Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Iqraruddin @ Nanna on 19 January, 2012
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 62/11
Unique ID No. : 02401R0483852011
State versus 1) Iqraruddin @ Nanna
S/o Sh.Tajuddin
R/o 1261, Gali Jamun Wali, Kala
Mahal, Daryaganj, Delhi.
2) Mohd.Zahid
S/o Mohd.Sayeed
R/o 2066, Ganj Meer Khan,
Chandni Mahal, Delhi. (Since PO)
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 89/10
Police Station : Chandni Mahal
Under Section : 323/342/354/506/376/511/328/366A/365/34 IPC
Judgment pronounced on : 19.01.12
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.09.2010 the complainant Mohd. Yusuf, father of the prosecutrix lodged a complainant at PS Chandni Mahal contending inter alia that on 2309.2010 at about 11:30 PM when he returned home from his work, he was informed by his son Asif that his daughter i.e. the prosecutrix is missing from the house since about 10:30 PM. He along with his son Asif started looking for the prosecutrix and found her in front of House No.1897, Gali Kolian Suiwalan, Delhi. The complainant further contended that at that time the prosecutrix appeared to be scared and her clothes were also torn. Upon being consoled she told the complainant that accused Ikraruddin would kill her if she would reveal anything. The complainant alleged that accused Ikrarruddin has criminally intimated his daughter and has also done 'cher Chaar' with her.
2. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint the present case was registered by the police under Section 354/506 IPC. The charge sheet further reveals that during the course of investigation, inquiries were made from the prosecutrix who was aged about 13 years and was interrogated and her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded, which revealed involvement of accused Ikrarruddin and his coaccused Jahid (since PO). The prosecutrix was got medically examined and her torn clothes were also taken into police possession. The statement of the prosecutrix was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC by producing her before the concerned Magistrate. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Ikrarruddin along with his coaccused Jahid (since PO) induced the prosecutrix to go along with them to House No.1897, Gali Kolian Suiwalan, Delhi at about 10:30 PM on 23.09.2010 when she had gone downstairs to answer the call of nature, both of them threatened to kill her in case she raise an alarm. They tore off her clothes after giving her something to drink, which was laced with intoxicant.
3. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC also the prosecutrix had alleged that both the accused also took off their clothes and showed her pornographic film and thereafter both of them raped her. She further stated that when she tried to raise an alarm, both the accused tied her mouth with a cloth and fled away while threatening to kill her in case she reveal the incident to anyone. It is further the case of the prosecution as is borne out from the charge sheet that both the accused were arrested and their blood samples were sent for forensic analysis, in addition to the samples collected pursuant to medical examination of the prosecutrix.
4. On the basis of material on record accused Ikrarruddin was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(G)/328/366A/342/506/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecutrix was examined as PW1 on 07.01.2012. At the time of recording of her deposition, the prosecutrix failed to support the case of the prosecution. A bare perusal of her testimony would reveal that the prosecutrix failed to identify accused Ikrarruddin and rather stated that an incident of 'Cher Chaar' had occurred some time in the beginning of year 2011 when three boys had done some 'cherkhani' with her and fled away from the spot. Upon being question as to what she understand by 'cherkhani', the prosecutrix had responded by stating that 'Unhone aage haath lagaya tha (peshab ki jagah)'. She identified her signatures on the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/A. However, she added at the same time that the aforesaid facts were stated by her as the residents of the locality were saying so. She further stated upon being crossexamined by the prosecution that she had stated the name of the accused Ikrarruddin on the basis of suspicion as the persons of the locality were naming him.
6. On the basis of the deposition of the prosecutrix, it is thus amply clear that there is absolutely no material to convict the accused Ikrarruddin for the offences with which he was charged. I have also perused the FSL result filed by the IO/ASI Krishan Kumar PS Chandni Mahal on record and a bare perusal thereof also reveals that the said report cannot be said to be an incriminating piece of evidence against the accused. The remaining witnesses cited by the prosecution are admittedly not eye witnesses of the incident. Complainant who is the father of the prosecutrix has also admittedly not witnessed the incident in question and had narrated the facts at the time of recording of his complaint dated 24.09.2011, as told to him by the prosecutrix. Accordingly, no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the complainant as a witness inasmuch as his deposition would certainly be nothing more than hearsay, and thus inadmissible in evidence. The remaining witnesses cited by the prosecution pertain to the investigation and the medical examination of the prosecutrix and their deposition, even if recorded, would also not serve any fruitful purpose as they would not be able to throw any light upon the offence allegedly committed by the accused.
7. In the light of the aforesaid observations and in the absence of any incriminating material on record against the accused, recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC is hereby dispensed with. Further, for the foregoing reasons particularly in the light of deposition of the prosecutrix who has failed to identify the accused, I find that there is no material on record whatsoever for convicting the accused for the offence with which he was charged. Consequently, accused Ikrarruddin @ Nanna is hereby acquitted of the aforesaid charges. File be consigned to record room with directions for its revival in the event of arrest of coaccused Javed who is Proclaimed Offender.
Announced in the Open Court on January 19, 2012 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.