Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
MHMM190035842018
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY SUJITKUMAR C. TAYDE)
(Date of Judgment: 22nd July, 2024)
Case No.849/PW/2018
CNR No.MHMM190035842018
FIR/Crime No.74/2018
Police Station: Versova, Mumbai.
COMPLAINANT The State of Maharashtra
through the Station Incharge of
Versova Police Station, Mumbai.
REPRESENTED BY Learned A.P.P. Smt. Seema Mokal
ACCUSED Vidyasagar Ramkishor Yadav,
Age 29 Yrs,
Occupation Service,
R/o.Room No.09,
Society No.95,
S.V.P. Nagar, Mhada,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
REPRESENTED BY Learned Advocates Shri Mishra and
Shri Praveen Pandey
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 18 --
2 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
Part 'B'
(Para 44(ii) off Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
Date of offence 19/02/2018
Date of FIR 19/02/2018
Date of chargesheet 17/03/2018
Date of framing of charges 15/07/2019
Date of commencement of
evidence
08/03/2021
Date of which judgment is
reserved
22/07/2024
Date of the judgment 22/07/2024
Accused Details
Rank of
the
accused
Name of
Accused
Date of
Arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offences
charged
with
Whether
acquitted or
convicted
Sentence
imposed
Period of
Detention
Undergone
during
Trial for
purpose of
Section
428 of
Cr.P.C.
1 Vidyasag
ar
Ramkish
or Yadav
19/02/2
018
19/02/20
18
509, 504
and 506 of
the Indian
Penal
Code
Convicted
under
Section 509
of Indian
Penal Code
The
accused
is
sentence
d to pay
fine of
Rs.1,000
/
(Rupees
One
Thousan
d Only)
for the
No
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 18 --
3 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
offence
punishab
le under
section
509 of
Indian
Penal
Code
Part 'C'
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution:
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
PW 1 Informant Payal Jitendra
Arora
Exh.No.05
PW 2 Witness Balu Dharmaji
Doke
Exh.No.07
PW 3 Investigating Officer
Sadanand Bharat Pote
Exh.No.08
B. Defence witnesses, if any.
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
Nil Nil Nil
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 18 --
4 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
C. Court witnesses, if any.
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
Nil Nil Nil
LIST OF PROSECUTION EXHIBITS
Sr.
No.
Nature of Exhibit Exhibit No.
1 FIR 06
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 22/07/2024)
The accused stands prosecuted for having committed the
offence punishable under Section 509, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under :
2. On 18/02/2018, the informant, Payal Jitendra Arora and
her sister Nikita were present in their Bungalow No.61, Shiv Kutir
Tower, S.V.P. Nagar, Andheri. On the very day at about 20.30 hrs., one
woman was speaking in loud voice on her mobile in front of the
Bungalow of the informant. Hence, the informant asked her to go away
from her bungalow. On getting the suggestion from the informant, that
woman got annoyed and she abused the informant. Therefore, the
informant chased that woman. Thereafter, that woman called her
friend who is accused in this matter. The accused came on the spot of
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 18 --
5 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
the incident and abused the informant in filthy language like “rq>s eLrh
vk;h D;kA rqeus esjh cgu dks D;q xkyh nhA eknjP;ksn cguP;ksn” (i.e. in english
“Tuzhe Masti Aai Kya. Tumne Meri Bahan Ko Kyu Gali Di. Madarchod
Bahanchod). Hence, the informant lodged the First Informantion Report
against the accused in the police station Versova, Mumbai and
accordingly, the offence punishable under section 509, 504 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the accused vide Crime
No.74/2018. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused uttered
the said abusive words with an intention to insult the modesty of the
informant.
3. The further investigation of the said crime was handed over
to Shri Sadanand Pote, PoliceSubInspector who recorded the
statements of the witnesses. Having completed the investigation, the
chargesheet came to be filed under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. against the
accused for having committed the offence punishable under Section
509, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Having secured the presence of the accused, all the
documents filed alongwith the chargesheet were supplied to the
accused under Section 207 of Cr. P.C.
5. The charge for the offence punishable under section 509,
504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was read over to the accused in
his vernacular language. He did not plead guilty and claimed to be
tried. Hence, the trial was proceeded further.
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 18 --
6 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
6. In view of the incriminating evidence placed on record
against the accused, his statement was recorded under section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stand of the accused is of total
denial. According to him, the informant lodged false case against him.
7. In the backdrop of the prosecution case and the evidence
placed on record, the following points are formulated for my
determination. I record my findings thereon in the light of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution as under:
SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that on
19/02/2018 at about 20.30 hrs. near
Bunglow No.61, Opp. Shiv Kutir Tower,
S.V.P. Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai, the
accused intending to insult the modesty of
the informant Amt.Payal Jitendra Arora,
uttered abusive words i.e.“rq>s eLrh vk;h D;kA
rqeus esjh cgu dks D;q xkyh nhA eknjP;ksn cguP;ksn”
intending that same shall be heard by the
informant and thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 509 of
Indian Penal Code?
Proved
2] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, the accused
intentionally insulted the informant and
thereby gave provocation to her intending
or knowing it to be likely that such
provocation will cause her to break public
peace and thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 504 of Indian
Penal Code?
Disproved
3] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, the accused
Disproved
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 18 --
7 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
committed criminal intimidation by
threatening the informant with injury to
her person and thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 506 of
the Indian Penal Code?
4] What order ? The accused is
convicted for
the offence
punishable
under section
509 of Indian
Penal Code as
per the final
order.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 TO 3:
8. These points are interlinked with each other and common
evidence is adduced on these points. Therefore, they are taken up
together for consideration and determination.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution examined the following witnesses:
Sr.
No.
Name of witnesses Exh.Nos.
1 Informant Payal Jitendra
Arora (P.W.No.1)
Exh.No.05
2 Witness Balu Dharmaji
Doke (P.W.No.2)
Exh.No.07
3 Investigating Officer
Sadanand Bharat Pote
(P.W.No.3)
Exh.No.08
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 18 --
8 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
10. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, I
perused the record.
AS TO POINT NO.1:
11. Before making the appreciation and marshalling of the
evidence, let us have a glance at the ingredients of the offence
punishable under section 509 of Indian Penal Code.
1 The accused uttered some words, or made some sounds or gesture
or exhibited any object or intruded upon the privacy of a woman;
2 The accused must have intended that the words so uttered or the
sound or gesture so made or the object so exhibited should be heard
or seen respectively by the woman;
3 The accused thereby intended to insult the modesty of the woman;
12. The term “modesty” is defined by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Raju Pandurang Mahale V/s. State of
Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC, 371, as the essence of a woman's
modesty is her sex i.e. modesty is a virtue which attaches to a female
owing to her sex. The ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty
has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could
be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency
of a woman.
Keeping in mind the ingredients of section 509 of Indian
Penal Code as noted above, I proceed to make the scrutiny of the
evidence placed on record.
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 18 --
9 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
13. The informant, Payal Arora (P.W.No.1) deposed that on
18/02/2018, at about 8.30 p.m. she saw one lady who was loudly
speaking on her phone near the bungalow of the informant. According
to the evidence of the informant, she asked that lady to leave the place
where she was speaking. She further testified that the said lady called
her brother who is accused in this matter. As per the evidence of the
informant, the accused abused her in filthy language to insult her
modesty. In fact, though the informant did not depose the particular
filthy words uttered by the accused, yet she acknowledged the contents
of her FIR. In fact, FIR is annexed with the written statement of the
informant. The particular filthy words are mentioned in the said
written statement. Thus, it can be concluded that the informant duly
proved the obscene word uttered by the accused at the time of incident.
14. Apart from this, the informant testified that she intimated
the police about this incident. The prosecution examined the police
official namely Balu Doke (P.W.No.2) who specifically deposed that
after receiving the message from the informant, he rushed to the spot
of incident and arrested the accused. Though this witness has deposed
that no incident took place in his presence, yet his evidence is relevant
under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act because he rushed to the
spot of the incident after having received message from the information
about the said offence. Moreover, this official witness has specifically
deposed that he arrested the accused from the spot of the incident. In
fact, this witness was crossexamined at length. But this piece of
evidence has not been denied by the accused. In such circumstances, it
can be concluded that the evidence of the informant is duly
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 9 of 18 --
10 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
corroborated by the police witness who has no grudge against the
accused.
15. The learned advocate for the accused, Mr.Mishra
vehemently argued that though the informant deposed that the incident
occurred on 18/02/2018, but the FIR filed by the informant reveals
that the incident occurred on 19/02/2018 and therefore, according to
him, the testimony of the informant cannot be relied upon. However, I
do not agree with his submission because the copy of the statement
which is part and parcel of the FIR specifically reveals that the alleged
incident occurred on 18/02/2018. Moreover, the investigating officer
Sadanand Pote has specifically admitted in his crossexamination that
the incident occurred on 18/02/2018. In such circumstance, it can be
inferred that typographical mistake might have been arisen while
quoting the date of the incident in FIR. Thus, it appears that the
incorrect date of incident was inadvertently mentioned in the FIR.
Therefore, in my opinion, only on the ground that the date of incident is
incorrectly mentioned in the FIR, the entire testimony of the informant
and the police official witnesses cannot be thrown away when the
another reliable documentary evidence is placed on record.
16. The learned advocate for the accused, Mr. Mishra, further
argued that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness
to corroborate the testimony of the informant and therefore, according
to him, the witness of the informant is not trustworthy. But I am not
inclined to accept his argument. In fact, it is settled position that a
testimony of sole witness is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused,
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 10 of 18 --
11 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
if such testimony is reliable and if it inspires the confidence of the
Court. In this regard, I am guided by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Yaqub Ismailbhai Patel V/s. State of Gujrat
reported in (2004) 12 SCC 229, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that:
“The legal position in respect of the testimony of a solitary eye
witness is well settled in a catina of judgments in as much as
this Court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction
upon it, such a testimony must be of a nature which inspires
the confidence of the Court. While looking into such evidence,
this Court has always advocated the Rule of Caution and such
corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of
corroboration if testimony of such single eye witness inspires
confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it”.
17. In the present case on hand, the accused is alleged to have
uttered the obscene words with an intention to insult the modesty of
the informant. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has elaborated the term
“modesty” in the case of D. Vasanthi V/s. State [Crl.O.P.(MD)
No.8678 of 2017]. In this case, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held
that:
“The word 'modesty' as found in section 509 of Indian
Penal Code is for the protection of an attribute which is
peculiar to woman, as a virtue which attaches to a female
on account of her sex. Acts which are outrageous to
morality would be outrages to be the modesty of woman.
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 11 of 18 --
12 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
Words sound or gesticulation done with an intend to insult
the modesty or intrusion into her privacy or chastity or
such acts which could be essential ingredient to constitute
an offence under section 509 of Indian Penal Code”. (Para
No.15)
18. In the present case on hand, the informant specifically
deposed that the accused abused her in filthy language and thereby
insulted her modesty. The record shows that the informant is an
advocate who is considered to be a reputed person of society. It is
settled position of law that the essence of a womans modesty is her sex.
In such circumstances, if a person utters such obscene words with an
intention to insult a modesty of such woman, then it can be concluded
that the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code
is made out. In short, the filthy and indecent words uttered by the
accused is sufficient to come to the conclusion that such abusive word
are outrages to modesty.
19. Having gone through the record, it appears that the
informant promptly lodged the FIR against the accused about the said
incident. It is needless to say here that lodging of prompt FIR
minimizes the chances of false implication of the accused. Moreover,
the accused has not brought any evidence on record to show that there
was enmity between him and the informant prior to the incident. In
such circumstances, there is no reason for the informant to lodge false
FIR against the accused.
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 12 of 18 --
13 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
20. In the backdrop of the ratio laid down in the citation
supra, this Court is of humble opinion that the fact of lodging prompt
FIR suggests that the accused must have intentionally insulted the
modesty of the informant by uttering the indecent words which were
heard by the informant and her sister. The another reason to believe the
testimony of the informant is that no woman would dare to depose
such abusive words in public unless and until her modesty had been
insulted. Thus, having gone through the positive evidence adduced by
the prosecution, I have come to the conclusion that the accused
intentionally used abusive words to insult the modesty of the informant.
Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the accused committed the
offence punishable under section 509 of Indian Penal Code.
Resultantly, I record my finding in affirmative for point no.1.
AS TO POINT NO.2 AND 3:
21. In the present case on hand, the accused is alleged to have
committed criminal intimidation. So also it is the case of the
prosecution that the accused intentionally insulted the informant and
thereby gave provocation to any person to cause him to break the public
peace. Before making appreciation of the evidence in this regard, let us
have a glance at the ingredient of section 504 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code.
22. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the
offence punishable under section 504 of Indian Penal Code, the
prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients:
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 13 of 18 --
14 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
1 The accused intentionally insulted someone;
2 He thereby intended to give him/her provocation;
3 He knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause that
person to commit a breach of the peace or to commit any other
offence.
23. The essential ingredients of the offence punishable under
section 506 of Indian Penal Code are as follows:
1 The accused threatened someone with injury to his person,
reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of
another in whom the former was interested;
2 The accused did so with intend to cause alarm to the victim of the
offence;
3 The accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which
he was not legally bound to do.
24. Having analyzed the evidence of the informant, it appears
that the prosecution did not examine any witness in this matter except
the informant to establish the fact that the accused was responsible for
breach of the public peace and he committed criminal intimidation. In
this case, the informant deposed that the accused abused her in filthy
language and thereby insulted her modesty. Except this incriminating
evidence, there is nothing against the accused. Moreover, there is no
iota of evidence placed on record to show that the accused intentionally
provoked the informant to break the public peace. So also there is no
whisper in the evidence of the informant that the accused committed
criminal intimidation.
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 14 of 18 --
15 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
25. In the backdrop of the evidence, I have come to the
conclusion that mere use of abusive word will not come within the
purview of section 504 of Indian Penal Code. In other words, unless
and until such abusive word is accompanied with an intention to cause
a breach of the public peace, it cannot be said that the offence
punishable under section 504 of Indian Penal Code is made out.
26. Moreover, the informant has not deposed that the accused
committed criminal intimidation as contemplated under section 506 of
Indian Penal Code. In short, the evidence placed on record falls short to
prove the fact that the accused threatened the informant with intend to
cause alarm to her.
27. In view of the discussion noted above, I have to come to
the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the material
ingredient of section 506 and 504 of Indian Penal Code within the four
corners of law. Hence, I record my finding in negative for point no.2
and 3.
28. In view of the positive finding for point no.1, it has been
established on record that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the
offence punishable under section 509 of Indian Penal Code beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold the accused
guilty for the offence punishable under section 509 of Indian Penal
Code.
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 15 of 18 --
16 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
29. The accused is present before the Court today. I explained
the accused that he is held guilty for the offence punishable under
section 509 of Indian Penal Code. He is further made aware of the
punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under section 509 of
Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, I asked the accused to clarify his stand
on the nature and quantum of the sentence, if any. Hence, I take pause
to hear the accused.
Sd/
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
DATE: 22/07/2024 Andheri, Mumbai.
Judgment resumed on 22.07.2024 at 2.45 p.m.
30. The accused submitted that he is sole bread earning
member of his poor family. He further submitted that he is poor and
has been attending the Court since last six years. He prayed that
leniency may be shown while imposing the punishment. The learned
advocate for the accused, Shri. Pravin Pandey, submitted that the
accused has no any criminal background and therefore, he prayed to
show leniency to the accused while slapping the punishment.
31. Per contra, the learned advocate for the prosecution
vehemently argued that the accused committed the offence which is
against woman and public tranquility and therefore, according to her,
heavy punishment is liable to be imposed on the accused.
32. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides on
the quantum of punishment, I perused the record.
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 16 of 18 --
17 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
33. In fact, the offence committed by the accused comes within
the ambit of offences affecting the public health, safety and morals. The
said offence is also against woman. Hence, having regard to the nature
of the offence committed by the accused, I am not inclined to extend
the benefits of probation as contemplated under the Probation of
Offender Act to the accused.
34. The present case on hand is pending since last six years.
During this long period, the accused might have known the
consequences of the offence committed by him. The record shows that
the accused has no any criminal antecedent. He is about 29 years old.
He is pursuing education along with his private job. Hence, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the status of
accused, this Court is of humble opinion that leniency may be shown
while imposing punishment on the accused.
The logical corollary of my aforesaid findings leads me to pass the
following order:
O R D E R
1] The accused, Vidyasagar Ramkishor Yadav, Age – 29 Yrs.,
Occupation – Private job, R/o.Room No.09, Society No.95,
S.V.P. Nagar, Mhada, Andheri (W), Mumbai. is hereby
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the
Indian Penal Code vide section 248(2) of Indian Penal Code.
2] The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One
Thousand Only) for the offence punishable under section 509
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 17 of 18 --
18 C.C.No.849/PW/2018
Exh.10.
of Indian Penal Code. In default of fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
3] The accused has not spent any period in the custody during the
investigation or trial. Hence, setoff under section 428 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not given to the accused.
4] The copy of this Judgment be provided free of costs to the
accused immediately after it is prepared in view of section 363
(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5] The accused is informed about his right of appeal against this
judgment.
6] The Judgment is dictated on dais and pronounced in open
Court.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Date : 22.07.2024 Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Andheri, Mumbai.
Typed On: 22.07.2024
Signed On: 22.07.2024
spj
¼Sujitkumar C. Tayde½
JMFC, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 18 of 18 --