Delhi District Court
Sc No: 113/18 State vs . Nirmal @ Nickdosen on 5 March, 2018
SC No: 113/18 State Vs. Nirmal @ Nickdosen
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-FAST TRACK
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 113/18
FIR No. 754/17
Police Station Bindapur
Under Section 376/380 IPC
State
Versus
Nirmal @ Nickdosen
S/o Sh. Nihal Singh
R/o H.No. 4017/34, Gali no. 34,
Regar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. .....Accused
Date of institution 09.02.2018
Judgment reserved on 05.03.2018
Judgment Pronounced on 05.03.2018
Decision Acquitted
Judgment 1 of 6
SC No: 113/18 State Vs. Nirmal @ Nickdosen
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial in present case on allegations of committing rape on prosecutrix "P" aged about 42 years and of committing theft of cash and gold jewelery from her house.
2. FIR in question was registered on 11.10.2017 on complaint of prosecutrix alleging that accused Nirmal @ Nick Dosen was her colleague and she was in talking terms with her. On 16.05.2016, Nick put vermilion on parting of her head and accused and prosecutrix started living as husband and wife at A-65, Nawada Sainik Nagar, Delhi. On 11.09.2017 Nick informed prosecutrix that in context of some work he has to go to Banglore and he left. Prosecutrix alleged that thereafter Nick took Rs. 70,000/- cash, one gold ring and pair of gold kundal of 3 tolas alongwith him. On 08.10.2017 Nick informed prosecutrix that he is getting married. Prosecutrix alleged that from 16.05.2016 to 11.09.2017 accused stayed with her and established physical relations with her on pretext of marriage.
Judgment 2 of 6 SC No: 113/18 State Vs. Nirmal @ Nickdosen
3. After registration of case, prosecutrix was medically examined. Her statement was also got recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement prosecutrix alleged that accused on pretext of marriage committed rape on her. Accused was arrested and charge-sheeted. Charge for offence punishable U/s 376(2) (n)/380 IPC was framed against accused.
4. Prosecution examined prosecutrix as PW1. She deposed that since 2013 she was working in Indolite Devices Pvt. Ltd as HR and Sales Coordinator. She deposed that on 20.04.2016 accused Nirmal came for an interview and he was interviewed by her and selected for a job of Sales Executive. Thereafter, prosecutrix and accused became close friends. Prosecutrix deposed that she and accused started staying together in a rented accommodation in Nawada and also established physical relations. She further deposed that after sometime accused started demanding money from her and on one pretext or other he used to Judgment 3 of 6 SC No: 113/18 State Vs. Nirmal @ Nickdosen take money and later on started avoiding her. She further deposed that when accused stopped picking her calls, on the advice of her friends she lodged the present complaint. She proved her complaint Ex. PW1/A. Her medical examination vide MLC Ex. PW1/B and her statement U/s.164 Cr.P.C as Ex. PW1/C. She proved arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW1/D and his personal search memo as Ex. PW1/E. She proved copy of her appointment letter as Ex.PW1/F and photo I-card is Ex.PW1/G. She also deposed that relationship between her and accused was consensual and it is only on the asking of her friends she filed the present complaint.
5. Since prosecutrix did not support prosecution case, she was declared hostile. In cross-examination of prosecutrix, nothing incriminating came out in evidence against accused. Prosecutrix maintained that accused did not commit rape upon her.
Judgment 4 of 6 SC No: 113/18 State Vs. Nirmal @ Nickdosen
6. As the prosecutrix did not support case of prosecution, examination of other witnesses was dispensed with. Statement of accused U/s.313 Cr.PC was not recorded as there is no incriminating evidence against him.
7. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused entire material on record.
8. Prosecutrix deposed that she became friends with accused and thereafter started residing with him in a rented accommodation. Prosecutrix categorically deposed that her physical relationship with accused was consensual and when accused started avoiding her, on advise of her friends she lodged present case.
Judgment 5 of 6 SC No: 113/18 State Vs. Nirmal @ Nickdosen
9. In light of the testimony of prosecutrix, it is evident that prosecutrix had consensual sex with accused. As such, accused cannot be held guilty for committing rape upon her. Accordingly, accused stands acquitted. His personal bond is canceled. In terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., accused is directed to furnish personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in like amount for a period of six months.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 05th day of March, 2018. Digitally signed
GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN (GAUTAM MANAN)
MANAN Date: 2018.03.05
15:35:38 +0530 ASJ (SFTC) /SOUTH WEST
DWARKA COURTS:DELHI
Judgment 6 of 6