Delhi District Court
(A) Ipc And Directions Of Supreme Court ... vs . on 20 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL FTC - 2 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
Case No. 299/2017
Assigned to Sessions. 15.04.2017
Arguments heard on 20.05.2017
Date of Judgment 20.05.2017
FIR No. 292/2016
State v. Dr. Rajveer Singh, S/o. Ratan Singh,
R/o. H. No. 39B, Sector 44A,
Chandigarh.
Police Station Pahar Ganj
Under Section 376 IPC
JUDGMENT
1.In the present case Station House Officer of Police Station had filed the challan vide FIR No.292/2016 dated 27.07.2016 u/s 376 IPC for the prosecution of accused Dr. Rajveer Singh in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and section 207 Cr. P.C. had already been complied with by Ld. M.M. Since, this court is a Special Fast Track Court for trial of the cases pertaining to crime against women, hence this case was sent by Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to this court for trial. Keeping in view of section 228 (A) IPC and directions of Supreme court in "State of Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) SCC 475" and "Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. 2006, CRLJ. 2913", the name of prosecutrix is not being given in the judgment.
2. The fact shorn of unnecessary detail are as under :
Case No.299/2017 1/7State Vs. Dr. Rajveer Singh
3. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of prosecutrix Ex.PW1/A where prosecutrix alleged that she came into contact with accused through matrimonial site, shaadi.com and thereafter, from 22.04.2016 accused started talking to her on mobile phone. It is further stated that accused proposed to marry her and asked her to meet him in Delhi and at that time he was posted as a Doctor in some hospital in Jodhpur.
4. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 12.06.2016 accused came to Delhi. Firstly accused met her at GTB Nagar Metro Station and from there he took her to a room in hotel namely TwentyTwenty Hotel, Pahar Ganj, Delhi and after dropping her in room no. 103 in the said hotel, he went somewhere and after sometime he returned and took her to room no. 106 stating that air condition of room no. 103 was not working. PW1 further deposed that accused consumed liquor in the room and established physical relation with her forcibly. It is further alleged in the complaint that thereafter, accused has refused to marry her and blocked his mobile number and abused her. It is further stated in the complaint that by aggrieving by this act of accused, on 19 th June she made a call on 100 number but she had not given any her statement and she had washed her clothes which she was wearing on the day incident and she sought legal action against the accused.
5. On the basis of complaint of prosecutrix Ex.PW1/A, present FIR No.292/16 u/s. 376 IPC was registered against the accused.
Case No.299/2017 2/7State Vs. Dr. Rajveer Singh CHARGE:
6. On the basis of material available on record, this court vide order dated 27.04.2017 framed a charge against accused for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
7. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 01 witness namely PW1 Prosecutrix 'L'.
8. PW1: Prosecutrix 'L', is a material witness being victim and complainant. This witness deposed that she is graduate and she came into contact with accused through matrimonial site, shaadi.com and thereafter, from 22.04.2016 accused started talking to her on mobile phone. This witness has correctly identified the accused present in th court.
9. PW1 further deposed that accused proposed to marry her and asked her to meet him in Delhi and at that time he was posted as a Doctor in some hospital in Jodhpur.
10. PW1 further deposed that on 12.06.2016 accused came to Delhi.
Firstly accused met her at GTB Nagar Metro Station and from there he took her to a room in hotel namely TwentyTwenty Hotel, Pahar Ganj, Delhi and after dropping her in room no. 103 in the said hotel, he went somewhere and after sometime he returned and took her to room no. 106 stating that air condition of room no. 103 was not working. PW1 Case No.299/2017 3/7 State Vs. Dr. Rajveer Singh further deposed that accused consumed liquor in the room and established physical relation with her.
11. On Court Question: Was the aforesaid physical relation established by accused with you with your consent? In reply, this witness deposed that Yes. It was consensual as accused had promised to marry her and she had also accepted his proposal.
12. PW1 further deposed that they stayed in the said hotel for about 23 hours and accused had not made her any obscene video or clicked any such photograph, nor he threatened her at any point of time during her relation with him and from the said hotel she returned to her home. Thereafter, accused continued to have relation with her. This witness has proved her complaint vide Ex.PW1/A.
13. On Question: Why did you make the said complaint against the accused when the aforesaid physical relation established by him was with your consent? In reply, this witness deposed that after the aforesaid incident when she reminded the accused to marry her, he sought some time to solemnize the marriage and she became suspicious that he was avoiding her and that he would not marry her and for that reason she had lodged the present complaint.
14. PW1 has proved her MLC vide Ex.PW1/B. This witness further deposed that she had not stated anything to the doctor who had conducted her medical examination.
Case No.299/2017 4/715. PW1 has proved her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW1/C.
16. On Question: Why did you level the same allegations in your statement Ex.PW1/C recorded by Ld. Magistrate when the aforesaid physical relation established by the accused was with your consent? In reply, this witness deposed that after the aforesaid incident when she reminded the accused to marry her, he sought some time to solemnize the marriage and she became suspicious that he was avoiding her and that he would not marry her and for that reason she had given the said statement.
17. This witness was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for State. In her cross examination by Sh. A.T. Ansari, Ld. Addl. PP for State, this witness had denied to the suggestion that after consuming liquor in the aforesaid hotel, accused established physical relationship with her forcibly or that he had also served her glass of water laced with some sedative or that after consuming the same she developed giddiness and started crying. This witness had further denied to the suggestion that when she started crying accused raised the volume of the T.V. or that she also sustained tooth bite marked caused by the accused or that accused also made her obscene video. Her statement Ex.PW1/C was confronted.
18. This witness had denied to the suggestion that she had also stated in her complaint Ex.PW1/A that after consuming liquor in the aforesaid hotel, accused established physical relationship with her forcibly. Her Case No.299/2017 5/7 State Vs. Dr. Rajveer Singh complaint Ex.PW1/A was confronted on this fact.
19. This witness had further denied to the suggestion put by Ld. Addl. PP for the state that she is deliberately concealing the true facts of the case and deposing falsely that she had lodged the present complaint as accused was seeking more time to marry her or that the physical relation established by him was done with her consent. This witness had further denied to the suggestion that since she has married the accused and for that reason she is deposing falsely.
20. Ld. counsel for accused requests to close P.E. as prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution.
21. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has objected to the prayer of ld. counsel for accused and seeks permission to examine other witnesses to prove the case of prosecution. Heard.
PERUSAL OF RECORD:
22. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that prosecutrix examined and discharged. From close scrutiny of testimony of prosecutrix, the star witness of this case, no incriminating evidence has come on record to proceed further. Hence, in these circumstances further trial of case would not serve any purpose. Hence, the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State is declined and P.E. is closed.
23. Since no incriminating evidence has come on record. Hence, S.A. u/s Case No.299/2017 6/7 State Vs. Dr. Rajveer Singh 313 Cr. P.C. is dispensed with. Accused Dr. Rajveer Singh is acquitted from the charge u/s 376 IPC.
24. Accused is directed to execute bail bond u/s 437 A Cr. P.C. in sum of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
25. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.05.2017.
(RAMESH KUMARII) ASJ/SFTC2(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Case No.299/2017 7/7