Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Rajnesh, on 28 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 49/14.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0144432014.
State Vs. 1. Rajnesh,
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas,
R/o VPO Kanti Kheri, P.S. Ateli,
Distt. Mahendergarh,
Haryana.
2. Ram Niwas,
S/o Sh. Bane Singh,
R/o VPO Kanti Kheri, P.S. Ateli,
Distt. Mahendergarh,
Haryana.
3. Meena Devi,
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh,
R/o RZ-44, Gali No.1, Sainik Enclave,
Jharoda, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
Also at :
VPO Kanti Kheri, P.S. Ateli,
Distt. Mahendergarh,
Haryana.
Date of Institution : 04.6.2014.
FIR No. 218 dated 18.4.2014.
U/s. 376/313/366/328/354 IPC.
P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 27.2.2015.
Date of pronouncement : 28.2.2015.
SC No.49/14. Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. The above named accused Rajnesh, Ram Niwas and Meena Devi have been chargesheeted by the prosecution for the offences u/s.376/313/366/328/354 IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Meena Devi resides in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix namely 'R' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) and had been telling the prosecutrix that she would provide her employment. The prosecutrix had gone to the house of Meena Devi on 17.7.2012 at 10 a.m. as she had asked for certain documents. Upon reaching there, Meena Devi advised her to take two tablets which would help her to clear physical test scheduled for 20.7.2012. Accused Rajnesh was also present in the house of accused Meena Devi at that time. Upon taking the two tablets, prosecutrix felt restlessness as well as sleepy and hence slept then and there. When she woke up, she found that Meena Devi, Rajnesh and Meena's brother in law (Devar) had been taking her in a car. When she tried to raise alarm, they beat her, as a result of which she suffered injury in her ear. They made her to make telephonic call to her sister saying that she has solemnized marriage and they should not search for her. Accordingly, she made a call on the mobile phone no.07351349677 of her sister. She was kept in a house near Daliyavas Chowk, Ateli, in the night where Rajnesh committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Her marriage was forcibly solemnized with Rajnesh on 18.7.2012 and thereafter Rajnesh's mother paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Meena Devi. Rajnesh and his family members brought the prosecutrix to village Kheri, where she was confined for 15 days. Accused Rajnesh used SC No.49/14. Page 2 of 21 to have sexual intercourse with her continuously. Her father in law i.e. Rajnesh's father was having bad eye upon her and used to misbehave with her. She became pregnant in April, 2013. However, her parents in law used to beat her and forcibly administered abortion tablets to her and when she suffered excessive bleeding, she was taken to Sheela Hospital where her abortion was conducted. Thereafter, she assured them that she would not narrate anything to anybody and gained their confidence. Accordingly, Rajnesh brought her to the house of her sister at Jharoda Kalan on 12.3.2014 and she immediately narrated the whole incident to her sister. She also beat Rajnesh and he ran away.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that a written complaint of the prosecutrix was received in the police station on 15.4.2014, on the basis of which FIR was registered and the investigation was marked to SI Suman. She got the prosecutrix counselled by an official of NGO. Accused Rajnesh and his father Ram Niwas were arrested from their house in village Kheri, District Mahendergarh, Haryana, on 26.4.2014. Rajnesh was got medically examined in RTRM Hospital and the exhibits given by the doctor were seized. Const. Sampat was sent to District Mahendergarh for making inquiries from Pandit Sita Ram Sharma, who confirmed that he had solemnized the marriage of prosecutrix with accused Rajnesh on 18.7.2014. Inquiries were also made from Dr. Sheela Yadav in Yadav Nursing Home, Rewari, and the record of the Nursing Home was checked. Inquiries were also conducted by the IO from Lalita Memorial Hospital, Rewari, and from the office of CRPF where Meena Devi's husband was posted.
SC No.49/14. Page 3 of 214. Since accused Meena Devi could not be arrested, the IO prepared Charge Sheet against accused Rajnesh and submitted the same to the concerned Ld. M.M. Meanwhile, accused Meena Devi was also arrested on 15.5.2014 and thereafter a supplementary Charge Sheet was filed against her.
5. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Charge u/s.120B IPC, 328 IPC and u/s.366 IPC was framed against accused Meena Devi on 30.7.2014. On the same day, Charge u/s. 120B IPC, u/s.328 IPC, u/s.366 IPC, u/s.366 IPC, u/s.376 IPC, u/s. 344/34 IPC and u/s.313 IPC were framed against accused Rajnesh. On the same day, Charge u/s.344/34 IPC, u/s.313/34 IPC and u/s. 354 IPC were framed against accused Ram Niwas. All the accused denied the charges framed against them and claimed trial. Hence trial was held.
6. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. The accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.PC on 22.1.2015 wherein they denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication. Accused Rajnesh further stated that the prosecutrix solemnized marriage with him voluntarily on 18.7.2012 and thereafter sexual relations took place between them which were consensual. Accused examined witnesses in their defence. Besides accused Rajnesh also entered into the witness box as DW7.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for State, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire material on record.
SC No.49/14. Page 4 of 218. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW. The relevant portion of her examination in chief is reproduced hereunder :
"I am residing with my elder sister Prema at the aforesaid address since the last four years. I know accused Meena Devi present in court today. She resides in our neighbourhood. Her daughter Mamta is my friend. I used to visit their house to meet Mamta. The husband of Meena Devi is employed in CRPF. In the year 2012, Meena Devi told me that she would get me employed in CRPF. At that time, I was only Xth Pass. She asked me to handover my educational certificates to her. On 17.7.2012 I went to the house of Meena Devi in the morning. Her husband was present in the house at that time. One more boy i.e. accused Rajnesh (present in court today and correctly identified) was also present in the house at that time. I handed over my original educational documents to Meena Devi. She told me that I would have to prepare for physical test on 20.7.2012 and gave me two tablets to take saying that upon taking those, I would not face any difficulty in clearing the physical test. I consumed both the tablets. After sometime, I felt restlessness and was not in a position to go home. Accordingly, I slept then and there.
When I regained consciousness, I found myself in a moving car. Accused Meena Devi, accused Rajnesh and Meena Devi's brother in law (Devar) were also present in the car. After sometime, they stopped the car. I raised alarm and asked them where they are taking me. Upon this, accused Meena Devi hit me on my right ear, as a result of which I suffered injury in the ear and I am not still hearing properly from that ear. I saw a sign board on the side of the road, from which I came to know that the place is Ateli, Haryana. They took me to an STD Booth and made me to make a call to my sister telling her that I have solemnized marriage and they should not try to search for me. Thereafter, the accused took me to a house near SC No.49/14. Page 5 of 21 Daliyavas Chowk. There I was kept in a room for the night alongwith accused Rajnesh who committed sexual intercourse with me during the night forcibly. I started bleeding from my private part.
The next day i.e. 18.7.2012 I was taken to a temple by accused Meena Devi, accused Rajnesh and his parents where my marriage was solemnized with accused Rajnesh against my will and consent. After the marriage, when we came out of the temple, Rajnesh's mother paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Meena Devi in my presence. Thereafter, accused Meena Devi left for Delhi and Rajnesh as well as his parents brought me to village Kheri. They kept me confined in their house for 15 days. When my condition started worsening, they told me that I am not in a position to return home and asked me to live with accused Rajnesh happily. I too felt that it was in my destiny and decided to live with Rajnesh. Accused Rajnesh continued to have sexual relations with me. He used to take some tablets before having sex with me. He told me that he is suffering from some sexual deficiency and hence he is taking those tablets. Rajnesh got treatment for the said problem from Mayawati Hospital, Delhi. Rajnesh's father Sh. Ram Niwas used to have bad eye upon me. He used to molest me by catching hold of me by my waist etc. He used to tell me that if I agree to have physical relations with him, he would throw out his wife and son from the house.
In July, 2013 I came to know that I am pregnant. However, my parents-in-law used to beat me severely. Rajnesh's mother administered some abortion tablets to me, as a result of which I suffered bleeding. When the bleeding did not stop, they took me to a hospital in Rewari where abortion was conducted upon me against my consent. Then they took me back to their house in village Kheri.
I started residing happily with the accused in their house and gave them assurance that I would not narrate their misdeeds to anybody. They have got my Aadhar Card also prepared from the concerned authorities. I was made to appear in 12th class examination paper from Open University.
On 12.3.2014 accused Rajnesh brought me to SC No.49/14. Page 6 of 21 the house of my sister Prema. Accused Rajnesh told my sister that we have solemnized love marriage. However, I slapped Rajnesh and he left. I narrated my miseries to my sister. She called my parents. Thereafter I alongwith my sister and my parents reached the house of Meena Devi. She admitted having done all this and told us that she would call the parents of Rajnesh and I shall not have any problem thereafter. She called parents of Rajnesh but they told that they are not involved in all this. Thereafter we returned home. I did not have courage to lodge a complaint in the police station as I belong to a poor family. However, when I received support from all my family members, I mustered courage and visited the office of ACP Najafgarh on 14.4.2014 and submitted a written complaint to him which is Ex.PW2/A bearing my signature at point A. On 18.4.2014 I was called to P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar. I reached there and my statement was recorded. From the police station, I was taken to RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, where my medical examination was conducted. Next day i.e. on 19.4.2014 I was taken to Dwarka Court where I was produced before a Lady Magistrate, who recorded my statement."
9. She also proved her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC as Ex.PW2/B. She further deposed that she had taken the IO on 17.5.2014 to the hospital in Rewari where her abortion had been conducted and showed the doctor, who had conducted her abortion, to the IO.
10. In the cross examination, she, at first, deposed that the complaint Ex.PW2/A is in her handwriting but later on stated that it was written by one Kavita residing in her neighbourhood in presence of her sister Prema and cousin Ganga. She stated that the particulars mentioned in the Ration Card Ex.PW2/D1 of her father are true and correct. She denied that her name has been SC No.49/14. Page 7 of 21 deleted from the Ration Card of her father on 01.4.2013 and her father had obtained an NOC in this regard from village Sarpanch and handed over the same to accused Rajnesh. She also denied that her name has been added in the Ration Card of Rajnesh. She could not tell the name of the tablets given to her by accused Meena Devi saying that these were loose tablets. She had fallen asleep sometime after consuming the two tablets but could not tell the exact time. She stated that when she had left her house on 17.7.2012 to go to the house of Meena Devi, nobody was present in her house as her parents were at their native village and her sister had gone somewhere. She deposed that she had been kept in a house near Daliyavas Chowk on 18.7.2012 and thereafter was kept in the house of accused Rajnesh till 20.7.2012. She stated that the photographs Ex.PW2/D2, Ex.PW2/D3 and Ex.PW2/D4 were taken at the time of her marriage with Rajnesh on 18.7.2012. She admitted that she alongwith accused Rajnesh is seen in photograph Ex.PW2/D5 and she is also seen in photograph Ex.PW2/D6 but could not say where these photographs were taken. She deposed that she had appeared in Class-XII examination in October, 2013 and the examination centre was in a public school. She could not tell the exact location of the school. She had appeared in five examination papers and accused Rajnesh used to bring her to the examination centre in a car and used to take her back in the same car. She stated that a large number of students had appeared in the said examination at the said centre but she did not complain to any other fellow examinee or the invigilator at the examination centre that accused Rajnesh had forcibly confined her in his house. She had written answers to some of the questions and had not left answer sheet blank.
SC No.49/14. Page 8 of 21However, she had not written in any of the answer sheets that she had been abducted, forcibly married to accused Rajnesh and has been forcibly confined in his house by Rajnesh. She deposed that she had passed in that examination. She denied that she had attended any computer classes at Rewari.
11. She deposed that accused Rajnesh had once taken her to a private hospital at Rewari i.e. Lalita Hospital where her pregnancy was terminated. She was kept in a room of the hospital for one or two hours at the time of conduction abortion upon her. One lady doctor namely Dr. Seema and two Nurses were in the room at that time but she did not tell them that she had been abducted and forcibly confined in the house of the Rajnesh. She stated that accused Rajnesh used to make her to contact her parents and sister during the period of her confinement in Rajnesh's house. He used to force her to tell them that she is happy. She stated that her father and her sister used to make calls to her on the mobile number of Rajnesh in the evening hours but none of her family members had come to meet her. She admitted that accused Rajnesh had got prepared her Aadhar Card. She also admitted that her fingerprint impression and retina impression were taken in the computer at the time of preparation of Aadhar Card and this process was conducted by a boy in a school near Rajnesh's house. She did not tell that boy that she has been abducted and brought forcibly for preparation of Aadhar Card. She did not tell her parents and her sister during her telephonic conversation with them that they should make attempts to rescue her from the clothes of the accused. She had not counted the sum of Rs.30,000/- paid by Rajnesh's mother to Meena Devi outside SC No.49/14. Page 9 of 21 temple after her marriage with Rajnesh. She did not tell the Pandit in the temple that she has been abducted and her marriage is being performed forcibly. She stated voluntarily that she was threatened by the accused. She also stated voluntarily that after the marriage in the temple, she was taken to Tehsil office by the accused where her signatures were taken on an affidavit and a register. She did not tell anything to the person, who had taken her signatures on the register. She deposed that accused Rajnesh was doing a private job and used to go for work in alternate weeks. She used to hang washed clothes in the courtyard for drying purpose. She stated that her parents had told her that they would come to her rescue but on account of pressure of the accused, she told them not to come. She stated that she did not lodge any complaint with the police from 12.3.2014 to 14.4.2014. She further denied all the suggestions put to her by the Ld. Cross examining Counsel.
12. Prosecutrix's sister Smt. Prema has been examined as PW8. She is the elder sister of the prosecutrix. She deposed that about two years ago, prosecutrix 'R' was staying with her in her matrimonial house and one day when she returned home from work, she did not confine the prosecutrix in the house. She went to the house of neighbour Meena Devi to look for prosecutrix but Meena Devi was not present in the house and her husband told her that she has gone to her parental house. On the same day, the prosecutrix made a call to her elder sister Shyama in the evening saying that she has solemnized marriage and hence search should not be made for her. She further deposed that the prosecutrix returned to her house after about one and a half years alongwith SC No.49/14. Page 10 of 21 Rajnesh. Prosecutrix told her that she had been taken away by Meena Devi and was forced to marry Rajnesh. Prosecutrix also told her that Meena Devi was given Rs.30,000/- by Rajnesh. Accused Rajnesh told her that he and the prosecutrix have solemnized a love marriage. She stated that the prosecutrix became enraged and slapped Rajnesh whereafter Rajnesh left. Thereafter she took the prosecutrix to her parental house. Rajnesh was called to their house and he reiterated that he has solemnized love marriage with the prosecutrix. She stated that they could not lodge complaint on account of poverty and hence lodged the complaint after about one month.
13. In the cross examination, she deposed that she had not received any telephonic call from the prosecutrix on the day she disappeared. However, she received a call from the prosecutrix after about 5 to 6 months, who told her that she is confined and they should not look for her. She deposed that they did not lodge any complaint regarding disappearance of the prosecutrix as the prosecutrix had told her as well as another sister Shyama on phone that she is fine. She stated that the prosecutrix had been continuously making calls to her father saying that she is fine and they should not worry about her. She denied that her father had gone to Rewari and stayed with prosecutrix and Rajnesh for about one week and also had received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from Rajnesh for treatment of his wife. She stated that she did not make any call at telephone no.100 on the day when Rajnesh had brought the prosecutrix to her matrimonial house. She stated that complaint Ex.PW2/A was written by a lady residing in their neighbourhood. She did not know whether the SC No.49/14. Page 11 of 21 name of that lady is Kavita and whether she is working in Delhi Police. She further denied all the suggestions put to her.
14. PW3 Dr. Raj Kumar Yadav from Mayawati Hospital, Ateli Mandi, District Mahendergarh, Haryana. He deposed that the IO in this case had met him during the investigation of this case, made inquiries from him and he told the IO that he had not treated Rajnesh for any sex related disease. He had issued certificates Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B in this regard to the IO. He had also handed over the photocopy of the page dated 08.9.2014 of the OPD register Ex.PW3/C to the IO.
15. PW4 is Dr. Sheela Yadav, the owner of Yadav Nursing Home, Rewari, Haryana. She deposed that as per the records maintained in their Nursing Home, no lady by the name 'R' w/o Rajnesh had come to the hospital for operation in the month of April, 2013. She stated that she had issued a certificate Ex.PW4/A in this regard to the police officials, who had come to her for inquiries.
16. PW5 had conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix in RTRM Hospital on 18.4.2014 and proved her MLC as Ex.PW5/A. He deposed that he intended to refer the prosecutrix to Gyane Department for gynecological examination but she gave in writing that she does not want to undergo gynecological examination. She proved writing of the prosecutrix on the MLC from point X to X.
17. PW7 is a Stamp Vendor operating in the Court SC No.49/14. Page 12 of 21 Compound, District Court Narnaul, Mahendergarh, Haryana. He deposed that as per the register maintained by him regarding the sale of stamp papers, he had sold the stamp papers of Rs.10/- each bearing nos.24AA-113460 and 24AA-113461 in the name of Rajnesh and 'R' respectively vide Srl. Nos.12406 and 12407 of his register. He proved the copy of the relevant page of his register as Ex.PW7/A.
18. PW9 is the Sub Inspector in Food and Supply Department, Ateli Mandi, District Mahendergarh, Haryana. He deposed that as per the record maintained in their office, Ram Niwas s/o Sh. Bane Singh had applied for a Ration Card for his family consisting of four members including himself, apart from his wife, son and daughter. Accordingly, a Ration Card was issued in his name bearing No.261321. He further deposed that Ram Niwas submitted an application in their office on 31.3.2014 for deletion of the name of his daughter Monika and addition of his daughter in law 'R' in the Ration Card. Ram Niwas had also submitted a No Objection Certificate issued by Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Bhina, Post Office Rikwasi, Almora, in this regard and accordingly they deleted the name of Monika and added the name of 'R' in his Ration Card. He proved the photocopy of all the relevant documents as Ex.PW9/A. In the cross examination, he admitted that the photocopies of these documents were handed over by their office to police officials during the investigation of this case.
19. PW10 is Sh. Sanjay Yadav, Notary Public, District Court Narnaul, Haryana. He deposed that the affidavits of Rajnesh and 'R' were attested by him and these bear his seal as well as SC No.49/14. Page 13 of 21 signatures at points A1, A2, A3 & A4. He also deposed that he made entries regarding attestation of these affidavits in his register at Srl. Nos.390 and 391. He proved photocopy of the relevant page of his register as Ex.PW10/A. He stated that he had taken the signatures of Rajnesh and 'R' in relevant column of his register and they signed the register in his presence. In the cross examination, he deposed that the office of Superintendent of Police is situated in Mini Secretariat, Narnaul, which is situated in the court premises of District Court Narnaul. He also stated that there is a police chowki in the court premises. He deposed that both Rajnesh and 'R' had come to his home where he attested their affidavits and took their signatures on the register. He stated that 'R' admitted that she had solemnized marriage with Rajnesh and it did not appear that she was under any kind of force, pressure or threat.
20. These are material witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused.
21. The testimony of the prosecutrix if taken on its face value does not seem to be credible or trustworthy and does not inspire any confidence. She seems to be a prevaricate having fabricated a false story of abduction and forcible marriage for some ulterior reasons.
22. The prosecutrix has deposed that when she reached the house of Meena Devi on 17.7.2012 alongwith her original documents, Meena Devi gave her two tablets saying that by taking these tablets, she would not face any difficulty in clearing the SC No.49/14. Page 14 of 21 physical test scheduled for 20.7.2012 i.e. after three days of that day. The prosecutrix was 10th class pass and therefore not an illiterate lady. Even if a tablet had to be consumed to avoid any difficulty in clearing physical test, the same was to be done on 20.7.2012 itself, on which date she was to appear in physical test. The prosecutrix was expected to know that a tablet consumed on 17.7.2012 would no longer have the desired effect three days thereafter. Therefore the beginning of the prosecution case itself appears doubtful and not reliable.
23. It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was got forcibly married to accused Rajnesh in a temple on 18.7.2012 and after the marriage Rajnesh's mother paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Meena Devi. It appears that their marriage was solemnized by Pandit Sita Ram in Godawali Mandir, Rewari, Haryana. The IO had made inquiries from him during the course of investigation and also recorded his statement on 14.5.2014. Copy of his statement has been annexed alongwith Charge Sheet. However, he was not examined as a witness before this court even though he was cited as a witness in the Charge Sheet. In his statement u/s.161 Cr.PC, he has stated that the girl 'R' had told him that she is willing to marry Rajnesh and the marriage is being solemnized with her consent. It seems that since this witness has not stated in support of the prosecution case in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC, the Ld. APP thought it advisable to drop him. Further there are two original affidavits dated 24.7.2012 on record, which have been executed by accused Rajnesh and the prosecutrix 'R' wherein both have stated that they have solemnized marriage with each other on 18.7.2012 voluntarily and without any force or SC No.49/14. Page 15 of 21 allurement. These two affidavits were attested by PW10, who has deposed in his cross examination that the prosecutrix admitted to him that she has solemnized marriage with Rajnesh and it did not appear to him that she was under any kind of force, pressure or threat.
24. Though the prosecutrix has deposed that Rajnesh's mother paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Meena Devi in her presence yet she stated in the cross examination that she did not count the money. She has nowhere stated how did she say it was a sum of Rs.30,000/- if she had not counted the money. It seems that IO too didn't believe it and didn't find any evidence to support the said Charge and hence Rajnesh's mother was not made accused in this case.
25. The prosecutrix has admitted that the photographs Ex.PW2/D2, Ex.PW2/D3 and Ex.PW2/D4 were taken in the temple at the time of her marriage with Rajnesh on 18.7.2012. These photographs do not give any indication that the prosecutrix was made to go through the marriage ceremony forcibly and under threat.
26. So the prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent and trustworthy evidence to show that the prosecutrix had not solemnized marriage with accused Rajnesh on 18.7.2012 voluntarily but had been forced to go through the marriage ceremony.
27. It is the case of the prosecution itself that the SC No.49/14. Page 16 of 21 prosecutrix remained with accused Rajnesh in his house from 18.7.2012 till 12.3.2014 i.e. more than one and a half years. The time is too long and hence becomes very material. The evidence on record demonstrates that neither was she confined to any particular room of the house during this long period nor there was any restriction on her movements. She was not even precluded from talking to her parents and sisters on phone. Prosecutrix has admitted in her cross examination that she used to get calls from her father and her sister during this period regularly in evening hours and she used to tell the that she is happy. She has however deposed that the accused forced her to tell her parents that she is happy. However, the fact remains that parents and sister of the prosecutrix knew that she is staying with accused Rajnesh in his house. They had not participated in the marriage ceremony. They did not know how and in what circumstances is the prosecutrix staying with Rajnesh. Despite that they neither visited the house of accused Rajnesh to meet prosecutrix and see how she is staying there. They also did not lodge any complaint with the police and did not make any efforts to bring back the prosecutrix. The conduct of the parents and sister of the prosecutrix does not seem to be natural conduct and it also makes the prosecution case doubtful.
28. The prosecutrix has admitted in her cross examination that the accused Rajnesh had got prepared her Aadhar Card and for that purpose, her fingerprint impression as well as retina impression were taken in the computer in a school near Rajnesh's house. She did not tell the person, who took her fingerprint impression as well as retina impression that she is not legally SC No.49/14. Page 17 of 21 wedded wife of Rajnesh and she has been forcibly confined in the house of Rajnesh.
29. It is also evident from her testimony that accused Rajnesh had not restricted her movements at all. She has admitted that she used to hang washed clothes in the courtyard for drying purpose. She has deposed that accused Rajnesh used to go for his driving job in alternate weeks which implies that he used to leave her alone in the house in the alternate weeks. The prosecutrix has also deposed that her parents used to tell her that they would come to rescue her but on account of pressure of the accused, she advised them not to come. This is totally not understandable. She has nowhere deposed that the accused threatened her not to invite her parents to the house of the accused. If, in fact, she had been confined forcibly in the house of accused Rajnesh and was not staying there voluntarily, she would have readily told her parents to come and rescue her. Her advice to her parents not to come to the house of accused Rajnesh only indicates that she did not want her parents to come there and take her back.
30. Another important piece of evidence, which has come on record during the course of cross examination of the prosecutrix is that during the period she remained with accused Rajnesh, she had appeared in 12th class examination and also passed the same. This totally negatives the theory of abduction and forcible confinement as projected by the prosecutrix. It is a matter of common knowledge that neither the accused Rajnesh nor any of his relatives would have been present with her inside the examination hall when she was writing the answers to the SC No.49/14. Page 18 of 21 question paper. She could have easily told the invigilator or her fellow examinees or would have written in the answer sheets that she has been abducted and forcibly married to accused Rajnesh and she should be rescued. However, she admitted that she did not do either of these. The fact that she had passed the examination indicates that she had studied at home which would not have been possible if she was under forcible confinement and also being subjected to continuous forcible sexual intercourse by accused Rajnesh.
31. It is also manifest from the evidence on record that neither was any call made at telephone no.100 nor was any complaint lodged in the police station on 12.3.2014 when the prosecutrix was dropped at her sister's home by accused Rajnesh and she narrated her ordeal to her sister. The complaint has been filed in the police station on 15.4.2014 i.e. more than one month thereafter. The delay is very material and cannot be ignored. There is no explanation of such delay from the side of the prosecution. It appears that the prosecutrix submitted the complaint in the police station after due deliberation with her parents and sisters.
32. It is also material to note here that the name of the prosecutrix has been added in the Ration Card of Rajnesh's father Ram Niwas, regarding which Ram Niwas had submitted an application in the concerned office on 31.3.2013. PW9 has proved the record of Food & Supply Department, Ateli, District Mahendergarh, Haryana, in this regard as Ex.PW9/A. He has deposed that Ram Niwas had submitted a No Objection Certificate SC No.49/14. Page 19 of 21 issued by Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Bhine, Almora, to the effect that on account of marriage of the prosecutrix, her name has been deleted from the family register and her name may be added with her in-laws family. The deposition of PW9 shows that the parents of the prosecutrix were aware that she has married accused Rajnesh and for this reason, her name was deleted from the family register and accordingly NOC was issued by Village Sarpanch.
33. The IO SI Suman appearing as PW12 has deposed in her cross examination that she had made inquiries from the neighbours of the accused, who told her that the prosecutrix was residing in the house of the accused peacefully.
34. The assessment of the evidence led by the prosecution indicates that the prosecutrix had gone with accused Rajnesh voluntarily, solemnized marriage with him voluntarily and was staying with him as his wife voluntarily. The evidence on record also demonstrates that her parents were aware about her marriage with Rajnesh and for that reason, they did not make any effort to trace her and bring her back and also got her name deleted from the family register.
35. The allegation that the pregnancy of the prosecutrix was got forcibly terminated in Yadav Nursing Home, Rewari, is also not substantiated from the evidence led by the prosecution. PW4, the owner of Yadav Nursing Home, has deposed that no lady by the name 'R' w/o Rajnesh had been brought to their hospital for any operation in the month of April, 2013.
SC No.49/14. Page 20 of 2136. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against any of the accused. All the accused are liable to be acquitted and are hereby acquitted as such.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 28.2.2015. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.49/14. Page 21 of 21