggestions that the
complainant was their friend at whose instance they had deposed to falsely
implicate the petitioner. The aforesaid witnesses did not mention about the
presence of any other person and the car. In the cross-examination, Seema
tried to improve the case but was confronted with her statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where she did not mention the presence of 3-4
persons along with the petitioner.
10. It is relevant to note that during the complainant’s cross-
examination, she admitted that on the previous night, her husband was
involved in a fight with Chhotu and Babu, who were residents of the upper
floor in flat adjoining to the house of the petitioner. She denied the
suggestion that the petitioner along with his mother and brother took the
side of Chhotu and Babu.
11. So far as MLC is concerned, it mentioned “three linear abrasions
over her right wrist”. Dr. M. Sukumar was examined to prove the MLC
of the complainant. He stated that he did not identify the signatures of Dr.
Crl. Rev. 1303/2019 Page 4 of 5
Ramender who had prepared the MLC, as he had never seen him writing
and signing . He further stated that the injury might be possible by holding
the hand and dragging on the wall. He could not answer whether the
injuries were on the Dorsal aspect or Palmar aspect or whether they were
vertical or horizontal.
12. In the opinion of this Court, there are material contradictions in the
statements of the complainant which are also at variance with the
testimony of her husband. The petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Session Court, upholding
the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner, is set aside. The
revision petition is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted. The petitioner
be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Bail bonds are
cancelled and surety discharged. The pending bail application is disposed
of in above terms.
13. Copy of this order be communicated to the trial court as well as the
concerned Jail Superintendent for serving it on the petitioner and for
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JANUAURY 27, 2020
Crl. Rev. 1303/2019 Page 5 of 5