Delhi District Court
State vs Naved on 10 February, 2016
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC - 2 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 63/2015
Unique ID No. : 02401R0674232015
State versus Naved
S/o Mohd. Sarif
R/o H.No.1240, Churiwalan,
Chandni Mahal,
Delhi.
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 225/2015
Police Station : Chandni Mahal
Under Section : 376/S376(2)(n)/384/506 IPC
Judgment pronounced on : 10.02.2016
JUDGMENT
Prosecution Case:
1. Accused Naved has been facing trial in this case for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n)/506/384 IPC. The facts in brief are that on 01.09.2015 on receipt of DD No.42B, the investigation of this case was put into process and statement of the Prosecutrix 'G' (name withheld in order to protect her identity) (Ex.PW2/D) was recorded. She stated in her complaint that in the month of February, 2015 when she went to a shop at Chudiwalan for purchasing a new SIM card for her mobile phone, she met Accused and both of them started interacting with each other on phone. She also alleged in her complaint that she was called by Accused Naved at 1 PM at the shop No.1040 of Rotiwalan, Chitli Kabar, Delhi on the occasion of his birthday on 18th February, 2015. Thereafter, Accused took her to a room built above the said shop and committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly and that he also promised to marry her.
2. Complainant 'S' further alleged in her complaint that thereafter in the month of March, 2015 Accused again called her to the aforesaid room and tried to commit rape upon her and that when she tried to resist the acts of Accused, he threatened her that he had already made her objectionable video recording on 18.02.2015 and that if she did not obey him to establish physical relations with him, he would make her video public and he again committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. Thereafter, when she asked the Accused to handover the memory card containing her aforesaid video recording, the Accused further forced her to establish physical relations with her in lieu of handing over the said video recording to her. She further alleged in her complaint that after the aforesaid two incidents, she got frightened and did not disclose the incident to her parents and thereafter when she repeatedly asked the Accused to handover the memory card containing her objectionable video, he did not give it to her.
3. Complainant also alleged that once Accused met her near her house and when she asked him to hand over the aforesaid memory Card, he demanded Rs.50,000/ and threatened her that he would not let her marry and that he would make her said video public. She kept on telephoning the Accused asking him to handover the aforesaid video to her, but Accused used to threaten her and further used to demand money from her. She also gave Rs.8000/ to the Accused in three installments, however, even after giving the said money, Accused kept on threatening her through SMS.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case under Section 376/384/506 IPC was registered against Accused Naved. Complainant was got medically examined and exhibits were collected from the hospital. Site plan of the place of incident was also prepared at the instance of the Prosecutrix. During the course of further investigation, accused Naved was arrested and his medical examination along with his potency test was also got conducted. Thereafter, after completion of investigation in all respects, charge sheet was filed before the court.
Charges:
5. Upon committal of the case and on the basis of material on record, accused Naved s/o Mohd.Sarif was charged for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)/506/384 IPC vide order dated 07.01.2015.
Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial when the charge was read over and explained to him.
Prosecution Evidence:
6. Prosecution examined 02 witnesses in support of its case, which include Duty Officer HC Rafeek Deen, who was examined as PW
1. He deposed regarding registration of the FIR on 01.09.2015 and proved its computerized copy as Ex.PW1/A and his subsequent endorsement on the same as Ex.PW1/B.
7. Prosecutrix 'G' was examined as PW2. She deposed that on 18.02.2015, while she had gone to buy SIM Card from a mobile shop at Shop No.1327, Churiwalan, Accued met her there and introduced himself as Naved. She further deposed that after their first meeting on 18.02.2015 at the aforesaid shop at Churiwalan, they developed friendship and started talking to each other on mobile phones. She also deposed that she had met the Accused at the aforesaid shop prior to her meeting with him on account of his birthday on 18.02.2015. On that day, Accused telephoned her on her mobile phone inviting her to celebrate his birthday in a room above the shop of 'Roti Wala' bearing Shop No.1040, Chitli Qabar, Delhi. She reached there at about 11:30 PM. Accused was already present in the said room. They celebrated the birthday of the Accused and also consumed birthday cake at the aforesaid room. She stayed there till 34 PM.
8. Prosecutrix/PW2 further deposed that during this period, Accused did nothing wrong with her and that they only talked and ate cake and thereafter, she returned to her house. Thereafter, she never visited the aforesaid room and after about a week or so, she along with Accused went to Deer Park. She also deposed that this was their last meeting and that Accused did not establish any physical relations with her.
9. During the examination of Prosecutrix/PW2 upon a court question put forth to her as to whether she is deposing voluntarily or that she is under any fear, pressure or coercion, she replied that she is deposing voluntarily and that she is not under any fear, pressure or coercion.
10. PW2 further deposed that Accused never threatened her that he had made any obscene video or that she never demanded any such video or memory card containing that video from him. In the same breath, she further deposed that Accused never threatened her to come to his house to establish physical relations with him and thereafter he would return the memory card containing her obscene video to her and that he also never demanded Rs.50,000/ to return any such video to her.
11. She further deposed that during her conversation with the Accused, he never promised to marry her and she never gave any statement to the police. She however, voluntarily deposed that police had obtained her signatures on the blank sheets of paper. She also identified her signatures on the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC (Ex.PW2/A) which was recorded before the learned MM and voluntarily deposed that she had given the said statement at the instance of the police as the police told her that she had to narrate the same facts which are already mentioned in her statement recorded by them (Ex.PW2/D) whereon her signatures were obtained.
12. PW2 further deposed that Accused also used to send her SMSes on her mobile phone, which was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. She also proved her MLC prepared by the doctor as Ex.PW2/C and further deposed that she never gave any money to the Accused and that Accused never sent any threatening messages to her. She lastly deposed that Accused never threatened to her to make her any obscene video public or demanded any money on that account. She also correctly identified her mobile phone which she handed over to the police, when showed to her in the court. The same has been exhibited as Ex.P1.
13. The Prosecutrix 'G' (PW2) was declared hostile by the Prosecution and was crossexamined by learned Addl. PP at length.
Despite her crossexamination, she failed to support the case of the Prosecution.
Analysis & Findings:
14. I have gone through the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the Prosecutrix/PW2 on whose statement the case in hand has been registered againt the Accused Naved.
15. A perusal of the testimony of Prosecutrix 'G' (PW2) reveals that she failed to support the Prosecution case. It is apparent that as per PW2 Prosecutrix, physical relations were never established between her and Accused at any point of time. Moreover, Prosecutrix 'G' deposed that on 18.02.2015, both of them celebrated the birthday of the Accused and consumed his birthday cake at the alleged place of incident and during that period, Accused did nothing wrong with her. She also deposed that they only talked and ate cake and thereafter, she returned to her house.
Thereafter, she never visited the alleged place of incident. In the same breath, PW2 further deposed that after about a week, she along with Accused went to Deer Park and that was their last meeting.
16. As regards her statement to the police (Ex.PW2/D) on the basis of which the case in hand has been registered against the Accused, she deposed that she never gave any statement to the police. However, she voluntarily added that police had obtained her signatures on the blank sheet of the paper. Further, as far as her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC recorded before the learned MM is concerned, though she admitted her signatures on the same, yet she voluntarily testified that she had given the said statement at the instance of the police who told her that she had to narrate the same facts which are already mentioned in her statement recorded by them (Ex.PW2/D), whereon her signatures were obained.
17. It has also come on record by way of deposition of Prosecutrix PW2 that Accused never threatened her that he had made her obscene video or that he never demanded any such video or memory card containing that video from the Accused. In the same breath, she also testified that Accused never threatened her to come to his house to establish with him and thereafter he would return the memory card containing her obscene video to her and that he never demanded Rs.50,000/ to return any such video to her.
18. Prosecutrix 'P' was crossexamined at length by learned Addl. PP. However, she denied each and every suggestion put forth by the learned Addl. PP.
19. The Prosecution did not examine any other PW. It was submitted by learned Addl. PP for the State that since the Prosecutrix/PW 2 failed to support the Prosecution case, no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the remaining witnesses cited by the Prosecution as they pertain to the investigation and medical examination of the Prosecutrix and their depositions, even if recorded, would also not throw any light upon the offence allegedly committed by the Accused. In these circumstances, PE was closed.
20. Further in view of the fact that nothing incriminating has come on record againt the Accused, recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC was also dispensed with.
Conclusion:
21. For the foregoing reasons, particularly in the light of deposition of PW2 Prosecutrix 'G', wherein she denied the factum of rape having been committed by the Accused upon her at any point of time, coupled with her voluntary deposition to the extent that her signatures were obtained by the police on the blank paper being statement Ex.PW2/D as well as her deposition to the effect that she never gave any money to the Accused, who never threatened her to make her any obscene video public or demanded any money on that account, I find that there is no material on record whatsoever for convicting the Accused for the offence with which he was charged. Consequently, Accused Naved s/o Mohd.Sarif is hereby acquitted of the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n)/506/384 IPC. Let him be released forthwith if not required in any other case. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court
on 10th day of February, 2016 (Kaveri Baweja)
Additional Sessions JudgeSFTC2 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.