Delhi District Court
State vs . Naveen Yadav on 28 April, 2014
1
FIR No. 441/11
PS - K. N. Katju Marg
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT : NORTHWEST DISTRICT : ROHINI : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. : 24/13
Unique ID No. : 02404R0035732012
State Vs. Naveen Yadav
S/o Jai Singh Yadav
R/o House No. 288, Near Chopal,
Village - Samay Pur Badli,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 441/11
Police Station : K. N. Katju Marg
Under Sections : 376/366/506 IPC
Date of committal to session Court : 05/03/2012
Date on which judgment reserved : 19/04/2014
Date on which judgment announced : 28/04/2014
J U D G M E N T
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. is as under : 1 of 84 2 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg That on 01/11/2011 at 6:50 p.m. prosecutrix (name withheld, being a case u/s 376 IPC) D/o Sh. K. S. Rajpoot R/o F6/189, 2nd Floor, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi came to the Police Station K. N. Katju Marg and gave her complaint to the SHO which is to the effect that, she lives at the above said address and does the private job. She is 26 years of age. She knows Naveen Yadav S/o Jai Singh Yadav for the last 1½ years. Her friendship was very good with him and they oftenly used to meet and talk on phone. Naveen Yadav for the last one week was saying to her again and again for performing the marriage. On which she asked him to meet on 29/10/2011 near her house in Sector 16, Rohini. Naveen Yadav on 29/10/2011 came to meet her near her house, where he said that his family members are objecting to this marriage and they both after going somewhere will perform the marriage. Agreeing to his proposal (Baat) she agreed to marry with him and Naveen told her that they both after going to Haryana (Haryana me chalkar) will perform the marriage and for this a taxi will be hired from Sector 15. Naveen took her to taxi stand at Manav Chowk, Sector 15, Rohini from where he hired a taxi (Gadi) which was TATA Indigo and they both after sitting on the rear seat of TATA Indigo left at about 8:15 p.m. and from G. T. 2 of 84 3 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Karnal Road crossed the border. Naveen Yadav asked the driver to stop the taxi (Gadi) at Ethnic India and the driver stopped the taxi (Gadi) at Ethnic India. She asked Naveen as to why the taxi (Gadi) has been stopped here on which he (Naveen) said that here they will have dinner (Yahan Par Hum Dinner Karege). When she started going towards the restaurant, Naveen Yadav told her that he had already booked a room (Jo Main Restaurant Ki Or Chanle Lagi To Naveen Yadav Mujhe Kehne Laga Ki Usne Kamra Book Kiya Hua Hai) where they will take the food in the room (Jahan Hum Khana Kamre Mei Khayenge). They both reached in Room No. 412 where Naveen ordered for food (Khana Mangwaya) and they both ate the food. After eating the food, Naveen Yadav started inducing her to make the physical relations but she refused to make such relations (Khana Khane Ke Baad Naveen Yadav Mujhe Sharirik Sambandh Banane Ke Liye Uksane Laga Jo Maine Aisa Karne Se Mana Kar Diya). He again and again kept on making her agreeing when she became angry then he committed rape upon her without her consent (Veh Baar Baar Mujhe Manata Raha Jab Main Naraaz Ho Gai To Usne Meri Marzi Ke Bina Rape Kiya). Naveen Yadav also asked her to make relation against the order of nature for which when she strictly 3 of 84 4 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg declined on which he started using force upon her and when she did not agree, he did hatha pai with her (Jo Naveen Yadav Mujhse Aprakratik Roop Se Sambandh Banane Ko Kaha Jo Maine Is Ke Liye Mana Kiya To Veh Mere Sath Jor Jabardasti Karne Laga Jo Mai Nahi Mani To Usne Mere Sath Hathapai Ki). After this Naveen Yadav after giving beatings and after intimidating and threatening her asked her to sleep (Iske Baad Naveen Yadav Ne Mujhe Maar Peet Kar Ke Va Dara Dhamka Kar Sone Ko Kaha). On 30/10/2011, he after telephoning from her phone called the taxi and on 30/10/2011 at about 9:50 a.m. they left from Ethnic India. Naveen Yadav thereafter had started abusing her (Gali Galoch Karne Laga) and started saying he will not do any marriage with her (Mai Tere Sath Koi Shadi Wadi Nahi Karuga) and whatever she is to do let she do, he is not fearful of any one (Tujhe Jo Karna Hai Kar Le Mai Kisi Se Nahi Darta) and he threatened her, if she lodged anywhere any type of complaint then he will kill her (Va Mujhe Dhamki Di Ki Agar Kahin Kisi Prakaar Ki Shikayat Ki To Weh Mujhe Jaan Se Maar Dega). Naveen Yadav by giving a false pretext of marriage to her, had made physical relations with her and committed rape upon her (Jo Naveen Yadav Ne Mujhe Shadi Ka Jhutha Aashwasan De Kar Aur Mere Sath Sharirik 4 of 84 5 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Sambandh Bana Kar Mera Rape Kiya). Strict legal action be taken against him. Prosecutrix was interrogated by ASI Sajni Devi. On the basis of the complaint, from the enquiries made and from the circumstances, on finding that offences u/s 366/376/506 IPC appeared to have been committed, the case was got registered and the investigation was handed over to ASI Sajni Devi. During the course of investigation, site plan was prepared. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted from BSA Hospital and the sealed exhibits handed over by the Doctor after her medical examination were taken into Police possession. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On 04/11/2011 statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. On 07/11/2011 on the identification of prosecutrix accused Naveen Yadav was arrested and his personal search was conducted but nothing was recovered and his disclosure statement was recorded. Pointing out memo of the place of incident, Room No. 412, D Block, Ethnic India, Rai, Sonipat, Haryana was prepared at the instance of the accused. He was got medically examined at BSA Hospital and sealed exhibits handed over by Doctor after his medical examination were taken into Police possession. The sealed exhibits were sent to the FSL.
5 of 84 6 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Upon completion of the necessary further investigation challan for the offences u/s 376/366/506 IPC was prepared against accused Naveen Yadav and was sent to the Court for trial.
2. Since the offences under section 376/366 IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Session therefore, after compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Court of Session under section 209 Cr.P.C.
3. Upon committal of the case to the Court of session and after hearing on charge, prima facie a case under section 366/376/506/420 IPC was made out against accused Naveen Yadav. The charge was framed accordingly, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined fourteen witnesses. PW1 Lady Constable Usha, PW2 HC Shiv Ram, PW3 HC Surender Singh, PW4 HC Surender, PW5 Dr. Neeti Chaturvedi, S. R. Obs. & Gynae. Deptt., Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, 6 of 84 7 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Delhi, PW6 Ms. Nazma Khan, PW7 Sh. Gulab Singh, PW8 Ajay Kumar, PW9 Mrs. Manisha Upadhyaya, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, PW10 - Constable Pardeep Kumar, PW11 Sh. Harived Katariya, Haryana Tourism Ethnic India, Rai, Sonepat, Haryana, PW12 - Prosecutrix, PW13 - W/ASI Sajni and PW14 - SI Varun Dalal.
5. In brief the witnessography of the prosecution witnesses is as under : PW1 Lady Constable Usha who tendered her examination inchief by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1 bearing her signature at points 'A' and 'B'. She proved the seizure memo of pullindas of prosecutrix given by the Doctor after medical examination which is Ex. PW1/A bearing her signature at point 'A'.
PW2 HC Shiv Ram is the MHC(M) who tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/1 bearing his signature at points 'A' and 'B'. He proved the documents i.e. entry in Register No. 19 Entry No. 583/11 copy of which is Ex. PW2/A (running into two 7 of 84 8 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg pages) and Entry No. 597/11 copy of which is Ex. PW2/B (running into two pages). He also proved Entry in Register No. 21 of RC No. 141/21/11 copy of which is Ex. PW2/C (running into two pages). He also proved the acknowledgment of FSL, copy of which is Ex. PW2/D (original entries and FSL receipt seen and returned).
PW3 HC Surender Singh is the Duty Officer who tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/1 bearing his signature at points 'A' and 'B'. He proved the documents i.e. FIR copy of which is Ex. PW3/A and his endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW3/B bearing his signature at point 'A' (Original FIR seen and returned).
PW4 HC Surender who tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex. PW4/1 bearing his signature at points 'A' and 'B'. He proved the receipt of FSL which is already Ex. PW2/D bearing his signature at point 'A'.
PW5 Dr. Neeti Chaturvedi, S.R. Obs. & Gynae. Deptt., Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi who deposed that on 01/11/2011, she was 8 of 84 9 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg posted at abovesaid Hospital. On that day, he medically examined the prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Kishan Singh Rajput, female, 26 years old who was brought by Najma Khatoon, ASI Sajni Devi and Lady Constable Usha with the alleged history of sexual assault. She medically examined the abovesaid prosecutrix (name withheld) and after medical examination she prepared the MLC No. 117324/10 which is Ex. PW5/A bearing her signature at point 'A'. On local examination she found hymen torn, margins were regular. She took the samples of nail clippings and other exhibits including the outer clothes of prosecutrix (name withheld) and the same were handed over to the IO in sealed condition alongwith the sample seal.
PW6 Ms. Nazma Khan is the NGO Counselor, Navsrishti who deposed that she is working with the NGO namely Nav Shristi, 306, Near Ali Chowk, Naib Sarai having its branch at B115,116, Budh Bazaar Road, Camp No. 2, Nangloi. On 01/11/2011, she had received an information from PS - K. N. Katju Marg regarding sexual assault of one victim/prosecutrix (name withheld). She reached the PS and spoke to prosecutrix (name withheld), who informed her that the accused had 9 of 84 10 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg taken her towards Haryana, G. T. Road where he took her to a restaurant Atlantica India (the exact name she does not recollect) where first they had a dinner and thereafter, he took her to a room and committed rape upon her. Prosecutrix (name withheld) gave her statement to IO and after that she was taken to BSA Hospital where she was medically examined. Her (PW6) statement was also recorded.
PW7 Sh. Gulab Singh who deposed that on 29/10/2011 he and Hari Ved Kataria were on duty at the reception counter of Ethnic India Haryana Tourism Rai and on that day one boy came to him at the reception counter and he told him that he wanted a room for him and for his wife. He (PW7) alloted the room No. 412 to him and he made entry by the name of Sunil Kumar. The boy had also shown him ID proof and after checking the same he returned the same to him. The room was booked at about 12 noon on 29/10/2011 and on the next morning at about 8:30 a.m. the above said boy namely Sunil alongwith the girl went away from there. On 07/11/2011, Delhi Police came at the above said Ethnic India Haryana Tourism and they checked entry register.
This witness was also crossexamined by the Learned Addl.
10 of 84 11 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg PP for the State.
During his further examinationinchief recorded on 18/08/2012 he had been shown the Visitor Register for the period from 19/10/2011 to 30/11/2011 from Ethnic India Sonipat (Haryana Tourism) which was produced by Sh. Rakam Singh, Record Clerk. Witness (PW7) after going through the same stated that entry at Serial No. 5 dated 29/10/2011 is in the name of Sunil Kumar and his wife R/o A5 Z, Tagore Park, Delhi arrival time 12:00 noon. They were allocated room no. 412 and the said persons checked out of the room on 30/10/2011 at 8:30 a.m. He proved the photocopy of relevant pages (two pages) as Ex. PW7/A and the relevant entry is encircled at point 'X'. The entry is made by the customer who books the room in his/her handwriting.
This witness was again crossexamined by the Learned Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement.
PW8 Ajay Kumar who deposed that he is residing at B1/77, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi with the owner of Taxi Stand in his house and he is a taxi driver. On 29/11/2011 (Be read as 29/10/2011) at about 7:30/8:00 p.m. he was at the taxi stand, one boy and a girl came to 11 of 84 12 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg the taxi stand and they wanted to go to Sonepat. He had made the booking for the taxi from Sector 16, Rohini to Sonepat and the charges of Rs. 500/ were settled and he took them on Main Road, Near Rai, Sonepat. He could not tell about any detail about the boy and girl since it was dark except that the boy was tall around 5½ to 6 feet.
During his further examinationinchief recorded on 18/08/2012 he deposed that he took the passengers (two) in his Indica Taxi No. DL8CM7405 to Sonepat, Rai. He dropped them on the main road i.e. National Highway as requested by them. There was a gate at that point, but he does not know whether it was of a hotel or any other building etc. He took his fare of Rs. 500/ from them and went on his way. The passengers, one boy and a girl had taken his mobile number and had told him that they would give him a call, if they require him. He told them that if, he (PW8) was on duty, then he would not come on their call. On the next day i.e. 30/10/2011 he received a call from the girl at about 8:30 a.m. to come to pick them up but he refused as he had already left for his duty. He does not know anything else. He cannot identify the said passengers, due to lapse of time. He also cannot identify the male passenger, even if shown to him.
12 of 84 13 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg As he resiled from his previous statement he was also cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for State.
PW9 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi who deposed that she is M.Sc. (Zoology) and has been working as expert at Forensic Science Laboratory since, 1999. She has examined the exhibits of similar nature of this case in many other cases also and deposed as witness in different Courts of law. On 21/11/2011, when she was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), four sealed parcels (one sealed card board box, one sealed envelope and two sealed cloth parcels) sealed with the seal of 'SD', were received in FSL, Rohini. It was marked to her in her office for examination and opinion. The seals on the parcels were intact and as per the specimen seal and the same was assigned to her for analysis. On opening Parcel No. 1, it was found contain two further exhibits, 1a i.e. one salwar and 1b i.e. one lady shirt. On these exhibits neither blood nor semen could be detected. On opening Parcel No. 2, it was found to contain 14 further exhibits i.e. Ex. 2a i.e. cotton wool swabs marked as step 4 body fluid collection. Ex. 2b was found containing few nail 13 of 84 14 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg clippings, Ex. 2c was found containing cotton wool swab marked as step 4 in between fingers, Ex. 2d cotton wool swab step 5 breast swab, Ex. 2e unexamined, Ex. 2f few clippings of hair marked as clipping of pubic hair; Ex. 2g dirty cotton wool swab step 9 cervical mucus collection; Ex. 2h1 dirty cotton wool swab marked as step 9 vaginal secretion; Ex. 2h2a and Ex. 2h2b two microslides marked as step 9 vaginal secretion; Ex. 2i cotton wool swab marked as step 10 culture; Ex. 2j liquid/fluid marked as step 11 washing from vagina; Ex. 2k1 cotton wool swab marked as step 12 rectal examination; Ex. 2k2a and Ex. 2k2b two microslides marked as step 12 rectal examination; Ex. 2l1 and 2l2 two microslides marked as step 13 oral swab; Ex. 2m blood sample of the victim marked as step 14; Ex. 2n1 blood sample marked as step 15 urine and oxalate blood vial; Ex. 2n2 brownish liquid/fluid marked as step 15 urine and oxalate blood vial. On opening Parcel No. 3, it found to contain 8 further sub parcels i.e. Ex. 3a few strands of hair; Ex. 3b blood sample, Ex. 3c few strands of hair, Ex. 3d few strands of hair; Ex. 3e few strands of hair; Ex. 3f1 and Ex. 3f2 two microslides; Ex. 3g gauze cloth piece; Ex. 3h underwear. On opening Parcel No. 4, it was found to contain 2 further sub samples i.e. Ex. 4a one shirt and Ex. 4b one pant 14 of 84 15 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg (jeans). On biological examination with the help of different equipments, blood was detected on Ex. 2m, 2n1, 3b and 3g. Blood could not be detected on exhibits 1a and 1b. Semen could not be detected on exhibits 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2f, 2g, 2h1, 2h2a, 2h2b, 2i, 2j, 2k1, 2k2a, 2k2b, 2l, 2l2, 2n2, 3a, 3c, 3d, 3e, 3f1, 3f2, 3h, 4a, 4b. Her detailed report is Ex. PW9/A, which bears her signature at point 'A'. On serological examination, Ex. 2m, 2n1 and 3b neither origin nor ABO Grouping could be done due to putrification of blood and on exhibit 3g the blood of human origin was found. Blood grouping could not be done as there was no reaction. Her serological report is Ex. PW9/B, which bears her signature at point 'A'. After examination, the remnants of exhibits were sealed with the seal of FSL, MU, Delhi. The exhibits alongwith reports were sent to PS - K. N. Katju Marg. The contents of her reports Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B may be read as part of her deposition.
PW10 - Constable Pardeep Kumar who deposed that on 07/11/2011 he was posted at PS - K. N. Katju Marg. On that day, he had joined the investigation with IO and SI Varun Dalal.
15 of 84 16 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Complainant/prosecutrix (name withheld) had also accompanied them and they went to House No. 288, Gali No. 8, near Chopal, Samey Pur Badli Village, Delhi. On being pointing out by the complainant, accused Naveen present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness) was apprehended and one jamuni colour shirt and one blue colour jeans were seized from his house, on being produced by the accused and the pant and shirt were converted into the parcel and sealed with the seal of 'SD' and were seized vide memo Ex. PW10/A, which bears his signature at point 'A'. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PX6, which bears his signature at point 'B'. His personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex. PX7, which bears her signature at point 'B'. He made disclosure statement Ex. PW10/B, which bears his signature at point 'A'. Thereafter, complainant/prosecutrix (name withheld) was set free and they alongwith the accused reached at Ethnic India, Sonipat Haryana and where accused pointed at room no. 412 vide pointing out memo. They came back to Delhi and accused Naveen was taken to BSA Hospital, where he was medically examined and after his medical examination, Doctor had handed over pullinda containing exhibits and same was taken into possession by IO vide memo Ex.
16 of 84 17 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg PW10/C, which bears his signature at point 'A'. Accused Naveen is present in the Court. He identified one shirt of jamuni colour and one jeans pant of blue colour as Ex. P1 and P2 which were got recovered by accused Naveen.
PW11 Sh. Harived Katariya, Haryana Tourism Ethnic India, Rai, Sonepat, Haryana who deposed that on 29/10/2011 he was on duty as Counter Incharge in the above said Tourism Office. On that day at about 12:00 noon, one boy aged about 3035 years came to their office. He was alone. He booked one room. Sh. Gulab Singh, Counter Incharge made entry regarding the said booking, and he issued receipt for amount paid by the said boy. He did not see the said boy going to the room allotted to him. He could not say if he (the boy) was alone or if somebody was accompanying him. The number of guests was not mentioned in the receipt. He used to issue receipt when Sh. Gulab Singh, Counter Incharge, told him the name and the amount paid by a particular guest. He had issued receipt of Rs. 2102/ to the boy. A Sum of Rs. 2102/ was charged for a double bed room. The receipt was given to the said boy by him. He can not identify the said boy.
17 of 84 18 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg As he resiled from his previous statement he was also cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for State.
PW12 Prosecutrix is the victim who deposed regarding the incident and proved her complaint Ex. PW12/A, bearing her signature at point 'A', her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PX3 (colly.) bearing her signature at point 'A' on pages 3 & 4 of Ex. PX3 (colly.), arrest memo of accused Ex. PX6, his personal search memo Ex. PX7, both memos bearing her signatures at point 'A', identified and proved her salwar and Kamiz suit Ex. PX (colly.) and further deposed that on 30/10/2011 IO had taken her to the place of incident and she had pointed out the said place to the IO.
PW13 - W/ASI Sajni is the Investigating Officer (IO) who deposed that on 01/11/2011 she was posted as ASI in PS - K. N. K. Marg. On that day, on the instructions of SHO, the complaint of prosecutrix (name withheld) dated 31/10/2011 was handed over to her. Complainant/prosecutrix (name withheld) also met her in the PS. NGO Najma Khatoon was called and she did the counseling of the 18 of 84 19 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg complainant. She (PW13) prepared rukka Ex. PW13/A, bearing her signature at point 'A' and the rukka was handed over to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. Thereafter, she alongwith NGO Najma Khatoon, SI Varun Dalal, Lady Constable Usha took prosecutrix (name withheld) to BSA Hospital for her medical examination. She was medically examined and after medical examination, Doctor handed over the sealed pullinda containing the exhibits which was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A, bearing her signature at point 'B'. They came back to PS and case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Duty Officer handed over to her the copy of FIR and original rukka. She searched for the accused but not found. She recorded the statement of witnesses. On 03/11/2011, she moved an application Ex. PX2 for recording the statement of the prosecutrix (name withheld) u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and on 04/11/2011, statement of the prosecutrix (name withheld) was got recorded and thereafter she obtained the copy of the statement vide her application Ex. PX4. Accused was searched but not found. On 05/11/2011, she alongwith SI Varun Dalal went Ethnic India and gave Notice to the Manager, Ethnic India as he was the Counter Incharge on 29/10/2011 and on reply he told that Sh. Harived Katariya and Gulab Singh were on 19 of 84 20 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg duty at the relevant time. She also collected relevant entry of the register. On 07/11/2011, she alongwith SI Varun Dalal, Constable Pradeep and prosecutrix (name withheld) reached at House No. 288, Gali No. 8 near Chopal, Smai Pur Badli and from there at the instance of the complainant/prosecutrix (name withheld), they apprehended accused Naveen Yadav, present in the Court. He was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PX6 and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PX7, bearing her signature at point 'X'. He made disclosure statement Ex. PW10/B, bearing her signature at point 'X'. Accused had produced one Jamuni colour shirt and one blue colour jeans from bed lying in his house which he was wearing on 29/10/2011 and the same were put up into a pullinda and sealed with the seal of 'SD' and seized vide memo Ex. PW10/A, bearing her signature at point 'B'. Prosecutrix (name withheld) was set free and thereafter they reached at Ethnic India, Sonipat, Haryana and accused Naveen Yadav had pointed out room no. 412 where he had committed rape upon prosecutrix (name withheld) in the night of 2930/10/2011 vide pointing out memo Ex. PW13/B, bearing her signature at point 'A'. She prepared the site plan Ex. PW13/C, bearing her signature at point 'A'. Thereafter, they came back to Delhi 20 of 84 21 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg and accused Naveen was taken to BSA Hospital where he was medically examined and after medical examination Doctor handed over sealed pullinda containing exhibits and same were seized vide memo Ex. PW10/C, bearing her signature at point 'B'. They came back to PS. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana and accused was sent to Police lock up. She recorded the statements of witnesses. On 08/11/2011, accused Naveen Yadav was produced in the Court and was sent to JC. She searched for the Taxi Driver but he was not found. On 21/11/2011, the exhibits were sent to FSL. On 22/11/2011, she recorded the statement of the Taxi Driver Ajay and she also recorded statement of Harived Katariya and Gulab Singh. After completing the investigation, challan was prepared and filed in the Court. Later on FSL result was collected and filed in the Court. She also identified one shirt of jamuni colour and one jean pant of blue colour as Ex. P1 & Ex. P2 as were (got) recovered by the accused Naveen Yadav.
PW14 - SI Varun Dalal who deposed that on 01/11/2011, he was posted as Sub Inspector in PS K. N. K. Marg. He alongwith NGO Najma Khatoon, W/ASI Sajni, Lady Constable Usha took prosecutrix 21 of 84 22 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg (name withheld) to BSA Hospital for her medical examination. She was medically examined and after medical examination, Doctor handed over the sealed pullinda containing the exhibits. They came back to PS and case property was deposited in the Malkhana. On 05/11/2011, he alongwith W/ASI Sajni went to Ethnic India and gave Notice to the Manager of Ethnic India as who was the Counter Incharge on Duty at the relevant time and thereafter they came back to Delhi. On 07/11/2011 he alongwith W/ASI Sajni, Constable Pardeep and complainant/prosecutrix (name withheld) reached at Gali No. 8, near Chopal, village Samai Pur, however, he does not remember the house number and from there at the instance of the complainant they apprehended accused Naveen Yadav, present in the Court, now he recollect the House No. was 288. Accused was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PX6 and his personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex. PX7. Accused made the disclosure statement. Accused produced one pant blue colour jeans and shirt whose colour he does not remember and same were put up into pullinda and sealed with the seal of 'SD' and the same were seized vide memo Ex. PW10/A, bearing his signature at point 'C'. Complainant was set free and thereafter, they reached at Ethnic India and 22 of 84 23 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg there accused pointed out room no. 412 vide pointing out memo Ex. PW13/B, bearing her signature at point 'B'. They came back to Delhi. Accused Naveen Yadav was medically examined and after medical examination Doctor handed over the sealed pullinda containing exhibits which were seized vide memo Ex. PW10/C, bearing his signature at point 'B'. Accused was sent to Police lock up. He identified one shirt of jamuni colour and one jean pant of blue colour as already Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 which were (got) recovered by the accused Naveen Yadav.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be dealt with in detail during the course of appreciation of evidence.
6. It is to be mentioned that on 30/03/2012 accused Naveen Yadav made a statement before the Learned Predecessor Court wherein he admitted the proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. conducted by the Learned MM and his MLC and had stated that he has 'no objection', if the Learned MM who conducted the proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and the doctor who had prepared his MLC and the police witnesses qua his arrest and personal search are not examined in the court as witnesses. The 23 of 84 24 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg sealed envelop from which proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was taken out is Ex. PX1, the request of the IO for conducting the proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is Ex. PX2, the proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is Ex. PX3 (running into five pages), request of the IO for obtaining the copy of the proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is Ex. PX4, medical examination of the accused vide MLC Ex. PX5, arrest and personal search memos of accused Ex. PX6 & Ex. PX7 respectively.
7. Statement of accused Naveen Yadav was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. He opted to lead defence evidence. In his defence, he examined one witness namely Sh. Jai Singh, his father.
DW1 Sh. Jai Singh who deposed that accused Naveen Yadav is his son. In the year, 2011 his son accused Naveen Yadav used to do the practice of boxing. He used to leave the house at about 9:00 a.m. in the morning and used to come back at about 12:00 noon. During the period from 27/10/2011 till 30/10/2011 also he had gone for practice of boxing during the same timing. After coming at home from practice he used to remain at home. During the period from 27/10/2011 till 24 of 84 25 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg 30/10/2011 also he remained at home after coming back from the practice. He (DW1) had received Police call on 07/11/2011 and as was asked by him by the Police, he accompanied with his son accused Naveen Yadav went to the Police Station. His son accused Naveen Yadav (was) arrested at the Police Station when he had taken him there. Thereafter, he came back to his house.
During his crossexamination by the Learned Addl. PP for the State DW1 - Sh. Jai Singh has deposed that : "I am doing the work of Halwai. I am not working on any shop but go on work with the Contractors. I go for work with contractors in marriages. The work of contract lasts from two to many days as per the requirement. I do not go for work outside Delhi but go for work in the villages of Delhi. I leave for work at about 8:00/9:00 a.m. in the morning and comes in late night. If required during the work, the night stay is also being done at the place of work. I do not maintain any record of my work done. On 07th of November, accused Naveen was got arrested by me by the Police and I had produced him to the Police. Vol. The year, of the date 07th of November, by chance has slipped from my mind.
Q. Why you produced and got arrested accused Naveen by the Police? A. Naveen used to play game/boxing and thinking that some inquiry might have come in the Police Station, and for this reason, he was produced before the Police and was arrested.
25 of 84 26 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Q. Did you ask the Police as to why and in which matter Naveen has been arrested?
Ans. Police was asked about it but I was sent out from the Police Station after threatening (Hame Dhamka Ke Police Nei Bahar Kar Diya Tha).
I came to know after many days (Bahut Din Baad) that Naveen has been arrested by the Police. An advocate was engaged after about two months of the arrest of Naveen. I did not go to meet Naveen in the Police lockup. I had gone to meet Naveen in the Jail. I had gone to meet Naveen in the Jail after 15 days of his arrest. I had asked Naveen about the matter when I had gone to meet him in Jail and he had told that a rape case has been foisted upon him (Rape Ka Case Laga Diya Hai). It is wrong to suggest that accused Naveen was arrested on 07/11/2011 from my house by the Police in a rape case and the information regarding his arrest in the rape case was given to me by the Police and due to this reason I had not engaged the Advocate immediate after his arrest or had not gone to meet him in the Jail immediate after his arrest. It is wrong to suggest that I had deposed falsely in my examinationinchief in order to create a false defence and I have been tutored to depose in abovesaid manner. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as accused Naveen Yadav is my son and I want to save him from the present case."
8. Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to make out any case of rape against the accused on the stated place, date and time. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the prosecutrix ever pointed out the place of occurrence and although it has 26 of 84 27 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg been claimed by the prosecutrix that she was raped at Room No. 412 of Ethnic India, but through the statement of PW7, PW8 and PW11 as well as the crossexamination of PW13 - W/ASI Sajani it has been proved that the prosecutrix has never visited the alleged place of occurrence on 29/10/2011. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that the parents of the prosecutrix did not make any 100 number call or any complaint to the Police regarding missing of the prosecutrix on the night of 29/10/2011, in that event there was nothing to prevent the IO from recording the statement of her parents and the entire shaky case of the prosecution is being projected on the uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix, which suffers from basic infirmities, improvements and her alleged story does not inspire confidence.
Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the presence of the accused on the alleged date of incident at the alleged place of incident i.e. Ethnic India and the story of the prosecution in respect of happening of alleged incident falls into pieces from the bare perusal of their own documents which were exhibited i.e. entries of visitor register of Ethnic India (Ex.
27 of 84 28 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg PW7/A), MLC of prosecutrix (Ex. PW5/A) and FSL Report (Ex. PW9/A). Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that the alleged history of assault given by the prosecutrix at the time of her medical examination to the Doctor is totally contradictory to the story of the prosecutrix that she went to Ethnic India with the accused as the accused has taken her there on the pretext of marrying her. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that on the point of arrest of the accused, the prosecutrix has deposed in her crossexamination that she has seen the accused arrested in the Police custody in the Police Station itself which belies the story of prosecution that the accused was arrested from his house at the instance of prosecutrix and further the said fact was also contradicted by the DW1 - Jai Singh that he took the accused to the Police Station on 07/11/2011 where he was arrested. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that with regard to the promise of marriage or the date of fixation of marriage between the prosecutrix and accused or date or month on which both accused and prosecutrix had decided to marry with each other were demolished by the prosecutrix herself in her crossexamination as she has given four to five versions regarding the fixation or initiation of talks of marriage 28 of 84 29 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg between the accused and prosecutrix which goes to very root of the complaint and the intention of the prosecutrix. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that the alleged history of assault mentioned on the MLC gives a different story as it reads that prosecutrix went to a lonely place for dinner with her boy friend not with the accused on the pretext of marriage.
Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that even there is no sign of any external injury on the part of prosecutrix despite she is a grown up lady of 26 years of age and had put resistance according to her testimony and further she did not try to flee from the room at the alleged time of incident or after the incident and further she did not even call 100 number or anybody from her mobile phone despite she was having the telephone with her and further she preferred to sleep which is quite unnatural for a girl with whom such type of incident happened which creates a serious doubt on the testimony and creditworthiness of the complaint of the prosecutrix. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that the act of the parents is highly unimaginable because as per the prosecution case the prosecutrix has left 29 of 84 30 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg her home at 7:30 p.m. on 29/10/2011 and came back at around 11:00 a.m. on 30/10/2011 despite this her parents did not make any 100 number call or any complaint of missing or kidnapping to the concerned Police Station which creates a serious doubt to the effect that whether the prosecutrix had ever left her house on 29/10/2011 or not and even despite this fact the parents of the prosecutrix were not made witness to this case even to depose on this aspect. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that the investigating agency did not bother to place on record the call detail report of the mobile phone of prosecutrix which she was allegedly carrying on the date of alleged incident. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that there is no whisper about Mr. Sunil Kumar whose name is reflecting at the entries of visitor register of Ethnic India. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that in her crossexamination the prosecutrix has admitted the fact that for registration of FIR she has consulted and visited the Police Station with an Advocate and twice in her crossexamination she has stated that on 29/10/2011 the alleged date of incident she has visited the Police Station for registration of FIR alongwith her father but the Police officials declined to take her complaint, this shows that all these stories of the 30 of 84 31 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg prosecutrix are false, frivolous, baseless and are concocted one. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that in her examinationin chief she has clearly stated that she did not take any step till 30/10/2011 and went to the Police Station on next day which happened to be 31/10/2011, which is also against the case of the prosecution and the testimony of the prosecutrix which she has deposed in her cross examination, the said improvement and contradictions make a serious dent on the prosecutrix story of the alleged incident. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that the documents like seizure memo, site plan, arrest memo, disclosure statement were clearly demolished during the testimony of prosecutrix and PW14 & PW15, the IOs of this case as the prosecutrix has stated that she has never visited the alleged spot Ethnic India after registration of FIR, then how the site plan at the instance of prosecutrix got prepared, missing of the signatures of the IOs on the disclosure statement and the seizure memos tells the story of their manipulation itself. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that even if the statement of the prosecutrix is assumed to be the gospel truth without admitting the same, even in that event the same does not inspire confidence in view of her contradictory statements, which has not 31 of 84 32 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg been supported by the other witnesses. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that the investigating agency did not even care to seize the clothes of the prosecutrix and no enquiries were made from her in this regard during entire investigation. Learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that there is no corroborative medical evidence which may establish the offence of rape and the evidence of the prosecutrix not being trustworthy deserves to be rejected being baseless and given out of malice. Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the prosecution has failed the prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and prayed for the acquittal of the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
Learned Counsel for the accused referred to the cases and are reported as 'Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P.', AIR 1995 SC 2472 and 'State of Punjab Vs. Gurmeet Singh', AIR 1996 SC 1393.
9. While the Learned Addl. PP for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are cogent and consistent and the contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out are minor and not the material one's and do not affect the credibility of 32 of 84 33 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg the witnesses and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. I have heard Sh. S. C. Sroai, Learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Manish Kumar Singh, Learned Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record and the cases referred to.
11. The charge for the offences punishable u/s 366/376/506 IPC against accused Naveen Yadav is that on 29/10/2011 at about 8:15 p.m. from Taxi Stand of Sector - 15, Rohini near Manav Chowk within the jurisdiction of PS - K. N. Katju Marg, he abducted the prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Kishan Singh Rajput with intent in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and he took her to a hotel and that in the intervening night of 29/10/2011 and 30/10/2011 during his stay in the room no. 412 of Hotel Ethnic India with prosecutrix (name withheld) he committed rape upon her without her consent and that on the aforesaid date, time and place he criminally intimidated to the prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Kishan Singh Rajput.
33 of 84 34 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Further, the charge for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC against the accused Naveen Yadav is that on 29/10/2011, he by deceitful means dishonestly induced the prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Kishan Singh Rajput to accompany him, on the pretext and the promise that he would marry her and thereafter in the intervening night of 29/10/2011 and 30/10/2011 he took her to Room No. 412 of Hotel Ethnic India and made physical relations / had sexual intercourse with her on such pretext / promise.
12. It is to be mentioned that as a matter of prudence, in order to avoid any little alteration in the spirit and essence of the depositions of the material witnesses, during the process of appreciation of evidence at some places their part of depositions have been reproduced, in the interest of justice.
AGE OF THE PROSECUTRIX
13. PW12 Prosecutrix in her statement recorded in the Court on 30/11/2012 while giving her particulars has stated her age as 26 years.
Since PW12 Prosecutrix has stated her age as 26 years on 34 of 84 35 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg 30/11/2012 at the time of recording of her evidence/statement and the date of the alleged incident is 29/10/2011, on simple arithmetical calculation the age of the prosecutrix comes to around 25 years as on the date of the alleged incident on 29/10/2011.
Moreover, the said factum of age of PW12 Prosecutrix has also not disputed by accused Naveen Yadav. Nor any evidence to the contrary has been produced or proved on the record on behalf of the accused.
In view of above and in the circumstances, it stands proved on the record that PW12 prosecutrix was aged around 25 years as on the date of alleged incident on 29/10/2011. MEDICAL EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTRIX
14. PW5 Dr. Neeti Chaturvedi, S.R. Obs. & Gynae. Deptt., Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 01/11/2011, she was posted at abovesaid Hospital. On that day, he medically examined the prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Kishan Singh Rajput, female, 26 years old who was brought by Najma Khatoon, ASI Sajni Devi and Lady 35 of 84 36 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Constable Usha with the alleged history of sexual assault. She medically examined the abovesaid prosecutrix (name withheld) and after medical examination she prepared the MLC No. 117324/10 which is Ex. PW5/A bearing her signature at point 'A'. On local examination she found hymen torn, margins were regular. She took the samples of nail clippings and other exhibits including the outer clothes of prosecutrix (name withheld) and the same were handed over to the IO in sealed condition alongwith the sample seal.
During her crossexamination PW5 Dr. Neeti Chaturvedi has deposed that : "It is correct that there was no external injury on the body of the patient. Victim told me about the alleged history and I mentioned the same in detail in the Ex. PW5/A. I have not seized the inner clothes of the patient as the same were already discarted (discarded) by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix handed over her outer clothes to me which was brought by her in a separate bag".
There is nothing in the crossexamination of PW5 - Dr. Neeti Chaturvedi so as to impeach her creditworthiness.
36 of 84 37 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg In view of above and in the circumstances, the medical/ gynaecological examination vide MLC Ex. PW5/A of PW12 - prosecutrix stands proved on the record.
VIRILITY OF THE ACCUSED
15. It is to be mentioned that on 30/03/2012 accused Naveen Yadav made a statement before the Learned Predecessor Court wherein he admitted his medical examination vide MLC Ex. PX5 and stated that he had 'no objection' if the doctor who had prepared his MLC is not examined in the Court as witness.
The perusal of the MLC Ex. PX5 shows that the doctor has opined that there is nothing to suggest that examined person is not capable of performing sexual intercourse.
In view of above and in the circumstances, it stands proved on the record that accused Naveen Yadav was capable of performing sexual intercourse.
BIOLOGICAL AND SEROLOGICAL EVIDENCE 37 of 84 38 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg
16. PW9 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi who proved the biological report Ex. PW9/A and the serological report Ex. PW9/B, bearing her signatures at point 'A'.
As per biological report Ex. PW9/A the description of articles contained in parcel and result of analysis reads as under : DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL Parcel '1' : One sealed envelope sealed with the seal of "SD" containing exhibits '1a' & '1b'.
Exhibit '1a' : One salwar. Exhibit '1b' : One lady's shirt. Parcel '2' : One sealed cardboard box sealed with the seal of
"SD" containing exhibits '2a', '2b', '2c', '2d', '2e', '2f', '2g', '2h', '2i', '2j', '2k', '2l', '2m' and '2n' each kept in a envelope. Exhibit '2a' : Dirty cotton wool swab on a stick kept in a tube marked as Step 4 'Body Fluid Collection'. Exhibit '2b' : Few nail clippings alongwith nail cutter marked as Step 4 'nail scrapping'.
Exhibit '2c' : Cotton wool swab on a stick marked as Step 4 'In between fingers'.
Exhibit '2d' : Cotton wool swab on a stick marked as Step 5 'Breast swab'.
38 of 84 39 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Exhibit '2e' : One empty paper alongwith comb marked as Step 6 'combing of pubic hair' kept unexamined as nothing was found in it.
Exhibit '2f' : Few clippings of hair alongwith scissor marked as Step 7 'clipping of pubic hair'.
Exhibit '2g' : Dirty cotton wool swab on a stick kept in a tube marked as Step 9 'Cervical Mucus Collection'.
Exhibit '2h1' : Dirty cotton wool swab on a stick marked as Step 9 'Vaginal Secretion' (V).
Exhibit '2h2a' : Two microslides having faint whitish smear & 2h2b kept in a plastic case marked as Step 9 'vaginal secretion' (V).
Exhibit '2i' : Wet cotton wool swab on a stick kept in fluid filled tube marked as Step 10 'culture'.
Exhibit '2j' : Liquid/Fluid kept in a syringe marked as Step 11 'washing from vagina'.
Exhibit '2k1' : Dirty cotton wool swab on a stick kept in a tube marked as Step 12 'Rectal Examination'.
Exhibit '2k2a' : Two microslides having faint whitish smear & '2k2b' kept in a plastic case marked as Step 12 'Rectal Examination'.
Exhibit '2l1' : Two microslides having faint whitish smear & '2l2' kept in a plastic case marked as Step 13 'Oral Swab'.
Exhibit '2m' : Dark brown foul smelling liquid kept in two separate tubes marked as Step 14 'blood 39 of 84 40 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg collection of victim'.
Exhibit '2n1' : Dark brown foul smelling liquid kept in a tube marked as Step 15 'urine and oxalate Blood vial'.
Exhibit '2n2' : Dirty brownish liquid/fluid kept in a plastic container marked as Step 15 'urine and oxalate Blood vial'.
Parcel '3' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "SD" containing exhibits '3a', '3b', '3c', '3d', '3e', '3f', '3g' and '3h', kept in a cardboard box.
Exhibit '3a' : Few strands of hair kept in a tube. Exhibit '3b' : Dark brown foul smelling liquid kept in a tube.
Exhibit '3c' : Few strands of hair. Exhibit '3d' : Few strands of hair. Exhibit '3e' : Few strands of hair. Exhibit '3f1' & : Two microslides having faint whitish smear. '3f2' Exhibit '3g' : Gauze cloth piece having dark brown stains. Exhibit '3h' : One underwear having dirty stains. Parcel '4' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the
seal of "SD" containing exhibits '4a' and '4b'.
Exhibit '4a' : One shirt.
Exhibit '4b' : One pants (jeans).
RESULT OF ANALYSIS
1. Blood was detected on exhibits '2m', '2n1', '3b' and '3g'.
40 of 84 41 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg
2. Blood could not be detected on exhibits '1a' & '1b'.
3. Semen could not be detected on exhibits '1a', '1b' '2a', '2b', '2c', '2d', '2f', '2g', '2h1', '2h2a', '2h2b', '2i', '2j', '2k1', '2k2a', '2k2b', '2l' (be read as 2l1), '2l2', '2n2', '3a', '3c', '3d', '3e', '3f1', '3f2', '3h', '4a' and '4b'.
4. Report of serological analysis in original is attached herewith. NOTE : Remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal of 'FSL MU DELHI'.
The serological report Ex. PW9/B reads as under: Exhibits Species of origin ABO Grouping/Remarks '2m' Blood sample Sample blood putrefied hence no opinion '2n1' Blood sample Sample blood putrefied hence no opinion '3b' Blood sample Sample blood putrefied hence no opinion '3g' Gauze cloth piece Human No Reaction On careful perusal and analysis of the biological and serological evidence on record, it clearly shows that blood was detected on exhibit '2m' (blood collection of victim/prosecutrix), exhibit '2n1' (urine and oxalate blood vial of the prosecutrix), exhibit '3b' (Dark brown foul smelling liquid of the accused) and exhibit '3g' (gauze cloth piece having dark brown stains of the accused); blood could not be detected on exhibit '1a' (salwar of the prosecutrix) & exhibit '1b' (lady's 41 of 84 42 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg shirt of the prosecutrix) and semen could not be detected on exhibit '1a' (salwar of the prosecutrix), exhibit '1b' (lady's shirt of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2a' (body fluid collection of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2b' (nail scrapping of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2c' (in between fingers of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2d' (breast swab of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2f' (clipping of pubic hair of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2g' (cervical mucus collection of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2h1' (vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2h2a' (vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2h2b' (vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2i' (culture of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2j' (washing from vagina of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2k1' (rectal examination of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2k2a' (rectal examination of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2k2b' (rectal examination of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2l' (be read as '2l1') (oral swab of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2l2' (oral swab of the prosecutrix), exhibit '2n2' (urine and oxalate blood vial of the prosecutrix), exhibit '3a' (few strands of hair kept in a tube of the accused), exhibit '3c' (few strands of hair of the accused), exhibit '3d' (few strands of hair of the accused), exhibit '3e' (few strands of hair of the accused), exhibit '3f1' (microslide having faint whitish smear of the accused), exhibit '3f2' (microslide having faint 42 of 84 43 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg whitish smear of the accused), exhibit '3h' (underwear having dirty stains of the accused), exhibit '4a' (shirt of the accused) and exhibit '4b' (pants (jeans) of the accused). As per the Serological report Ex. PW9/B in the exhibit '3g' (gauze cloth piece of the accused) the species of the origin was HUMAN.
As per the Biological report Ex. PW9/A with regard to the description of the articles contained in the parcels it is noticed that parcel no. 1 & parcel no. 2 belong to PW12 Prosecutrix which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A dated 01/11/2011 and parcel no. 3 & parcel no. 4 belong to accused Naveen Yadav which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/C dated 07/11/2011.
17. Before the evidence of the so called 'sterling witness' of the prosecution namely PW12 the prosecutrix, is taken for perusal and analysis, it is also to be noticed, as to what sort of the evidence of the 'sterling witness' should be as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 15 of the case titled Rai Sandeep @ Deepu And Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2012 VII AD (S.C) 505 which reads as under : "15. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' 43 of 84 44 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness should be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the crossexamination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it would be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in 44 of 84 45 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
18. Now let the testimonies of PW12 - Prosecutrix, PW7 - Gulab Singh, PW11 - Hari Ved Katariya, the Officials of Ethnic India Haryana Tourism, Rai and PW8 - Ajay Kumar, the taxi driver be perused and analysed.
PW12 Prosecutrix, in her examinationinchief has deposed which is reproduced and reads as under : "Accused Naveen Yadav was my friend since 1½ years prior to the incident. I and accused used to talk over phone. He asked me to marry him but he also told me that his family was against the marriage as he and I were from different caste.
On 29/10/2011, accused gave me a call on my mobile phone from his mobile phone and told me that he wanted to talk to me and said that he would come to a place near my house. Accused came and I met him on road outside my house at about 7:30 - 8:00 p.m. He told me that his family members were opposed to our marriage and said that we should go elsewhere in Haryana and get married. I asked him to talk to his family members again but he said that they would not agree and that he would tell them after we got married. He told me that he had many friends in Haryana and that I should accompany him to Haryana for 45 of 84 46 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg marriage. He said that we can hire a taxi. Accused hired a TATA Indigo Taxi from Sector - 15, Manav Chowk, Rohini. I do not remember number of the said taxi. Said taxi was hired by him for Sonepat. When we crossed Delhi Border and reached G. T. Karnal Road, there was a restaurant by name of Ethnic India. We had food there. It was 8:00 8:15 p.m. Accused said that he would take a room in the said restaurant itself and that in the morning, we can get ready there itself and go for our marriage. We took room no. 412. I was tired and went off to sleep. Accused ordered for a hard drink. He started insisting me to have sex with him. I told him that we should have sex after marriage. Accused had sex with me forcibly. In order to convenience me, accused gave me beatings 'usne mere baal pakad liye, hath pakad liya, mujhe marne laga, usne kafi pi rakhi thi, mai dar ke mare kuch nahi boli'. After having sex with me, accused insisted on having unnatural sex with me. I refused for the same. I told him 'jo karna tha woh ho gaya, tu aise mat kar'. Accused told me to go to sleep. In the morning, accused called for taxi from my mobile phone. The taxi came at about 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. I asked him where we would be going. Accused told me that we would return back to Delhi. On the way he told me not to narrate about the incident to anyone. I kept listening to him silently. Accused kept abusing me and he told me that if I dared to tell about the incident at my home or to my parents or friends, then he would kill me. Accused dropped me some distance from my house. I came back to my house and I kept thinking about the incident. At that time I was scared and did not tell about the incident to anyone. In the evening I gave a call to the accused and asked him why he had behaved in this manner. Accused told me 'chalna tere jaise bahut aate hai'. He disconnected the phone. I filed complaint against the accused on 29/10/2011, however, the Police did not take my complaint and finally the same was registered on the night of 01/11/2011.
46 of 84 47 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg At this stage, witness has shown the original complaint from the judicial file and she states that the same is in her handwriting and bears her signatures at point "A". The complaint is now exhibited as Ex. PW12/A. I was taken for my medical examination to Ambedkar Hospital on 01/11/2011 where my medical examination was conducted. The Doctor took my green colour suit which I was wearing at the time of incident. Samples were also taken by the Doctor. At the time of my medical examination, IO SI Sajni, SI Varun Dalal and two lady Constables were present. One lady, who helps victims like me was also present but I do not remember her name.
After 23 days I was taken to Court where I told the Judge about the incident.
At this stage, the statement of witness u./s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PX3 (colly.) is shown to the witness and she identifies her signatures at point 'A' on pages 3 and 4 of Ex. PX3 (colly.).
The witness has correctly identified accused Naveen Yadav, who is present in the Court today through the design in the wooden partition.
After about 7 days accused was arrested by the Police. I identified accused after his arrest. The accused was arrested in my presence vide arrest memo already Ex. PX6 and was also personally searched in my presence vide memo already Ex. PX7 and both the memos bear my signatures at point 'A'.
I can identify my clothes, if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced one sealed pullinda sealed with the seal of FSL Rohini. Same is opened and it is found to contain one ladies suit of magenta colour, shown to the witness, who correctly identified it to be the same and states that inadvertently she had 47 of 84 48 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg mentioned the colour of suit as green. She also states that it is the same salwar and kameez suit which she was wearing at the time of incident. The said suit is Ex. PX (colly.).
On 30/10/2011, IO had taken me to the place of incident and I had pointed out the said place to the IO."
From the aforesaid narration of PW12 - prosecutrix, it is clear that accused Naveen Yadav was her friend since 1½ years prior to the incident. She and accused used to talk over phone. He asked her to marry him but he also told her that his family was against the marriage as he (accused) and she (prosecutrix) were from different caste. On 29/10/2011, accused gave her a call on her mobile phone from his mobile phone and told her that he wanted to talk to her and said that he would come to a place near her house. Accused came and she met him on road outside her house at about 7:30 - 8:00 p.m. He told her that his family members were opposed to their marriage and said that they should go elsewhere in Haryana and get married. She asked him to talk to his family members again but he said that they would not agree and that he would tell them after they (accused and the prosecutrix) got married. He told her that he had many friends in Haryana and that she should accompany him to Haryana for marriage. He said that they can hire a 48 of 84 49 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg taxi. Accused hired a TATA Indigo Taxi from Sector - 15, Manav Chowk, Rohini. She does not remember number of the said taxi. Said taxi was hired by him for Sonepat. When they crossed Delhi Border and reached G. T. Karnal Road, there was a restaurant by name of Ethnic India. They had food there. It was 8:00 8:15 p.m. Accused said that he would take a room in the said restaurant itself and that in the morning, they can get ready there itself and go for their marriage. We took room no. 412. She was tired and went off to sleep. Accused ordered for a hard drink. He started insisting her to have sex with him. She told him that they should have sex after marriage. Accused had sex with her forcibly. In order to convenience her, accused gave her beatings. After having sex with her, accused insisted on having unnatural sex with her. She refused for the same. She told him 'jo karna the woh ho gaya, tu aise mat kar'. Accused told her to go to sleep. In the morning, accused called for taxi from her mobile phone. The taxi came at about 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. She asked him where they would be going. Accused told her that they would return back to Delhi. On the way he told her not to narrate about the incident to anyone. She kept listening to him silently. Accused kept abusing her and he told her that if she dared to tell about the incident at 49 of 84 50 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg her home or to her parents or friends, then he would kill her. Accused dropped her at some distance from her house. She came back to her house and she kept thinking about the incident. At that time she was scared and did not tell about the incident to anyone. In the evening she gave a call to the accused and asked him why he had behaved in this manner. Accused told her 'chalna tere jaise bahut aate hai'. He disconnected the phone. She filed complaint against the accused on 29/10/2011, however, the Police did not take her complaint and finally the same was registered on the night of 01/11/2011. She (prosecutrix) showed the original complaint Ex. PW12/A from the Judicial file and she stated that the same is in her handwriting and bears her signatures at point 'A'. She was taken for her medical examination to Ambedkar Hospital on 01/11/2011 where her medical examination was conducted. The Doctor took her green colour suit which she was wearing at the time of incident. Samples were also taken by the Doctor. At the time of her medical examination, IO SI Sajni, SI Varun Dalal and two lady Constables were present. One lady, who helps victims like her (prosecutrix) was also present but she does not remember her name. After 23 days she was taken to Court where she told the Judge about the 50 of 84 51 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg incident. Prosecutrix identified her signatures at point 'A' on pages 3 and 4 of statement of witness Ex. PX3 (colly.). She also correctly identified accused Naveen Yadav, who is present in the Court through the design in the wooden partition. After about 7 days accused was arrested by the Police. She identified accused after his arrest. The accused was arrested in her presence vide arrest memo already Ex. PX6 and was also personally searched in her presence vide memo already Ex. PX7 and both the memos bear her signature at point 'A'. She also identified one ladies suit of magenta colour to be the same and stated that inadvertently she had mentioned the colour of suit as green. She also stated that it is the same salwar and kameez suit which she was wearing at the time of incident. The said suit is Ex. PX (colly.). On 30/10/2011, IO took her to the place of incident and she had pointed out the said place to the IO.
PW12 - Prosecutrix during her crossexamination has negated the suggestions that she has stayed in different hotels of Pahar Ganj with accused during the years, 2009, 2010 and 2011 or that she had stayed in a hotel in Pahar Ganj with the accused on 18/09/2009 vol. It was his birthday and they had a meal in a restaurant near Railway 51 of 84 52 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg station. She does not know if it was Pahar Ganj or that accused Naveen Yadav never proposed marriage to her or that there was no question of his meeting her parents or her meeting his parents for said purpose or that it was never decided prior to 29/10/2011 for marriage and no such thing (marriage) was ever told by Naveen to her or that one year prior to the incident in question she had slashed her right wrist and threatened accused Naveen Yadav either to marry her or that she will commit suicide or that she had never visited Ethnic India Resort and for this reason she is not able to tell about the division of the said resort in blocks or that she had taken food for Naveen Yadav in the Police Station or that father of accused Naveen Yadav had never forced her to have Mulakaat with accused in Jail or that she had of her own free will had gone to the Jail to have Mulakaat with accused or that she had taken food for the accused when he was in the Police Station or that accused Naveen Yadav not called her on 29/10/2011 or that he did not go with her to Ethnic India or that accused never assured or told her about his intention to marry her or that she was vary attracted towards the accused as he was a National Level Bushu Player or that she was forcing the accused continuously to marry her and was threatening him either to marry her or 52 of 84 53 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg that she will take her own life or that she implicated him falsely or that there was no communication between her and accused Naveen Yadav prior to two months of the date of incident or that prior to two months of the date of incident accused had flatly refused to talk to her or that the complaint Ex. PW12/A is false and fabricated or that she had made a false statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PX3 or that the statement u/s 164 C.P.C. Ex. PX3 was made at the instance of the Police or that she had not handed over her inner wears either to the Police or to the Doctor or that she is deposing falsely.
Now let the testimonies of PW7 - Gulab Singh, PW11 - Hari Ved Katariya, the Officials of Ethnic India Haryana Tourism, Rai and that of PW8 - Ajay Kumar, the taxi driver be perused and analysed.
PW7 - Gulab Singh in his examinationinchief has deposed that : "On 29/10/2011 I and Hari Ved Kataria were on duty at the reception counter of Ethnic India Haryana Tourism Rai. On that day one boy came to me at the reception counter and he told me that he wanted a 53 of 84 54 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg room for him and for his wife. I alloted the room No. 412 to him and he made entry by the name of Sunil Kumar. The boy had also shown me ID proof and after checking the same I returned the same to him. The room was booked at about 12 noon on 29/10/2011 and on the next morning at about 8:30 a.m. the above said boy namely Sunil alongwith the girl went away from there.
On 07/11/2011, Delhi Police came at the above said Ethnic India Haryana Tourism and they checked entry register."
During his further examinationinchief recorded on 18/08/2012 he had been shown the Visitor Register for the period from 19/10/2011 to 30/11/2011 from Ethnic India Sonipat (Haryana Tourism) which was produced by Sh. Rakam Singh, Record Clerk. Witness (PW7) after going through the same deposed that : "Entry at Serial No. 5 dated 29/10/2011 is in the name of Sunil Kumar and his wife R/o A5 Z, Tagore Park, Delhi arrival time 12:00 noon. They were allocated room no. 412 and the said persons checked out of the room on 30/10/2011 at 8:30 a.m. The photocopy of relevant pages (two pages) is Ex. PW7/A and the relevant entry is encircled at point 'X'. The entry is made by the customer who books the room in his/her handwriting.
I can identify the person named Sunil Kumar who had made entry at point 'X' on Ex. PW7/A. At this stage witness has looked around in the Court Room and states that said Sunil Kumar is not present int he Court today."
54 of 84 55 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg From the aforesaid narration of PW7 - Gulab Singh it is clear that the on 29/10/2011 he and Hari Ved Kataria were on duty at the reception counter of Ethnic India Haryana Tourism Rai and on that day one boy came to him at the reception counter and he told him that he wanted a room for him and for his wife. He (PW7) alloted the room No. 412 to him and he made entry by the name of Sunil Kumar. The boy had also shown him ID proof and after checking the same he returned the same to him. The room was booked at about 12 noon on 29/10/2011 and on the next morning at about 8:30 a.m. the above said boy namely Sunil alongwith the girl went away from there. On 07/11/2011, Delhi Police came at the above said Ethnic India Haryana Tourism and they checked entry register. The entry at Serial No. 5 dated 29/10/2011 is in the name of Sunil Kumar and his wife R/o A5 Z, Tagore Park, Delhi arrival time 12:00 noon. They were allocated room no. 412 and the said persons checked out of the room on 30/10/2011 at 8:30 a.m. He proved the photocopy of relevant pages (two pages) as Ex. PW7/A and the relevant entry is encircled at point 'X'. The entry is made by the customer who books the room in his/her handwriting. He can identify the person 55 of 84 56 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg named Sunil Kumar who made the entry at point 'X' on Ex. PW7/A. The said Sunil Kumar is not present in the Court.
PW11 - Hari Ved Katariya in his examinationinchief has deposed that : "On 29/10/2011, I was on duty as Counter Incharge in the above said Tourism Office. On that day at about 12:00 noon, one boy aged about 3035 years came to our office. He was alone. He booked one room. Sh. Gulab Singh, Counter Incharge made entry regarding the said booking, and I issued receipt for amount paid by the said boy. I did not see the said boy going to the room allotted to him. I cannot say if he was alone or if somebody was accompanying him. The number of guests was not mentioned in the receipt. I used to issue receipt when Sh. Gulab Singh, Counter Incharge, told me the name and the amount paid by a particular guest. I had issued receipt of Rs. 2102/ to the boy. A Sum of Rs. 2102/ was charged for a double bed room. The receipt was given to the said boy by me. I cannot identify the said boy today."
From the aforesaid narration of PW11 - Hari Ved Katariya it is clear that the on 29/10/2011 he was on duty as Counter Incharge in the above said Tourism Office. On that day at about 12:00 noon, one boy aged about 3035 years came to their office. He was alone. He booked one room. Sh. Gulab Singh, Counter Incharge made entry regarding the 56 of 84 57 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg said booking, and he issued receipt for amount paid by the said boy. He did not see the said boy going to the room allotted to him. He could not say if he (the boy) was alone or if somebody was accompanying him. The number of guests was not mentioned in the receipt. He used to issue receipt when Sh. Gulab Singh, Counter Incharge, told him the name and the amount paid by a particular guest. He had issued receipt of Rs. 2102/ to the boy. A Sum of Rs. 2102/ was charged for a double bed room. The receipt was given to the said boy by him. He cannot identify the said boy.
PW8 - Ajay Kumar in his examinationinchief has deposed that : "I am residing in the aforesaid address (B1/77, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi) with the owner of Taxi Stand in his house and I am a taxi driver. On 29/11/2011 (Be read as 29/10/2011) at about 7:30/8:00 p.m. I was at the taxi stand, one boy and a girl came to the taxi stand and they wanted to go to Sonepat. I had made the booking for the taxi from Sector 16, Rohini to Sonepat and the charges of Rs. 500/ were settled and I took them on Main Road, Near Rai, Sonepat. I cannot tell any detail about the boy and girl since it was dark except that the boy was tall around 5½ to 6 feet."
During his further examinationinchief recorded on 57 of 84 58 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg 18/08/2012 he deposed that : "I took the passengers (two) in my Indica Taxi No. DL8CM7405 to Sonepat, Rai. I dropped them on the main road i.e. National Highway as requested by them. There was a gate at that point, but I do not know whether it was of a hotel or any other building etc. I took my fare of Rs. 500/ from them and went on my way. The passengers, one boy and a girl had taken my mobile number and had told me that they would give him a call, if they require me. I told them that if, I was on duty, then I would not come on their call. On the next day i.e. 30/10/2011 I received a call from the girl at about 8:30 a.m. to come to pick them up but I refused as I had already left for my duty. I do not know anything else. I cannot identify the said passengers today, due to lapse of time. I also cannot identify the male passenger, even if shown to me."
From the aforesaid narration of PW8 - Ajay Kumar, it is clear that the he is residing at B1/77, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi with the owner of Taxi Stand in his house and he is taxi driver. On 29/11/2011 at about 7:30/8:00 p.m. he was at the taxi stand, one boy and a girl came to the taxi stand and they wanted to go to Sonepat. He had made the booking for the taxi from Sector 16, Rohini to Sonepat and the charges of Rs. 500/ were settled and he took them on Main Road, Near Rai, Sonepat. He cannot tell any detail about the boy and girl since it was 58 of 84 59 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg dark except that the boy was tall around 5½ to 6 feet. He took the passengers (two) in his Indica Taxi No. DL8CM7405 to Sonepat, Rai. He dropped them on the main road i.e. National Highway as requested by them. There was a gate at that point, but he does not know whether it was of a hotel or any other building etc. He took his fare of Rs. 500/ from them and went on his way. The passengers, one boy and a girl had taken his mobile number and had told him that they would give him a call, if they require him. He told them that if, he was on duty, then he would not come on their call. On the next day i.e. 30/10/2011 he received a call from the girl at about 8:30 a.m. to come to pick them up but he refused as he had already left for his duty. He does not know anything else. He can not identify the said passengers, due to lapse of time. He also cannot identify the male passenger, even if shown to him.
19. On a conjoint reading and on careful perusal and analysis of the testimonies of PW12 - Prosecutrix, PW7 - Gulab Singh, PW11 - Hari Ved Katariya and PW8 - Ajay Kumar, it is found that the scenario described by PW12 - prosecutrix of having taken her on 29/10/2011 at about 8:15 p.m. by taxi hired from Taxi Stand, Sector - 15, Rohini near 59 of 84 60 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Manav Chowk by accused Naveen Yadav to Room No. 412 of Hotel Ethnic India, Rai, Haryana and of the committal of rape upon her without her consent in the intervening night of 29/10/2011 and 30/10/2011 in the said room has not been proved on the record.
At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant part of the examinationinchief of PW12 - prosecutrix which reads as under : "On 29/10/2011, accused gave me a call on my mobile phone from his mobile phone and told me that he wanted to talk to me and said that he would come to a place near my house. Accused came and I met him on road outside my house at about 7:30 - 8:00 p.m. He told me that his family members were opposed to our marriage and said that we should go elsewhere in Haryana and get married. I asked him to talk to his family members again but he said that they would not agree and that he would tell them after we got married. He told me that he had many friends in Haryana and that I should accompany him to Haryana for marriage. He said that we can hire a taxi. Accused hired a TATA Indigo Taxi from Sector - 15, Manav Chowk, Rohini. I do not remember number of the said taxi. Said taxi was hired by him for Sonepat. When we crossed Delhi Border and reached G. T. Karnal Road, there was a restaurant by name of Ethnic India. We had food there. It was 8:00 8:15 p.m. Accused said that he would take a room in the said restaurant itself and that in the morning, we can get ready there itself and go for our marriage. We took room no. 412. I was tired and went off to sleep. Accused ordered for a hard drink. He started 60 of 84 61 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg insisting me to have sex with him. I told him that we should have sex after marriage. Accused had sex with me forcibly. In order to convenience (convince) me, accused gave me beatings 'usne mere baal pakad liye, hath pakad liya, mujhe marne laga, usne kafi pi rakhi thi, mai dar ke mare kuch nahi boli'. After having sex with me, accused insisted on having unnatural sex with me. I refused for the same. I told him 'jo karna tha woh ho gaya, tu aise mat kar'. Accused told me to go to sleep. In the morning, accused called for taxi from my mobile phone. The taxi came at about 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. I asked him where we would be going. Accused told me that we would return back to Delhi. On the way he told me not to narrate about the incident to anyone. I kept listening to him silently. Accused kept abusing me and he told me that if I dared to tell about the incident at my home or to my parents or friends, then he would kill me. Accused dropped me some distance from my house. I came back to my house and I kept thinking about the incident. At that time I was scared and did not tell about the incident to anyone. In the evening I gave a call to the accused and asked him why he had behaved in this manner. Accused told me 'chalna tere jaise bahut aate hai'. He disconnected the phone. I filed complaint against the accused on 29/10/2011, however, the Police did not take my complaint and finally the same was registered on the night of 01/11/2011."
From the aforesaid narration, it is clear that on 29/10/2011, accused met the prosecutrix on road outside her house at about 7:308:00 p.m. and then a taxi was hired from Sector - 15, Manav Chowk, Rohini 61 of 84 62 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg and reached at a restaurant by the name of Ethnic India at G. T. Karnal Road and had food there at about 8:00 - 8:15 p.m. and took the Room No. 412 and in the said room, the rape was committed upon her without her consent and in the morning of 30/10/2011, took the taxi at about 8:30 to 9:00 a.m. and reached at Delhi. After reaching at her house, the prosecutrix did not tell about the incident to anyone and in the evening of 30/10/2011, she gave a call to accused and asked him why he had behaved in this manner and thereafter, she filed the complaint against accused on 29/10/2011 which was not taken by the Police and finally the same was registered on the night of 01/11/2011.
From above, when the prosecutrix deposed that she filed the complaint against accused on 29/10/2011 and the Police did not take her complaint and finally the same was registered on the night of 01/11/2011, it is beyond common sense as to how prosecutrix filed the complaint on 29/10/2011 against the accused, when as per her version, at about 7:30 - 8:00 p.m., after hiring a taxi she had left for Ethnic India and had food there at 8:008:15 p.m. in the restaurant and the alleged offence of committal of rape was committed upon her in the intervening night of 29/10/2011 and 30/10/2011.
62 of 84 63 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg The version of PW12 - prosecutrix that she had left Delhi on 29/10/2011 at about 7:30 or 8:00 p.m. and had food at about 8:008:15 p.m. in the restaurant of Ethnic India, Rai, Haryana is also falsified as to what she has deposed during her crossexamination recorded on 08/01/2013 which reads as under : "Q. Is it correct to say that on 29/10/2011 you had approached the Police with your complaint and the Police did not take any action on it?
Ans. On 29/10/2011 it was late in the night and by the 12:00 in the mid night the day was turned and on the morning of the next day at about 11:30 a.m. I was heard by the Police and SI Varun Dalal were present at the PS."
"Q. Did you consult any advocate during the period form 29/10/2011 to 01/11/2011 till the time you gave complaint to the Police?
Ans. Yes."
Further, during her crossexamination recorded on 09/01/2013, PW12 - prosecutrix has deposed her presence in Delhi continuously from 29/10/2011 to 01/11/2011 which again falsifies her 63 of 84 64 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg version of having left Delhi on 29/10/2011 with accused Naveen Yadav by Taxi and of reaching at Ethnic India, Rai, Haryana.
The relevant part of her crossexamination recorded on 09/01/2013 is reproduced and reads as under : "Q. Did your father accompany you on all the days from 29/10/2011 to 01/11/2011 when you had gone to the Police Station?
Ans. On 29/10/2011, I was accompanied by my father, brother and one of my relatives. From 30/10/2011 till 01/11/2011 I was accompanied by my brother and one of my relatives when I had gone to the Police Station."
The said part of the crossexamination of PW12 - prosecutrix, as reproduced hereinabove not only has falsified her version of having left Delhi on 29/10/2011 with accused Naveen Yadav by Taxi and of reaching at Ethnic India Rai, Haryana, but has also knocked out the bottom of the case of the prosecution. Rather, the said part of crossexamination of PW12 - prosecutrix has corroborated the testimony of defence witness, DW1 - Sh. Jai Singh, father of the accused that during the period from 27/10/2011 till 30/10/2011, his son, accused Naveen Yadav used to remain at home after coming back from the 64 of 84 65 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg practice.
It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant part of examination inchief of DW1 - Sh. Jai Singh, which reads as under : "During the period from 27/10/2011 till 30/10/2011 also he had gone for practice of boxing during the same timing. After coming at home from practice he used to remain at home. During the period from 27/10/2011 till 30/10/2011 also he remained at home after coming back from the practice."
Despite searching crossexamination of DW1 - Sh. Jai Singh, by the Learned Addl. PP for the State, nothing material could be elicited so as to rescue the case of the prosecution.
Further, the fact that PW12 - prosecutrix and accused Naveen Yadav had not stayed in Room No. 412, Ethnic India, Rai, Haryana has been proved by PW7 - Gulab Singh who has proved the photocopy of the relevant pages (two pages) Ex. PW7/A of the visitor register and the relevant entry encircled at point 'X' to the effect that it is in the name of Sunil Kumar and his wife R/o A5Z, Tagore Park, Delhi, arrival time 12:00 noon and they were allotted Room No. 412 and the said persons checked out of the room on 30/10/2011 at 8:30 a.m. PW7 - Gulab Singh has specifically deposed that he can identify the person 65 of 84 66 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg named Sunil Kumar who made the entry at point 'X' on Ex. PW7/A. The said Sunil Kumar is not present in the Court.
At the cost of repetition, the relevant part of the examinationinchief of PW7 - Gulab Singh recorded on 18/08/2012 reads as under : "Entry at Serial No. 5 dated 29/10/2011 is in the name of Sunil Kumar and his wife R/o A5 Z, Tagore Park, Delhi arrival time 12:00 noon. They were allocated room no. 412 and the said persons checked out of the room on 30/10/2011 at 8:30 a.m. The photocopy of relevant pages (two pages) is Ex. PW7/A and the relevant entry is encircled at point 'X'. The entry is made by the customer who books the room in his/her handwriting.
I can identify the person named Sunil Kumar who had made entry at point 'X' on Ex. PW7/A. At this stage witness has looked around in the Court Room and states that said Sunil Kumar is not present in the Court today."
The testimony of PW7 - Gulab Singh has been corroborated by PW11 - Hari Ved Kataria.
At the cost of repetition, PW11 - Hari Ved Kataria in his examinationinchief has deposed which is reproduced and reads as under : 66 of 84 67 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg "On 29/10/2011, I was on duty as Counter Incharge in the above said Tourism Office. On that day at about 12:00 noon, one boy aged about 3035 years came to our office. He was alone. He booked one room. Sh. Gulab Singh, Counter Incharge made entry regarding the said booking, and I issued receipt for amount paid by the said boy. I did not see the said boy going to the room allotted to him. I cannot say if he was alone or if somebody was accompanying him. The number of guests was not mentioned in the receipt. I used to issue receipt when Sh. Gulab Singh, Counter Incharge, told me the name and the amount paid by a particular guest. I had issued receipt of Rs. 2102/ to the boy. A Sum of Rs. 2102/ was charged for a double bed room. The receipt was given to the said boy by me. I cannot identify the said boy today."
Further, the version of PW12 - prosecutrix that she and accused Naveen Yadav had gone to Ethnic India, Rai, Sonepat, Haryana on 29/10/2011 by a hired taxi and had returned in the morning of 30/10/2011 from Ethnic India, Rai, Sonepat, Haryana has also not been corroborated by the testimony of PW8 - Ajay Kumar, the taxi driver.
At the cost of repetition, PW8 - Ajay Kumar in his examinationinchief has deposed which is reproduced and reads as under : "I am residing in the aforesaid address (B1/77, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi) with the owner of Taxi Stand in his house and I am a taxi driver. On 29/11/2011 at about 7:30/8:00 p.m. I was at the taxi stand, one 67 of 84 68 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg boy and a girl came to the taxi stand and they wanted to go to Sonepat. I had made the booking for the taxi from Sector 16, Rohini to Sonepat and the charges of Rs. 500/ were settled and I took them on Main Road, Near Rai, Sonepat. I cannot tell any detail about the boy and girl since it was dark except that the boy was tall around 5½ to 6 feet."
During his further examinationinchief recorded on 18/08/2012 he deposed that : "I took the passengers (two) in my Indica Taxi No. DL8CM7405 to Sonepat, Rai. I dropped them on the main road i.e. National Highway as requested by them. There was a gate at that point, but I do not know whether it was of a hotel or any other building etc. I took my fare of Rs. 500/ from them and went on my way. The passengers, one boy and a girl had taken my mobile number and had told me that they would give him a call, if they require me. I told them that if, I was on duty, then I would not come on their call. On the next day i.e. 30/10/2011 I received a call from the girl at about 8:30 a.m. to come to pick them up but I refused as I had already left for my duty. I do not know anything else. I cannot identify the said passengers today, due to lapse of time. I also cannot identify the male passenger, even if shown to me."
PW8 Ajay Kumar was extensively crossexamined by the Learned Addl. PP for the State. Despite his searching crossexamination nothing material could be brought out so as to rescue the case of 68 of 84 69 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg prosecution. Moreover, he did not identify accused Naveen to be the same person who had hired his taxi on 29/10/2011 and 30/10/2011 and negated the suggestions that he is deposing falsely or that the accused present in the Court is the same person who had hired his taxi with a girl on 29/10/2011 and 30/10/2011.
There is nothing in the crossexamination of PW7 - Sh. Gulab Singh and PW11 - Sh. Hari Ved Kataria as conducted by the Learned Addl. PP for the State so as to impeach their creditworthiness. Inspite of their incisive crossexamination, nothing material has been brought out. They have withstood the rigors of crossexamination without being shaken.
20. PW13 - ASI Sajni, IO in her examinationinchief has deposed that she prepared the site plan Ex. PW13/C bearing her signature at point 'A'.
On careful perusal of the site plan Ex. PW13/C, it is found to be undated and mentions the name and particulars of PW12 - prosecutrix as a marginal witness without bearing her (PW12 69 of 84 70 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg prosecutrix) signature.
As per the testimony of PW13 - ASI Sajni, IO, she prepared rukka dated 01/11/2011 Ex. PW13/A and sent it for the registration of the case and the FIR dated 01/11/2011 Ex. PW3/A was registered.
On careful perusal and analysis of the entire testimony of PW13 - ASI Sajni, it is nowhere being indicated on which date the site plan Ex. PW13/C was prepared or that the site plan Ex. PW13/C was prepared at the instance of PW12 - prosecutrix or that PW12 - prosecutrix had pointed out the place of incident to IO PW13 - ASI Sajni and consequent upon which the site plan Ex. PW13/C was prepared. If it is so, it has not been explained by the prosecution as to why the name and particulars of PW12 - prosecutrix as a marginal witness has been mentioned in the site plan Ex. PW13/C. PW12 - prosecutrix during her crossexamination recorded on 09/01/2013 has deposed that she never visited the place of incident in this case after registration of FIR.
The relevant part of the crossexamination of PW12 - prosecutrix recorded on 09/01/2013 reads as under : "Q. Did you ever visit the place of incident after the registration of the FIR in this case.
70 of 84 71 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Ans. No."
On a conjoint reading of the testimony of PW13 - ASI Sajni IO and PW12 - prosecutrix, it remained totally unexplained by the prosecution, how the site plan Ex. PW13/C came to be prepared by PW13 - ASI Sajni, IO when PW12 - prosecutrix has not visited the place of incident after the registration of the FIR on 01/11/2011 and then why the name and particulars of PW12 - prosecutrix as a marginal witness has been shown in the site plan without bearing her (PW12 - prosecutrix) signature.
Further, PW12 - prosecutrix during her examinationin chief has deposed that : "On 30/10/2011, IO had taken me to the place of incident and I had pointed out the said place to the IO."
The said part of examinationinchief of PW12 - prosecutrix is not corroborated by any material and evidence on record. The testimony of PW13 - ASI Sajni, IO as well as PW14 - SI Varun Dalal are totally silent on this aspect. In their entire testimonies, they have not deposed a single word that on 30/10/2011 PW12 - prosecutrix had been 71 of 84 72 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg taken to place of incident and she (PW12 - prosecutrix) had pointed out said place to the IO. In the circumstances, the said version of PW12 - prosecutrix is quite strange and does not inspire confidence.
In view of above and in the circumstances, the testimonies of the said prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence.
21. It is also to be noticed that the testimony of PW12 - prosecutrix is also found to inspire no confidence as to what she stated in the alleged medical history which she had given at the time of her medical examination conducted on 01/11/2011 at 9:30 p.m. at BSA Hospital vide MLC Ex. PW5/A especially in view of the fact that PW12
- prosecutrix on 01/11/2011, at the time of her medical examination vide MLC Ex. PW5/A was very well in the know as to where she was allegedly taken (Ethnic India Rai, Haryana), why she was taken (for performing of marriage), how she was taken (by a taxi) and how she was brought back to Delhi (by a taxi), then what prevented her, not to disclose the said facts in the alleged history given to the Doctor at the time of her medical examination vide MLC Ex. PW5/A. Why she concealed such facts and churned out vague and irrelevant facts. Moreover, what she has stated in her alleged medical history in the MLC 72 of 84 73 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Ex. PW5/A dated 01/11/2011 is that, she has been assaulted by her boy friend Naveen Yadav who took her out for dinner in some lonely place restaurant on 29/11/2011 and took a room over there and forcefully sexually assaulted her and did sexual intercourse forcefully and also hit her. Although, she has stated the date as 29/11/2011, even if, it is taken that due to handwriting error the date as 29/11/2011 has been mentioned therein in place of 29/10/2011, even then it does not lend any confidence to the testimony of PW12 - prosecutrix on the material facts, which have been reproduced, discussed and analysed hereinabove.
It is pertinent to reproduce the alleged history given by PW12 - prosecutrix mentioned in her MLC Ex. PW5/A which reads as under : "Victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) 26 yr. old female D/o Kishan Singh Rajput has been brought to the Hospital by NGO Member Nazma Khatoon and ASI Sajni Devi and Lady Constable Usha who has been sexually assaulted by her boy friend Naveen Yadav who took victim out for dinner in some lonely place restaurant on 29/11/2011 and took a room over there and forcefully sexually assaulted patient and did sexual intercourse forcefully and also hit the patient and next day morning dropped victim to her home and went away. Patient disclosed the incident to her parent and mother father brought the patient to Dr. BSA 73 of 84 74 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg Hospital for medical checkup."
In view of the analysis made hereinabove, and on a conjoint reading of the testimony of PW12 - prosecutrix and the alleged history given by her mentioned in the MLC Ex. PW5/A, as reproduced hereinabove, it clearly indicates that the testimony of PW12 - prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and is found to be suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material evidence on the record. Her version on the core spectrum of crime has failed to remain intact.
Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material point with a view to rule out consent of her part and there being no injury on her person even though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. (vide Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra (1999) 1 SCC 220).
74 of 84 75 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg In Jai Krishna Mandal & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 14 SCC 534, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue held : "The only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself and when this evidence was read in its totality, the story projected by the prosecutrix was so improbable that it could not be believed."
In Rajoo & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Air 2009 SC 858, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. The court however, further observed : ".......It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication...... there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration."
75 of 84 76 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg In Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter."
22. No doubt, as to what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para5 of case titled, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Asha Ram AIR 2006 SC 381 :
5. .................It is now wellsettled principle of law that conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital, unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is also a well settled principle of law that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given circumstances. The evidence of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of 76 of 84 77 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case."
(underlined by me).
But in the instant case there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration of the testimony of PW12 Prosecutrix as she has come forward with a version totally conflicting with what she stated in her complaint Ex. PW12/A and in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PX3 (colly.) especially when she was the victim of the alleged onslaught on her by none else than her one and a half years old friend accused Naveen Yadav and that too against her wish and with whom she visited Mumbai in October, 2011 and stayed with him in the hotel for four days in the same room and also in the year, 2009 had stayed at the house of friend of accused Naveen Yadav at village of Jammu. The relevant part of cross examination of PW12 - prosecutrix recorded on 30/11/2012 reads as under : "I had gone for a visit to Mumbai in October, 2011. I had stayed in a hotel during my said visit. I do not remember if the name of the said hotel was Palm Hotel. I had not called accused to my hotel in Mumbai during my visit in October, 2011. It is correct that accused had stayed with me in the hotel for four days in the same room."
77 of 84 78 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg "It is correct that in the year, 2009, I had stayed at the house of friend of accused at village of Jammu."
There are material contradictions and substantial improvements which go to the root of the matter leave alone lack of corroboration in the evidence of the prosecutrix.
Undisputably, neither parents of the prosecutrix have been cited in the list of prosecution witnesses nor have been produced and examined by the prosecution.
As per the alleged history given by PW12 - prosecutrix to the Doctor at the time of her medical examination vide MLC Ex. PW5/A, it is found interalia mentioned therein, "Patient dictated the incident to her parents and victim's father brought the patient to Dr. BSA Hospital for medical checkup."
The said part of the alleged history given by the prosecutrix to the Doctor vide MLC Ex. PW5/A is also not been corroborated by the testimony of PW12 - prosecutrix which is totally silent that she had disclosed the incident to her parents. What she has deposed in her examinationinchief is that, "I came back to my 78 of 84 79 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg house and I kept thinking of the incident. At that time, I was scared and did not tell about the incident to anyone. In the evening, I gave a call to the accused and asked him why he had behaved in this manner..."
In the circumstances, withholding of such material evidence of the parents of the prosecutrix by the prosecution leads to a situation as why the adverse inference should not be drawn against the prosecution.
Recently in "Manjit Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.", JT 2013 (11) SCALE 394, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to earlier decisions, has opined thus : "...it is quite clear that it is not the number and quantity but the quality that is material. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record which inspires confidence and the same has to be accepted and acted upon and in such a situation no adverse inference should be drawn from the fact of nonexamination of other witnesses. That apart, it is also to be seen whether such non examination of a witness would carry the matter further so as to affect the evidence of the other witnesses and if the evidence of a witness is really not essential to the unfolding of the prosecution case, it cannot be considered a material witness (see: "State of U.P. Vs. Iftikhar Khan and Others" (1973) 1 SCC 512)."
79 of 84 80 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg In such circumstances, it will be highly dangerous to rely on such version of the prosecutrix in order to support the case of the prosecution, as the version of the PW12 Prosecutrix on the core spectrum of the crime failed to remain intact. Her testimony is found to blemished, unconvincing, untrustworthy and does not inspire confidence. She had an animus against the accused to falsely implicate him in this case.
23. It is well settled that rape, is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim.
It is to be noticed that the opinion expressed by Modi in Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty First Edition) at page 369 which reads as : "Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the 80 of 84 81 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a case the medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape, is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one."
In Parikh's Textbook of Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology, the following passage is found:
"Sexual intercourse : In law, this term is held to mean the slightest degree of penetration of the vulva by the penis with or without emission of semen. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains."
In Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (Vol. 4) at page 1356, it is stated:
".....even slight penetration is sufficient and emission is unnecessary."
81 of 84 82 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg On analysing the entire testimony of PW12 - Prosecutrix in the light of medical/gynaecological examination on MLC Ex. PW5/A of the prosecutrix, biological and serological evidence, together with the MLC of accused Naveen Yadav Ex. PX5, coupled with the testimonies of PW7 - Gulab Singh, PW11 - Hari Ved Katariya, the Officials of Ethnic India Haryana Tourism, Rai and PW8 - Ajay Kumar, the taxi driver as discussed and analysed hereinbefore, the performance of the act of sexual intercourse activity does not stand proved.
In the circumstances, it does not stand prove on the record, of the performance of the act of sexual intercourse by accused Naveen Yadav in the intervening night of 29/10/2011 and 30/10/2011 in room no. 412 of Hotel Ethnic India with PW12 - Prosecutrix.
24. In view of above and in the circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts against accused Naveen Yadav that on 29/10/2011 at about 8:15 p.m. from Taxi Stand of Sector - 15, Rohini near Manav Chowk, accused Naveen Yadav abducted PW12 prosecutrix (name withheld), aged around 25 years 82 of 84 83 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg with intent in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or that he took her to a hotel and that in the intervening night of 29/10/2011 and 30/10/2011 during his stay in the room no. 412 of Hotel Ethnic India with prosecutrix he committed rape upon her without her consent or that he criminally intimidated the prosecutrix or that on 29/10/2011, accused Naveen Yadav by deceitful means dishonestly induced the prosecutrix to accompany him, on the pretext and the promise that he would marry her and thereafter in the intervening night of 29/10/2011 and 30/10/2011 he took her to Room No. 412 of Hotel Ethnic India and made physical relations / had sexual intercourse with her on such pretext / promise.
I accordingly acquit accused Naveen Yadav for the offences punishable u/s 366/376/506/420 IPC.
25. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that as far as involvement of accused Naveen Yadav in the commission of the offences punishable u/s 366/376/506/420 IPC is concerned, the same 83 of 84 84 FIR No. 441/11 PS - K. N. Katju Marg is not sufficiently established by the cogent and reliable evidence and in the ultimate analysis, the prosecution has failed to bring guilt home to the accused Naveen Yadav beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts and there is a room for hypothesis, consistent with that of innocence of accused. I, therefore, acquit accused Naveen Yadav for offences punishable u/s 366/376/506/420 IPC after giving him the benefit of doubt. Accused Naveen Yadav is running in JC. He be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. However, on his release accused Naveen Yadav shall appear in the Court and shall execute a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ under section 437A Cr.P.C. Announced in the open Court (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) on 28th Day of April, 2014 Additional Sessions Judge Special Fast Track Court (N/W District), Rohini, Delhi 84 of 84