Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay & Ors. on 2 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE: NDPS:
TIS HAZARI COURTS:(WEST) DELHI
FIR no.330/09
Police station : Nangloi
U/s 364 /364 A / 365 / 376 IPC
State V/s Sanjay & ors.
2. Name of the accused : 1) Sunil Jha S/o Devkant Jha R/o H.
and parentage no. 217 Village Shabad, Daulatpur,
Outer Delhi 2) Krishan Kumar S/o
Late Shri Subey Singh R/o 283 / 23
Take Nagar Shivaji Colony near
Rohtak Railway Station Rohtak
Haryana 3) Parmanand @ Param S/o
Dalley Ram R/o H. no. 237/23 Take
Nagar Shivaji Colony near Rohtak
Railway Station Rohtak , Haryana 4)
Saroj (P.O) W/o Shri Randhir Singh
R/o H. No 283/23 , Shivaji Colony
near Railway Station Rohtak Haryna
5) Sanjay Jha S/o Shri Dev Kant Jha
R/o VPO DhanKhor Persa , PS Ganoli
, Distt. Madhubani, Bihar 6) Vinod
Mandal S/o Raslal, R/o Vill. Devdhva
, PS Ganoli, Distt. Madhubani Bihar
7)Savitri Devi W/o Dev Kant Jha R/o
Vill. Dhankor Persa, PO Ganoli,
Distt. Madhubani , Bihar (Expired
before committal proceedings)
3. Date of commission of :
offence 16.8.2009
FIR no. 330/09 Page 1/7
2
4.Arguments concluded : 02.08.2011
on
5. Date of Judgment : 02.08.2011
6. Date of final order : 02.08.2011
JUDGMENT
The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Anita Devi made a complaint to the police on 22.8.2009 alleging that on 16.8.2009 at about 11. 00 a.m her daughter Manju had left her home stating that one Sunil has made a telephone from mobile number 9818597163 and she was going in search of job ; her daughter did not return and was untraceable despite her search at all places; she has lodged a missing report vide DD no. 36 A . It is further alleged by her that at about 7.30 p.m she received a telephonic call from abovesaid telephone number at her mobile number 9711906409 and caller informed that her daughter is with them and would return safely within one week , in case she lodged a report to the police , her daughter would be killed. Accordingly, she made a request not to conduct an inquiry as her daughter was under threat of death. 2 On the basis of her complaint case the FIR was registered U/s FIR no. 330/09 Page 2/7 3 364IPC in police station. Nangloi . During investigation on 04.8.2009 accused Sanjay was arrested near Railway Station , Rohtak , Haryana and at his instance other accused persons including accused Saroj (now deceased ) was arrested and all the accused persons made a disclosure with regard to the commission of offence and from their possession daughter of the complainant Manju and two more girls Roma and Sanjeeta were also recovered . Manju, daughter of the complainant was got medically examined and her statement u/s 161 Cr. PC was got recorded. In her statement, she has alleged rape upon her by the accused persons . Accordingly , investigation was converted U/s 364/ 364 A/365/376/34 IPC 3 After completion of the investigation a chargesheet was filed . On 01.10.2010 after hearing Ld. counsel and Ld. APP for state accused Sanjay and accused Parmanand were separately charged for gang rape U/s 376 (2) (g) IPC and accused Sanjay and Parmanad were separately charged U/s 120 B / 364/120 B 364 A /120 B /366/120 B506/120 B /323/120 B IPC . Accused Parmanand @ Param , Sunil Jha and Krishan Kumar were separately charged U/s 120 B /364/120 B /364 A /120 B /366/120 B /506/120 B /323/120 B IPC . All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4 In order to prove its case , prosecution has examined in total 6 witnesses. PW1 HC Amba Dass has recorded the FIR in the said FIR no. 330/09 Page 3/7 4 case ; PW2Ct. Sunil has deposed that accused Sanjay was arrested and a search was conducted at the house of Parmanand where Manju , the prosecutrix was found. He further deposed that on interrogation accused Sanjay disclosed that accused Saroj , Vinod Kishan and Sunil and Dharmver also accompanied them . He further stated that accused Sanjay was arrested in his presence.
5 PW3 Indresh Kumar Mishra has given FSL report Ex. PW3/A and serological report Ex. PW3/B . PW4 Ct. Sunil has also joined investigation and he alongwith HC Rajender reached at the house of accused Parmanand and accused Parmand was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex. PW4/A and his personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW4/B and has also made a disclosure statement Ex. PW4/C .
6 PW5 X - Prosecutrix whose statement was recorded in Camera proceedings has not supported the prosecution case and has not identified the accused persons as those persons who has allegedly kidnapped her and committed rape upon her. When she was asked to identify the accused persons who had forcibly taken away her to Rohtak and committed rape upon her after wrongfully confining her , on seeing the accused persons present in the court she has stated that none of those five accused persons who committed rape upon her was among these five persons seen by her . She categorically stated that FIR no. 330/09 Page 4/7 5 Sunil was not among them. She has denied the suggestion that the accused persons present in the court were the same persons who had committed rape upon her. She further stated in cross examination by Ld. APP for State that she did not state before the Ld. MM about the manner of rape committed by those five persons. With regard to her statement recorded by police in her cross examination she has stated that police had obtained her signatures on blank papers and nothing was written when she has signed the same. Thus, nothing was elicited in her cross examination by Ld. APP for state so as to link the accused persons with the offence alleged.
7 Similarly, PW6 complainant Anita Devi has also not supported the prosecution case stating that her daughter did not disclose her the name of any person who had called her to get the job . She further deposed that she did not receive any call from any person with regard to her daughter . She further stated that her daughter did not disclose any incident ever happened with her . She was also cross examined by Ld. APP for state but nothing was elicited in his cross examination so as to link the accused persons with the offence alleged.
8 Ld. counsel appearing for the accused persons including Ms. Kirandeep Kaur Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Parmanand has submitted that no purpose would be served by examining remaining FIR no. 330/09 Page 5/7 6 formal witnesses because the prosecutrix and her mother complainant has not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted by Ld. counsel for the accused persons that all the accused persons are in Judicial custody for the last more than one year and further submitted that since no incriminating evidence has been brought on record against the accused persons so as to link the accused persons with the offence alleged and remaining witnesses are formal witnesses ; therefore , prosecution has failed in proving the charge against the accused persons and accordingly accused persons be acquitted.
9 I have also heard Ld. APP for state and gone through the evidence of PW5 Manju and PW6 Anita Devi material witnesses of this case. Both witnesses have turned hostile with regard to the involvement of the accused persons in the offence they are charged with. The girl -X has not identified the accused persons as those persons who had forcibly taken her to Rohtak and wrongfully confined her and committed rape on various dates . Similarly , PW6 Anita Devi , mother of the girlX has not supported the prosecution case and nothing was elicited in the cross examination of these two material witnesses. The remaining witnesses are formal witnesses . Since all the accused persons are in Judicial custody since arrest and no purpose would be served by examining formal witnesses. FIR no. 330/09 Page 6/7 7 10 In these facts and circumstances , prosecution evidence is closed . The evidence brought on record is not sufficient to link the accused persons with the offence alleged . The prosecution has thus failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused persons are entitled to be given benefit of doubt and are accordingly acquitted. They are in judicial custody and be released , if not wanted in any other case.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2nd day of August , 2011 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ASJ/SPECIALJUDGE:NDPS (WEST)DELHI FIR no. 330/09 Page 7/7 8 FIR no. 330/09 Page 8/7