Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohit Chopra.//Sc No. 57777/16//Fir ... on 18 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT (NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO : 57777/2016
STATE
VERSUS
MOHIT CHOPRA
S/O. SH. MADAN LAL CHOPRA
R/O. B20, OLD GUPTA COLONY,
MODEL TOWN, DELHI.
FIR NO. : 69/14.
POLICE STATION : MODEL TOWN.
U/S. : 376/328 IPC.
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 28.04.2014
Date on which Judgment reserved : 09.01.2020
Date on which Judgment announced : 18.01.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Prosecution case is that accused and victim used to reside in neighbouring colonies. He was employed in Sagar Ratna restaurant, Pitampura. His mother met victim first time in Ashok Vihar. His parents initiated talks of his marriage with victim by visiting her house in July, 2013. Due to death of her father on 20.06.2013, their marriage was fixed which was to be solemnized after eleven months. Accused's mother used STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 1 OF 12 to encourage her to meet her son in Sagar Ratna restaurant. He took her to a room in Pitampura on 23.10.2013 and served cold drink after consuming of which she felt inebriated and in that condition, physical relations were established by the accused. Thereafter, physical relations had taken place in that room several times, on the threat that if she did not consent for the same, the accused would not marry her. Mother of the accused used to encourage her for that kind of relationship saying that they were going to be married shortly. Sex took place between them in the house of the accused also whenever his parents were away from home. When her mother and brother visited the house of the accused on 17.01.2014, his mother demanded money saying that they had to purchase a house for which the money was deficient. When she informed police on 100 number, his parents sought forgiveness from him and accused undertook in writing that he would marry her in August, 2014 and that he would not live with his family members as he had been thrown out of his house by his parents.
2. On 02.04.2016, charge u/s. 328/376 IPC was framed against accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses.
4. As PW1, the prosecutrix deposed that when she was sitting outside the office of DCP, NorthWest, Ashok Vihar in 2013, accused and his mother were also there. Mother of accused took her phone number and started ringing her up. Mohit Chopra started calling her on STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 2 OF 12 mobile phone from his official landline number. She further deposed that on 16.06.2013, mother of accused invited her on the birthday of accused but she refused as her father was seriously ill.
She further deposed that her father expired on 20.6.2013 and Rasam Pagdi was attended by accused and his parents at Hanumaan Mandir, New Gupta Colony, Delhi. After 15 days, accused and his parents came to her home and talked about her engagement with accused but her mother did not agree. Accused's mother insisted for Roka with simple ceremony and she gave Rs.1100/ as Roka to her. Then, accused started meeting her frequently and mother of accused started treating her as daughterinlaw and asked her to do their household chores. She further deposed that she used to take parents of accused in hospital for treatment and to market in her car.
She further deposed that on 23.10.2013, on the asking of accused Mohit, she went to a room situated behind Sagar Ratna restaurant where he offered her cold drink after consuming of which she felt giddiness and accused established physical relation with her and when she regained consciousness, he asked her not to worry, as they had already been engaged and going to marry very soon. She further deposed that she told about the incident to the mother of accused and she encouraged her to enjoy the life as they were already engaged. Accused also took her to his house at B20, Old Gupta Colony, Delhi in the absence of his parents and established physical relations.
She further deposed that on 17.01.2014, her brother and STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 3 OF 12 mother went to the house of accused for fixing the date of her marriage with accused as her mother wanted marriage within a month but parents of accused told them that they would get married accused after six months after purchasing new house and due to that reason, heated arguments took place between her brother and mother and parents of accused. Thereafter she went to PS and where a lady official of an NGO met her and on her dictation, she lodged complaint Ex.PW1/A. She was medically examined in BJRM hospital where she refused for internal medical examination and then her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/B was recoded. She deposed that police obtained her signatures on plain and printed papers.
PW1 Madan Lal Chopra deposed that IO SI Sarita came to his house and asked him to give the mobile phone of his son Mohit and he handed over Nokia mobile phone alongwith SIM to her in the PS and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/A. PW5 Nirmal Chopra is the mother of accused Mohit Chopra deposed that she did not know anything else about the case.
PW3 Amit Dilawari, brother of the prosecutrix, deposed that his sister was engaged with accused Mohit Chopra in 2013 but his father expired after few months of their engagement. After demise of his father, he sought eleven months time for marriage. Later on, he came to know that accused was Manglik and so, his mother cancelled the marriage.
PW4 Bobby Beniwal deposed that in April, 2013, he rented out one room of third floor of his house no. 58A, situated in village STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 4 OF 12 Pitampura to one Joseph who was working in Sagar Ratna restaurant, Pitampura. Joseph resided there till December 2013 alongwith his friend namely Prem. He did not know who else used to visit the house as he used to visit that premises to collect rent.
5. PW6 Dr. Virender, Assistant Director (documents), FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that two sealed parcels sealed with the seal of SSK were marked to him for examination. Seals were intact as per specimen seal. He examined the said documents carefully and thoroughly with scientific instruments and retrieved the deta from the exhibits and converted the same into a DVD Mark DVD1 and prepared detailed report Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed that after examination, the exhibits were sealed with the seal of DOC FSL.
PW8 Dr. C.P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that he conducted auditory analysis of recorded speech samples of speakers i.e. accused and prosecutrix and prepared detailed report dated 19.12.2014 Ex.PW8/A and after examination, the case exhibits were sealed with the seal of Dr.C.P. SinghFSLDelhi and were sent back to the IO.
6. PW7 IO SI Sarita deposed that on 27.01.2014, a complaint Ex.PW1/A was marked to her vide DD no.42B and accordingly, she made enquiry from the prosecutrix and sent her alongwith W/Ct. Poonam to BJRM hospital for medical examination. After examination, Ct. Poonam handed her over MLC Ex.PX1 and she prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A and handed over to duty officer who registered the FIR STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 5 OF 12 Ex.PX10.
She further deposed that on 28.01.2014, SI Sangeeta got recorded statement of prosecutrix u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. and on 30.01.2014, she inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plans Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C at the instance of prosecutrix. Thereafter, on 02.02.2014, prosecutrix came to police station and handed over her one CD and its transcript which she seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/D. Transcript of the contents are Ex.PW7/E1 and Ex.PW7/E2.
She further deposed that on 11.02.2015, accused was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PX8 and Ex.PX9 and his disclosure statement Ex.PW7/F was recorded and he pointed out both places of occurrence consequent to which pointing out memo Ex.PW7/G were prepared. On 17.02.2014, she got conducted the potency test of accused and doctor handed over his blood sample in sealed condition which she took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/H. On 25.02.2014, she seized mobile phone make LG of prosecutrix alongwith SIM card and memory card vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/J. She further stated that on 26.02.2014, she seized mobile phone make Nokia of accused alongwith SIM card vide memo Ex.PW7/K. On 02.04.2014, accused Mohit Chopra and prosecutrix were taken to FSL, where their voice samples were taken in two separate audio cassettes and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A and on 04.03.2014, all the exhibits were to FSL, Rohini through constable vide RC No.116/21/14 and 2/21/14. She further deposed that she collected the copies of CDRs of mobile phone of STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 6 OF 12 prosecutrix and accused and placed the same on file as Ex.PX3, PX4 and PX5. She recorded the statement of witnesses, completed investigation and filed chargesheet. Sh relied upon FSL results as Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW6/A.
7. On 09.05.2019, the accused admitted following statements/ documents / proceedings U/s 294 Cr.P.C.: S. No Name of the Documents Admitted Denied Exhibited i. MLC No. 72871 of the Yes Ex.PX1 prosecutrix prepared and containing observations of PWs Dr. Munindar Kumar, Dr. Mallika and Dr. Basanti Kumari ii. Potency Test bearing Yes Ex.PX2 Opinion No. 26/14 prepared by Dr. Bhim Singh iii. CAF of mobile no. Yes Ex.PX3, Ex.PX4 and 9811732881 of the Ex.PX5 (colly.) accused, mobile no. respectively 9711727022 of the prosecutrix and their CDRs iv. Statement under Section Yes Ex.PX6 161 Cr.P.C. of PW W/Ct.
Poonam, who got the
prosecutrix medically
examined at BJRM
Hospital
v. Statement under Section Yes Disclosure Ex.PX7 (statement U/s
161 Cr.P.C. of PW Ct. statement 161 Cr.P.C.), Ex.PX8
Sidharth, in whose and (arrest memo of the
presence, accused was pointing out
STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 7 OF 12
arrested and who got memos are accused) and Ex.PX9
conducted medical denied (personal search memo
examination of the of the accused).
accused at BJRM
Hospital
vi. PW HC Karambir, Duty Yes Ex.PX10 (FIR)
Officer who registered
FIR No. 69/14
vii. Ms. Shunali Gupta, Ld. Yes Ex.PX11 and Ex.PX12
ACMM who conducted respectively
the proceedings U/s 164
Cr.P.C. & issued
Certificate regarding
correctness dated
28.01.2014
viii. DD No. 57 dt. Yes Ex.PX13 and Ex.PX14
17.01.2014 and DD No. respectively
31B dated 18.01.2014,
both PS Model Town,
registered by PW/SI
Kuldeep Singh
8. Under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused admitted that PW1 his father had handed over his phone Ex.P1 make Nokia alongwith SIM to IO SI Sarita vide memo Ex.PW1/A. He further admitted that he was taken to the FSL by police officials for taking his voice sample but his voice sample was taken forcibly.
9. Accused Mohit Chopra placed on record following documents by appearing in witness box as DW1:
(a). Ex.DX1 (colly. 9 pages) is the certified copy of judgment dated 98.11.2019 passed in FIR No.739/14, U/s. 323/341/506 IPC, PS Model Town registered by STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 8 OF 12 victim against his mother.
(b) Ex.DW1/2 (colly. 14 pages) is the certified copy of chargesheet of FIR No.414/14, U/s. 376 IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS - Model Town registered by the victim against him and his parents.
(c) Ex.DW1/3 (colly. 14 pages) is the certified copy of Judgment dated 24.10.2019 passed in FIR No.414/14, u/s. 376 IPC & section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS - Model Town, registered by the victim against him and his parents.
(d) Ex.DW1/4 (colly. pages) is the certified
copy of chargesheet of FIR No.368/18, U/s.
376/177/323 IPC, PS - Swaroop Nagar registered by the victim against one Sh. Pramod Kumar.
(e) Ex.DW1/5 (colly. 44 pages) is the certified copy of ordersheets, joint statement, statementcum affidavits, copy of petition u/s. 11 of HMA and accompanying documents, in a case titled as Shilpa Vs. Kunwar Abhishek Singh.
10. As per chargesheet, the case of the prosecution is that accused and victim were engaged and after engagement, the accused established physical relations with her promising that he would marry her. When the mother and brother of the victim visited his house for STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 9 OF 12 fixing marriage date, his mother demanded money and refused to marry him with the victim.
But the deposition of the prosecutrix is exactly opposite. In examinationinchief dated 06.03.2017, she deposed that accused called her to Sagar Ratna restaurant, Madhuban Chowk on 23.10.2013 where she was offered a cold drink after consuming of which she felt giddiness and accused established physical relations with her in that condition. She further deposed that when she regained consciousness, accused asked her not to worry as they had already been engaged and were going to marry shortly. Her mother had also assured the same. She further deposed that accused had established relations in his house also on the same promise in the absence of his parents. When she was further examinedinchief on 31.10.2018, she deposed that she met accused again on 17.01.2014 after 23.10.2013. She used to meet him regularly and established physical relations with her full consent. When her brother and mother visited his house on 17.01.2014, her mother insisted for her marriage within one month but parents of the accused wanted to fix the marriage after six months as they wanted to purchase a new house first. Due to that reason, heated arguments took place between them and the matter reached to police.
In crossexamination, she deposed that her arranged marriage with the accused had to take place but it did not happen due to quarrel between the family members of both parties regarding the date of marriage. She further admitted it correct that accused never threatened STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 10 OF 12 her and demanded dowry. She next deposed that he established physical relations with her full consent and on one occasion, she accompanied him to Katra and stayed in a guest house namely Satya Guest House and established physical relations with full consent.
So, as per evidence of the prosecutrix, there was no promise of marriage by the accused before establishing physical relations with her. Even after establishing physical relations with her full consent, there was no refusal from his side to marry her. Rather, dispute arose between both families on the date of fixing of the marriage. It is pertinent to mention that accused and his family members were still ready to fix the date of marriage which could not happen due to dispute over the date of marriage.
11. PW3, brother of the victim deposed that after the death of his father in 2013, his family members asked the family members of the victim to postpone the marriage for 11 months. Later, he came to know that accused was 'maanglik' and so, his (PW3) mother canceled his sister's marriage with the accused. So, as per evidence of the PW3, the refusal for marriage of accused with victim was not from the side of accused or his family members but from the mother of the victim.
12. As per prosecutrix and her brother, there was no promise of marriage by the accused. Their evidence further suggests that there was no refusal from the accused or his family members for his marriage with the victim. There was some dispute over the date of marriage. Later, the mother of the victim came to know that accused was 'maanglik' and STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 11 OF 12 cancelled her daughter's marriage with him.
13. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.
14. Accordingly, accused Mohit Chopra is acquitted of the offences he was charged with.
The personal and surety bonds of the accused are hereby cancelled. Sureties are hereby discharged. The endorsement made, if any, on any document(s) of soundness of surety(s), be cancelled and the document(s) be returned to them.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by UMED UMED SINGH
SINGH GREWAL
Date: 2020.01.18
GREWAL 03:31:53 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Umed Singh Grewal)
On this 18th January 2020 ASJ: Special FTC (North)
Rohini Courts: Delhi
STATE VS. MOHIT CHOPRA.//SC NO. 57777/16//FIR NO.69/14// PS MODEL TOWN PAGE NO. 12 OF 12