Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagdeep Singh Sandhu on 20 May, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. REENA SINGH NAG: ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-2 (EAST): KKD: DELHI
SC No. 816/07
FIR No. 1042/06
PS. Shakarpur
U/s. 376/493/313/506 IPC
State Vs. Jagdeep Singh Sandhu
State
Versus
1. Jagdeep Singh Sandhu
S/o. Raghwant Singh Sandhu
R/o. B-58, Iind floor, Sector-30,
Noida, U.P.
Permanent Address
H.No.443, Dharam Pura Quadia,
Gurdas Pur, Punjab.
Date of Institution: 13.11.07
Date of Arguments: 20.05.09
Date of Judgment: 20.05.09
JUDGMENT
1. Prosecutrix (name withheld) gave a written complaint on 09.12.06 to SHO PS Shakarpur, wherein she has inter-alia mentioned that in the course of her professional duties as media person, she met accused Jagdeep in March 2006, who represented to her that he had gone through a 2 bad marriage and was divorced and a single person. During the course of time, intimacy developed between the duo and accused proposed marriage to her, to which she agreed. It is her version that in the month of April, one day he invited her to his house for discussion of marriage, where she was raped by him and her cries did not invite anybody's attention since the room was at isolated place and was locked. He assured her by swearing before the holy photographs that she was his wife now and that formalities would be performed subsequently. When complainant insisted for registered marriage, he assured that this would be got done, so she started believing him as her husband. Thereafter, she shifted to his Noida residence and started living with him since August 2006 and had sexual relationship with him on his insistence. When she learnt in October that she has conceived, on the persistence of accused the pregnancy was terminated from Shyam Hospital, Ghaziabad on 22.11.06 despite her disinclination. Thereafter, when complainant insisted that accused should marry her, he revealed that he was still married and divorce proceedings were pending, so there was no question of marrying her. She also alleged that accused was intimidating her and she apprehended bodily injury from him. On these allegations FIR was registered U/s. 376/493/313/506 IPC. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused accordingly.
2. On committal, after hearing both the sides, charge was framed U/s. 376/493/313/506 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
33. In support of its case, prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
4. PW-1 is Retired Major General Harbans Singh from Noida in whose house accused was living as a tenant with his wife Jasleen. He inter-alia testified that accused was living as a tenant in Noida with his wife Jasleen and they had their first child in that house and thereafter, they had gone to the parental home of the accused but things went wrong and relations between the couple turned sour and Jasleen left the home with child and finally they were separated and started living separately and they also got divorced subsequently. This is his version that during the subsistence of marriage, the complainant used to visit the house of the couple and was aware of the first marriage of the accused and when Jasleen separated from accused, the visit of complainant increased to the house of the accused and on one night at 1 am Delhi Police officials came and took away accused on the ground that he was required in connection with some enquiry against him by the complainant. He also stated that to his knowledge, prosecutrix had expired since she was Sr. reporter with Zee News and this fact was also mentioned in Print Media. This witness has been cross-examined by Ld. APP but he denied having stated anything incriminating to the police against the accused with regard to revelation made by accused to him to the effect that during the period i.e 3-4 months before 10.12.06 accused had told him that he had obtained divorce from his first wife and that he had married with prosecutrix in the presence of god and would formally marry her or that they both started living in his house as husband and wife. In his cross-examination, he stated that 4 tenanted accommodation of accused was in a populated area and on the first floor of his house, another couple was living as tenant and maid of this witness with her family was living in the accommodation, which was a little lower than the floor of the accused. He also stated that for reaching to the house of the accused, one was required to pass through the corridor, where the maid lived with her family and that any quarrel or big noise taking place inside the room of the accused was easily audible to somebody happened to be around on the first floor as well as to the maid's family.
5. PW-2 is HC Asha Sharma, who had got prosecutrix medically examined from LBS Hospital and she handed over the pullanda received from Doctor containing undergarments of prosecutrix to IO, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A.
6. In this case despite several efforts made to procure the attendance of PW-Ravi brother of prosecutrix, the same could not be procured and statement of IO/ASI Sardar Singh was recorded in this regard, who testified that despite his best efforts this witness could not be traced out. He also proved his report as Ex.CW1/1.
7. As regards, procuring the attendance of prosecutrix, it was brought to the notice of the court by PW-1 that she had expired. Even accused claimed that he being also from the media field, to his knowledge prosecutrix has expired and he placed on record documents in this regard, which are extracts from the internet, wherein the name of the prosecutrix 5 is mentioned, who was killed in a landslide in H.P and was cremated at Yamuna Ghat near Kalindi Kunj in Noida on Monday evening. The claim was got verified through SHO and report from the SHO is that the prosecutrix was killed in a landslide on11.08.07 in H.P when she was going for news coverage. The death certificate of prosecutrix was provided, which was issued by G.P.Koksar Local Registrar of Birth & Death of Tehsil Lalaul, District Lalaul & Spitti , H.P, by Zee News Ltd. and photocopy of the news reports from Amar Uzala, Indian Express and Hindu have also been placed on record. Besides, statement of Incharge Shamshan Ghat, Kalindi Kunj, Noida, U.P was also recorded by SI Santosh Pabri in support of death of prosecutrix, who was cremated on 13.08.07 at Cremation ground in Noida. In view of the above, I am satisfied about the death of the prosecutrix.
8. Under these circumstances, it was considered futile to keep the case alive since remaining prosecution witnesses are of procedure only and even if, their testimony is brought on record unrebutted, the fate of the case would have remained the same as it is today since question of mens rea is important in proving the guilt of the accused and in the absence of the prosecutrix, the same could not have been proved. As such, prosecution evidence was closed. There being no incriminating evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, connecting the accused with the crime, his statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
9. I have heard the final arguments and gone through the case file.
In view of the death of prosecutrix, the prosecution case fails. Moreover, 6 the statement of PW-1 also exonerates the accused as he has turned hostile and as per him, it was within the knowledge of prosecutrix that accused had a subsisting marriage since she used to visit the couple when they were living together in the tenanted house of PW-1, so her claim in her complaint that accused had told her that he was divorced cannot be appreciated in the given facts and circumstances. As such, accused is acquitted. His bail bonds is cancelled and surety is discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (REENA SINGH NAG)
Dt: 20.05.09 ASJ-2 (EAST) KKD/DELHI
7
20.05.09
Pr: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel Sh.A.K.Bansal.
Death Verification report of prosecutrix has been received from SHO. PW Ravi brother of prosecutrix, is not traceable despite best efforts and statement of IO/ASI Sardar Singh has already been recorded in this regard.
In view of the obtaining facts & circumstances, it is considered futile to examine the remaining prosecution witnesses as fate of the case would have remained the same as it is today even if, prosecution in future would have been able to bring home the testimony of the remaining witnesses on record unrebutted. As such, prosecution evidence is closed. There being no incriminating evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, connecting the accused persons with the crime their statement U/s. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.
Final arguments heard and perused the file. Vide separate order announced in the open court, accused is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 376/493/313/506 IPC. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged. The file be consigned to record room.
(REENA SINGH NAG) ASJ-2(EAST)KKD/DELHI/20.05.09