This judgment dismisses leave to appeal. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's acquittal of the respondent under Sections 509/506 IPC due to vague complainant testimony and procedural lapses regarding evidence and witness contradictions, finding no perversity.
Leave to appeal was not granted as the impugned judgment of acquittal was not perverse.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with SI Jitender Joshi, PS Aman Vihar.
versus
FAKREY ALAM ..... Respondent Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 1826/2017
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 180 days in filing the leave to appeal petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
Crl.L.P. 61/2017
“6. In the present case, complainant did not remember the day, month and year when the incident occurred. She stated that the incident took place at her house. The said area is residential area. No public witness has been joined in the investigation. It is
Crl.L.P.61/2017
Page 1 of 3
not the case that no public was present at the spot. PW2 has stated that there were neighbors of the complainant present at the spot but none of the neighbors have been examined in the investigation by the IO for reasons best known to him.
7. Moreover, there are various contradictions in the version of the complainant and the police witnesses which make their version full of doubt and thus, lack credit. In her complaint Ex.PW3/A she has stated time of incident as 8 pm in the evening whereas in her statement recorded as PW3, she deposed that the incident took place at 8 am when she was working in her house. PW2 Ct. Dharamveer stated to have accompanied the IO to the place of incident. He stated that at about 7.30 pm, one lady i.e. complainant came to the police station and gave her complaint on 20.01.2013. He stated the name of the IO as HC Satish. The incident took place at 8 pm as per complaint Ex.PW3/A. It is not clear how the complainant could reach the police station at 7.30 pm i.e. even prior to the incident taking place. This amounts to contradiction in the version of the complainant and the PW2. Moreover the name of the IO in this case is not HC Satish as stated by PW-2. The IO is ASI Satyaveer. PW-4 stated that he recorded the statement of the complainant on reaching the place of incident. Whereas PW2 Ct. Dharamveer stated that complainant came to the police station and gave her complaint. Hence, there is contradiction in the version of the police witnesses as well. The DD entry no.28PP relied upon by the prosecution is regarding a quarrel between husband and wife and not between neighbours. In the present case the accused is neighbour of the complainant. Thus, there are various lacana in the prosecution version which does not inspire confidence.”
Crl.L.P.61/2017
Page 2 of 3
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE
FEBRUARY 01, 2017 ‘v mittal’
Crl.L.P.61/2017
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Trial Court's acquittal in a case involving vague general allegations of harassment constituted a perverse view warranting leave to appeal.
Whether the delay of 180 days in filing the leave to appeal should be condoned.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)
FAKREY ALAM
MUKTA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
