Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE – 03, NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-011650-2024
Crl. Appeal No. 142/24
FIR No. 510/2017
PS Prashant Vihar
Sanjay Sharma
S/o Late Shyam Sunder Sharma
R/o M-8, Budh Vihar,
Phase-1, Delhi ......Appellant/Convict
Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi …….Respondent
Date of institution : 09.08.2024
Arguments concluded on : 10.12.2025
Date of Order : 10.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the instant appeal directed
against the judgment dated 15.03.2023 and order on sentence dated
10.07.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. MM-04, North Distt, Rohini
Courts, Delhi, in case titled as “State vs. Sanjay Sharma” bearing Cr.
Case 5946/2017 pertaining to case FIR No. 510/2017 PS Prashant
Vihar, whereby appellant Sanjay Sharma had been convicted for the
offence punishable u/s 509 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment
for a period of six months and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In case of default
of payment of fine, appellant Sanjay Sharma was ordered to undergo
simple imprisonment for two months.
CA No. 142/24 Sanjay Sharma Vs. State Page No.1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
Brief facts
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on
27/09/2017 the complainant/PW1 Smt. Beena alongwith her
husband Dinesh Kumar came at the court no.107, Rohini court
complex for case proceeding purpose and at about 10.40 am, when
the complainant was standing outside Court Room No. 107, Rohini
Court Complex, Delhi, accused (i.e the person who had filed a case
against the complainant and her husband) with the intention to insult
the modesty of the complainant made filthy gestures and on being
questioned about the same the accused uttered abusive and filthy
language to her. As per further allegations, accused also criminally
intimidated the complainant to eliminate her and her husband.
Complainant made 100 number call.
Grounds of Appeal
3. Sh. Vikas Thakur, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has
assailed the impugned order on the following grounds :-
(i) Ld. Trial Court has not considered the material fact that nothing
material has come against the appellant and the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses is itself doubtful;
(ii) The judgment of the Ld. Trial Court is not based on the facts,
circumstances of the case, but is based on the surmises and
conjectures, which are not borne out by the evidence, which has
been led before the Hon'ble Court, hence the judgment and order is
liable to be set aside;
(iii) The order of conviction and sentence has been passed by the
trial court, without appreciating the facts, circumstances and the
merits of the present case. The order of sentence and conviction has
been passed by the Ld. Trial Court without going through the merits
of the case and even without evaluating the evidence led by the
CA No. 142/24 Sanjay Sharma Vs. State Page No.2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
prosecution, therefore the judgment and order is liable to be set
aside;
(iv) The Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the facts regarding the
present case in which it is clearly mentioned in the charge sheet that
the prolong litigation is pending between the appellant and the
complainant. Further it is pertinent to mention before the Hon'ble
court that the appellant has been intentionally implicated in the
present case to settle the other pending litigation between the
appellant and the complainant as one FIR no.1527/2015 U/s
324/354/3548/506/509/34 IPC PS Vijay Vihar is lodged against the
husband of complainant and friend of complainant and trial is at the
stage of prosecution evidence where the wife of appellant is victim
in the said case which is pending before the Hon'ble court of
Ms.Renu,Ld JMIC Mahila court Rohini Court Delhi and further one
case u/s138 NI Act for recovery Rs.1,00,000/- given as a friendly
loan to the complainant and his husband is pending trial before the
Hon'ble court of Ms.Ebbani Aggarwal, Ld JMIC Rohini court Delhi.
A copy of chargesheet of Case/FIR no.1527/2015 and copy of case
U/s 138 NI Act is annexed herewith as Annexure- A-3 and A-4
respectively;
(v) After getting the information of the present case, investigation
was made out by the concerned IO in the present case and without
doing any investigation, charge sheet has been filed by the IO. The
real facts were never investigated by the IO and only on the basis of
hearsay and information provided by the complainant only the
present charge sheet has been filed;
(vi) Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate the fact that IO of the
present case has not established any public/eye witness in the present
case as at the time of incident court premises were heavily crowded
CA No. 142/24 Sanjay Sharma Vs. State Page No.3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
and none of the public witness as well as the any staff member of
court has been sustained as a witness in the present case;
(vii) The Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate this fact that the
present case is counter blast to settle the other pending litigation
between the complainant and the appellant as the appellant and his
wife filed two criminal cases against the complainant and his
husband way back in the year 2015;
(viii) Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate this fact that the
complainant has changed her statement multiple times as the
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C is different and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C is
different as she made improvement in her each and every statement
and at the time of chief examination of complainant she again made
improvement in her chief examination. Further it is to mention here
that during the cross examination of complainant she could not able
to tell the exact spot of incident as question of doubt arise as she
stating that she was feeding her child while standing to stairs
although the siting facility is available in front of every court room
and as per the DD no.18 PP place of incident is at court no.106 and
the place of incident she tells to investigation agency at the time of
making naksha mauka is in front of court no.107 and further
question of doubt again arose as she herself states in her cross
examination that on first call that she along with her husband and
counsel appeared before the Hon'ble court but at the time of incident
she is alone and she does not even told her about incident to husband
before making 100 number call or her counsel, or even not apprised
the Hon'ble court where she supposed to be appeared in a cheque
bounce case;
(ix) The Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the facts the 100 number
call is also doubtful as in the chief examination of PW/2 i.e husband
CA No. 142/24 Sanjay Sharma Vs. State Page No.4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
is saying he made a 100 number call and the complainant is saying
that she made 100 number from her husband mobile phone. Further
as per the cross examination of PW/2 i.e. husband of complainant
states that the place of incident is the gallery of court no.107 and
question of doubt again arise asper the 100 number call incident
occurs at court no.106 and as per the complainant incident occurs at
stairs of court no.107 and further the statement of PW/2 i.e the
husband was not recorded by the police officials;
(x) The judgment and order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is not
based on the facts, circumstances and material on record of the case,
therefore the judgment and order is liable to be set aside;
(xi) The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the accusation
against the accused / appellant, but this fact has not been taken into
consideration by the Ld. MM, while passing the order of conviction
and sentence against the present appellant;
(xii) The testimony of the witnesses suffers from grave infirmities
and was not sufficient enough to bring home the guilt of the
accused / appellants, but this fact has been completely ignored by the
trial court while holding the accused guilty in the present case;
(xiii) The Ld. Trial Court has not considered the material fact that
nothing material has come against the appellant and the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses is itself doubtful. Because the judgment of
the Ld. Trial Court is not based on the facts, circumstances of the
case, but is based on the surmises and conjectures, which are not
borne out by the evidence, which has been led before the Hon'ble
Court;
(xiv) The Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the material fact that
the very foundation of the present case itself is in dispute, hence it
cannot be said that the prosecution has successfully proved the case
CA No. 142/24 Sanjay Sharma Vs. State Page No.5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
against the accused / appellant. The above fact itself is sufficient for
the acquittal of the accused, but the Ld. MM has not taken care of
the above material fact while passing the order of the conviction and
sentence of the appellant.
4. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has strongly opposed the present
appeal and has prayed for its dismissal.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict, Ld.
Addl. PP for the State and have perused the record carefully.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is merit in
the present appeal and the same deserves to be allowed due to
the following reasons :-
(i) The Ld. Trial Court has itself noted in the impugned judgment
that there were improvements in the version of victim as far as the
offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned as the allegations that
“tere pati ko Deewali nahi dekhne doonga” came for the first time in
the statement of 164 Cr.P.C of the victim and the same were not
present in her initial version. For the same reasons, Ld. JMFC/Ld.
Trial Court has rightly disregarded the testimony of the victim as far
as offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned. In the considered
opinion of this Court, when material improvements came on record
in the version of the victim, then her entire testimony becomes
doubtful and cannot be relied upon.
(ii) Ld. Trial Court has also noted in the impugned judgment that
testimony of husband of the victim i.e. PW-2 Dinesh Kumar was in
the nature of hearsay as he reached the place of incident after the
incident was already over.
(ii) It is a matter of record that other than the victim, whose version
was materially improved, and her husband PW-2 Dinesh Kumar,
there is no other independent witness to the incident despite the fact
CA No. 142/24 Sanjay Sharma Vs. State Page No.6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
that the alleged incident took place in front of a running Court in the
Rohini Court Complex and naturally, other litigants were bound to
be present at the place of offence. This also further weakens the
evidentiary value of the testimony of the victim.
(iii) It is also common knowledge that the Rohini Courts Complex
being a heavily guarded area is under CCTV surveillance. However,
the IO did not make any effort to collect the CCTV footage of the
incident nor filed the same with the charge-sheet.
(iv) It is a matter of record that the accused in the present case has
filed a cheque dishonour case against the complainant in the present
case which was pending trial in the abovesaid Court No.107 and on
the day of the incident, the accused as well as the complainant both
had come to attend a hearing in the said case. Further, it emerges
from the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C
that PW-2 Dinesh Kumar i.e. husband of the complainant had also
misbehaved with wife of the accused and outraged her modesty and
in this regard, FIR bearing 1527/15, PS Vijay Vihar under Section
354/354B/506/323/34 IPC was registered and the same was pending
trial in Court no.106, Rohini Court.
(v) In these facts and circumstances, as it is clear that a cheque
dishonour case was filed by the accused herein against the
complainant and another criminal case regarding outraging the
modesty of wife of the accused had also been filed and the same was
pending trial, the chances of the complainant, in the present case
falsely implicating the accused to settle the scores cannot be ruled
out.
(vi) It is also pertinent to note that accused also led evidence
through DW-1 Vinod Thakur, who stated in nutshell that on the date
of the incident i.e. 27.09.2017, he had come to attend the Court
CA No. 142/24 Sanjay Sharma Vs. State Page No.7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
hearing alongwith the accused as he was his friend. He deposed that
the complainant took a chair and started feeding the child and
thereafter, out of the blue, she started shouting at them using very
bad language stating that accused Sanjay had verbally abused her
and meanwhile her husband also came from behind and he was also
abusing the accused alongwith himself. So in nutshell, the testimony
of DW-1 is that no such incident as alleged ever took place and that
the accused has been falsely implicated by the victim.
(vii) It is settled law that the evidentiary value of testimony of a
defence witness is at par with that of a prosecution witness and the
same cannot be placed on a lighter footing. Coupled with the
testimony of DW-1 and also other facts emerging on the record that
there was a cheque dishonour case pending between the parties
herein the accused was the complainant. Moreover, there was also a
case pending against husband of the complainant for outraging the
modesty of wife of the accused, the defence of the accused seems
highly probable that he was falsely implicated in the present case to
put pressure upon him.
Decision
7. In view of the above reasoning and discussion, the present
appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant as well as
order on sentence is set aside. The accused is accordingly acquitted
of the offence under Section 509 IPC.
Announced in the open Court
on 10th December, 2025
(JAGMOHAN SINGH)
Addl. Sessions Judge-03, (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
CA No. 142/24 Sanjay Sharma Vs. State Page No.8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --