A Delhi court has upheld a magistrate's order to put on trial two men for insulting and assaulting a woman and threatening her with rape when she objected to one of them urinating next to her house.
Special Judge Anu Grover Baliga upheld the order of a magisterial court which had issued notice to the duo for facing trial under section 354 (assaulting a woman with intention to outrage her modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (uttering any word, making any gesture towards a woman with intention to insult her modesty) and section 341 (wrongful restraint).
The order of the Special Judge came on a plea of Jitender Singh and Ragvender Shrivastav challenging the magistrate's order issuing them notice for facing trial in the case.
"The�allegations�made�by�the�complainant�at�this�stage have�to�be�taken�at�their�face�value�and�have�to�be�taken�to be true and correct and if the same is done, it is clear that the allegations made�by the complainant do disclose the existence of�the�ingredients�of�the offences with which the magistrate has charged the accused persons," Baliga said.
The case was registered on the complaint of the woman who said that at around 9 PM on February 3, this year, she was standing in the balcony of her house in New Delhi area when one of the accused started relieving himself next to her house.
When the complainant objected to it, he made indecent and obscene gestures at her and started abusing her, according to the complaint. At this, the woman came downstairs to confront him.
The accused, however, held her hand and manhandled her and also phoned a man, who joined him in no time and the duo then assaulted the woman.
As per the complaint, the woman somehow called the police control room (PCR) but in presence of the cops also, the accused threatened to rape and kill her.
In their appeal, the duo besides other making other submissions had contended that the allegations against them were false as it was not possible for the woman to have called the police while held by two men.
They had also contended that the diary entry recorded by police pursuant to the PCR call made by the complainant only reflects�that�a�quarrel�had�been�reported.
The sessions court, however, said the contention that allegations made by the woman were false was not borne out from the material on record.
