Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Anand on 5 September, 2014
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC - 2 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 15/2014
Unique ID No. : 02401R0063382014
State versus Deepak Anand
S/o Sh.Sohan Lal Anand
R/o C6, DDA Flats Behind
Hamdard Dawakhana,
Sitaram Bazar, Delhi
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 179/2013
Police Station : Hauz Qazi
Under Section : 376/506 IPC
Judgment reserved on : 27.08.2014
Judgment pronounced on : 05.09.2014
JUDGMENT
Case of the Prosecution
1. The case in hand was registered on the basis of written complaint made by Prosecutrix 'CK' [name withheld to protect the identity of the Prosecutrix] wherein she has stated that she is residing at Sitaram Bazar along with her family and that she was engaged to the accused Deepak Anand on 25.04.2010. After that family of the accused as well as her family including Prosecutrix used to visit at each other's house frequently. She further alleged that she was made to undergo fast of 'Karvachovth', made to wear 'Manglasutra' and put 'Sindoor' in her 'maang'. She was also made understand by the mother of the accused that she is already married to the accused and that only formal marriage has to be performed before the society.
2. Prosecutrix further alleged in her complaint that on 11.04.2011, accused took her to a house at Dwarka by saying that his father has been hospitalized and he has to take some papers from the said and committed rape upon her in the bathroom forcibly and had also made MMS of the same. She further alleged that after this incident of rape, accused Deepak had assured her that they would get married soon and asked her not to disclose about this incident to anyone as this would lead to her defamation. After that incident, accused Deepak Anand called her to Sitaram Bazar on the pretext of some discussion and showed her the MMS Clip on a mobile made by him, after seeing which the Prosecutrix got shocked. Thereafter, accused asked her to visit his house No.18, Gali Bharat Vihar at Dwarka again and threatened her to circulate this MMS in the entire Delhi if she would not come. She further alleged that thereafter accused Deepak Anand committed rape upon her many times by extending threats to her.
3. Prosecutrix also alleged that the family members of accused kept on postponing the date of their marriage whenever they were asked by her family members and when the family members of the accused were pressurized for fixing the date of their marriage, they fixed the date of 14.02.2013 as the date of their marriage. She further alleged that the father of the accused had insisted that since senior officials from his office would be attending the marriage, marriage function should be organized at a AC banquet or hotel.
4. Prosecutrix further stated in her complaint that when she narrated about the incident of rape to the mother of the accused then she was being told that there is nothing wrong in it as both of them had to get married. The mother of the accused also insisted her that dowry articles have to be given at the time of marriage as it involves honour of her family. The brother of the Prosecutrix arranged Banquet Hall at Shastri Park and Daryaganj which was rejected by the family members of the accused. She also alleged in her complaint that upon her inability to fullfil the demands of the family of the accused, the family of the Prosecutrix was made to understand that they will not solemnize the marriage of accused with Prosecutrix on 14.02.2013 in case the demands were not met. Because of this reason, the mother of Prosecutrix suffered heart attack an she expired on 06.02.2013.
5. Thereafter, the family of the accused kept on postponing the issue of the marriage on one pretext or the other and accused Deepak Anand also switched off his mobile phone. She also alleged in her complaint that when her brother expressed his inability to spend the money in the marriage as per the wish of the accused parents, they straightaway refused for the marriage of accused with Prosecutrix. Thereafter, accused Deepak Anand met the Prosecutrix at Sitaram Bazar and threatened her not to take any legal action against his family otherwise he would throw acid on her face and her MMS would be made public.
6. It is under these circumstances, Prosecutrix filed the complaint against the accused and his family members, on the basis of which case in hand was registered vide DD No.26A on 26.10.2013 under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
7. During the course of investigation, Prosecutrix was got medically examined at LNJP Hospital and the exhibits were collected from the Hospital and were deposited in the malkhana. Accused Deepak Anand was also arrested and his medical examination was also got conducted. During the course of further investigation statement of Prosecutrix was also got recorded before the learned MM, exhibits so collected were sent to FSL for opinion. However, upon founding insufficient evidence against mother and father of the accused namely Smt.Ram Kaur and Sh.Sohan Lal, both of them were not arrested and their names were kept in Column No.12 of the charge sheet. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the court.
Charges:
8. After committal of this case and on the basis of material on record, vide order dated 15.02.2014, Accused Deepak Anand was charged for offence punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
9. In order to bring home guilt of the Accused, Prosecution examined 07 witnesses on record.
10. It is relevant to discuss the testimony of the star witness of the Prosecution i.e. the Prosecutrix who was examined as PW1. She correctly identified the accused in the court and deposed that she knows accused Deepak Anand as she was engaged to him on 25.4.10. She further deposed that mother of accused stated that she has no objection if they visit each other's house as they do not have orthodox thinking. Thereafter, family of the accused as well as her family used to visit at each other's house. Mother of accused also used to take her to temple with her and also asked her to keep fast of 'Karva Chauth'. She also made accused Deepak put vermilion in her 'maang' and made her wear mangalsutra stating that she has accepted me as a daughter in law.
11. Prosecutrix further deposed that on 11.4.11 accused Deepak took her along with him stating that he is taking her to visit his father who was hospitalized and instead of taking her to hospital, he took her to his house at Dwarka stating that he wants to collect some papers from his house and asked her to go to the washroom. When she came out, he closed the door of the room from inside and forcibly established physical relations with her despite her refusal. Accused also prepared one MMS with help of his mobile phone about which she did not come to know at that time. Accused told her that since they have already got engaged and are about to get married shortly, there is no problem even if physical relations have been established between them. Accused also told her not to disclose about the same in her family.
12. Prosecutrix also deposed that after 23 days, accused called her at Sita Ram Bazar and showed her the aforesaid MMS in his mobile phone and she got scared after seeing the said recording. Accused again asked her to accompany him to his house at Dwarka and threatened to circulate the said MMS if she do not go with him. She further deposed that Accused took her to the said house at Dwarka at Gali No.18, 34 times after threatening her that he will circulate the said MMS and on each occasion accused established physical relations with her under the said threat.
13. Prosecutrix further deposed that whenever her family members used to ask them to fix a date for marriage, accused and his family members used to postpone this issue on one pretext or the other and upon their insistence, family of the accused fixed 14.02.2013 as the date of their marriage. Father and mother of the accused told her brother Madan Lal that they have to make arrangements of the marriage in some hotel or Banquet Hall at Connaught Place and that they refused to have the marriage ceremony at Banquet Hall at Shastri Park and Daryaganj. Father of the accused insisted that as since senior officials from his office would be attending the marriage, marriage function should be organized at a good Banquet Hall.
14. Prosecutrix also deposed that Accused and his parents also demanded jewellary and other articles as per their standard and insisted that they will themselves go and select the same. As the accused and his family were demanding the aforesaid dowry articles, she disclosed about the rape committed upon her by the accused at the house at Dwarka to his mother. However, his mother insisted that the said dowry articles have to be given as it involves honour of her family. When brother of Prosecutrix requested the parents of accused that they are unable to meet their demands, parents of accused stated that they will solemnized the marriage of the accused with some one else in case the demands were not met. Because of this reason, mother of Prosecutrix suffered heart attack and she expired on 06.02.2013.
15. PW1 also deposed that her brother again requested the family of accused to solemnize her marriage with accused and assure that he will give adequate dowry as per his status. But, the family of the accused kept on avoiding the issue of marriage on one pretext or the other and finally, in October, 2013 family of the accused flatly refused for her marriage with the accused. Accused Deepak also threatened her that if she make any complaint against him and his family members, he will get acid thrown on her face.
16. Prosecutrix also proved her compliant to SHO PS Hauz Qazi. as Ex.PW1/A and further deposed that police made inquiries from me and call me to the PS 23 times and finally registered the present case on 26.10.2013. She also proved the site plan prepared at her instance as Ex. PW1/B. Prosecutrix PW1 also identified her signatures on the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC which was recorded by Ld. MM and proved the same as Ex PW1/E. She lastly deposed that the family of the accused are still threatening her to withdraw my complaint.
17. Brother of Prosecutrix Sh.Madan Lal was examined as PW3. He correctly identified the accused and deposed that he know the accused as his marriage was fixed with his sister and on 25.07.10 a Ring Ceremony was solemnized. One of his neighbourers namely Babloo was the mediator who earlier resided as a tenant of accused Deepak Anand.
18. PW3 further deposed that the mother of the accused asked for sometime for marriage as accused was doing the course of C.A. at that time. At that time, PW3 was also not married, so they agreed. He also deposed that his family as well as family of accused used to visit the house of each other and during the period FebruaryApril, 2011, on the request of family of accused, they allowed Prosecutrix 'CK' to go with them to visit Gurudwara Bangla Sahib and that the date of marriage was fixed as 14.02.2013.
19. PW3 further deposed that after the demise of his mother on 06.02.13, accused and his family started avoiding issue of marriage of accused and his sister. He visited the house of accused in March, 2013 for again fixing a date for marriage. Family members of accused asked him to arrange for a Banquet Hall somewhere in Connaught Place or Gole Market area for marriage. He, however, refused for the same stating that they cannot afford to arrange for marriage function at Connaught Place and requested the accused to organize a function at Shastri Park. But as he was unable to arrange for marriage function at the venue suggested by the family of accused, they finally refused for marriage of his sister with the accused.
20. PW2 is Dr.Prachi Benera who deposed regarding having examined the Prosecutrix on 28.10.2013 vide MLC No.230303 at LNJP Hospital and proved her detailed report on the same as also the note on the MLC sheet vide Ex.PW2/A & Ex.PW2/B respectively.
21. PW2A SI Nitin deposed regarding recording of the case FIR on 26.10.2013 proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW2A/A. He also proved his endorsement on the same as Ex.PW2A/B.
22. PW6 SI Ram Niwas deposed regarding having received the complaint Ex.PW1/A at PP Himmathgarh of PS Hauz Qazi on 08.10.2013. He made inquiries on the said complaint and met the complainant who also gave him a photograph Mark PW6/A. This witness further deposed regarding making of an endorsement on the said complaint vide Ex.PW6/A on 26.10.2013 and getting the FIR registered. He also deposed that after the registration of the FIR, the investigation was assigned to W/SI Pushpa.
23. PW4 is HC Narender who deposed regarding having received the sealed exhibits from the IO/SI Pushpa on 28.10.2013 and 02.12.2013 vide entry Nos.1458 and 1482 and proved the said entries vide Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively. This witness further deposed regarding sending of the aforesaid exhibits to FSL on 13.11.2013 and 09.12.2013 vide RC Nos.135/21/13 & 144/21/13 and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D respectively.
24. PW5 is IO/SI Pushpa to whom the case was assigned for investigation after registration of the FIR. She deposed preparation of the site plan at the instance of the Prosecutrix vide memo Ex.PW1/B, getting the Prosecutrix medically examined at LNJP hospital on 28.10.2013 and collecting of the exhibits and seizure of the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. She also deposed regarding arrest of the accused at the instance of the Prosecutrix vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C, conducting of his personal search memo vide Ex.PW1/D, recording of his disclosure statement and getting the accused examined at LNJP hospital vide MLC Ex.PW5/B and also getting the potency test of the accused conducted at LNJP hospital vide MLC No.Ex.PW5/C. She further deposed that she collected the exhibits and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D and deposited the same in the malkhana.
25. PW5 further deposed regarding getting recorded the statement of the Prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC on 30.10.2013 and collection of the same. She also deposed regarding seizure of the mobile phone belonging to the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/E, which was produced by Sh.Sohan Lal Anand, father of the accused.
26. PW5 further deposed regarding sending of the exhibits to the FSL, completed the investigation, prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court.
27. PW5 also deposed regarding collection of the FSL result and DNA Report and proved the same as Ex.PW5/F and Ex.PW5/G. She also correctly identified the case property i.e. one mobile phone of make NOKIA Silver Black Colour when shown to her in court which has been exhibited as Ex.P1.
Plea of the Accused and Defence Evidence
28. The incriminating evidence was put to the Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC who pleaded innocence stating that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused pleaded that after the Roka Ceremony, it was revealed that the Prosecutrix was elder to him and despite their requests, father of the Prosecutrix failed to produce her educational certificates and proof of her date of birth. Finally, he refused for the marriage on 27.10.2012. He further stated that brother of prosecutrix along with his friends came to their house on 27 th or 28.10.2012 and started abusing them. They he made a complaint against prosecutrix and her family to the DCP and SHO concerned on 31.10.2012, which was in his handwriting. Accused lastly pleaded that physical relations were never established between him and the Prosecutrix at any point of time.
29. Accused, however preferred to lead evidence in his defence and examined Ct.Surender as DW1, who brought the summoned record i.e. copy of complaint dated 31.10.2012 received at PS Chandni Mahal on 02.11.2012 vide diary NO.966/Reader/SHO Chandni Mahal and proved the copy of the same as Ex.DW1/A (running into four sheets) as also its entry in the Dak Register as Ex.DW1/B. Arguments, Analysis and Findings:
30. It has been argued by learned defence counsel that the case against the accused is false and fabricated and the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the Prosecutrix only because he refused to marry her upon coming to know that she is not a Graduate and that she is also elder to him. It was contended that during the entire investigation, inquiry and trial of this case, not a single document has been produced by the Investigating Agency with regard to the date of birth or educational qualifications of the Prosecutrix, which clearly shows that the Prosecutrix had concealed her educational qualification and correct age from the accused.
31. It was further argued that the allegations of rape levelled by the Prosecutrix against the accused are also false and the same have not been proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. The Prosecutrix though claimed that the accused forcibly established physical relations with her on 11.04.2011 after taking her to his house at Dwarka, yet this version of the Prosecutrix does not seem believable. It is contended that the testimony of the Prosecutrix to this effect is at variance with the alleged history recorded by the examining doctor on her MLC Ex.2/A. Accordingly, her claim that the accused had made her objectionable MMS during the said sexual act also cannot be accepted. Apparently, the mobile phone of the accused was not recovered from his possession. It is the own case of the Prosecution that the mobile phone belonging to the accused was produced by the father of the accused Sh.Sohan Lal during the investigation.
Accordingly, as per the FSL result Ex.PW5/F, the said MMS was not found to be contained in the said mobile phone. Further, the story as set up by the Prosecutrix that the accused made the MMS recording from his mobile phone also does not seem believable. Learned defence counsel further contended that there is also no evidence to prove that the accused thereafter also committed rape upon the Prsoecutrix 34 times as alleged.
32. The next contention of the defence is that there is an undue delay in lodging the FIR. Though the Prosecutrix sought to set up a story that since the family of the accused kept on assuring her that they will get her married to the accused and that is why she submitted her complaint to the police in the month of October, 2013, yet this claim of the Prosecutrix cannot be accepted.
33. Further, no convincing evidence has been led on record by the Prosecution to establish the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused. Learned defence counsel rather argued that there is no evidence on record whatsoever to establish that the accused at any point of time demanded dowry from the Prosecutrix or her family members as alleged. It was thus contended the keeping in view the evidence on record and the submissions made, the accused be acquitted of all the charges for which he has been facing trial.
34. The Prosecution, on the other hand vehemently argued that the testimony of the Prosecutrix and other witnesses examined by the Prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The claim of the defence that the accused is innocent cannot be accepted in the light of the testimony of the Prosecutrix, which as per settled legal propositions does not require any corroboration from any independent sources. Learned Addl. PP submitted that charges under Section 506 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 stand duly established in view of the testimony of the Prosecutrix (PW1) and her brother Madan Lal (PW3).
35. I have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the detailed arguments and well as the judgments relied upon by the defence. I have also carefully scrutinize the entire material brought on record during the length of trial.
36. The claim of the accused is that even prior to registration of this FIR in October, 2013, he had already submitted a complaint dated 31.10.2012 to the SHO, which has been proved on record as Ex.DW1/A. It is the contention of the accused that it was revealed to him by the Prosecutrix on 26.10.2012 that she does not have any educational certificate and that she is not a graduate and three years elder to him. He claimed that he informed his family members on 27.11.2012 that he cannot marry the Prosecutrix as he himself is an educated person. Upon learning this on 28.10.2012, brother of the Prosecutrix Madan Lal along with some other person came to his house and started abusing his family members. Thereafter, on 29.10.2012 Madan Lal called him and threatened to kill him. The Prosecutrix also called the accused on 29.10.2012 and threatened him that she will commit suicide in case he refuse to marry her and would falsely implicate him and his family members. Relying upon the said complaint Ex.DW1/A, learned defence counsel strongly argued that the present case is nothing but a fallout of the refusal on the part of the accused to marry the Prosecutrix and the Prosecutrix has levelled false allegations against the accused to rope him in a false case.
37. The Prosecution strongly relied upon the testimony of the Prosecutrix, who undoubtedly is the most material witness in the present case. It is thus necessary to scrutinize the testimony of the Prosecutrix minutely.
38. From the record of the case it is apparent that there are certain undisputed facts, firstly that the marriage of the accused and the Prosecutrix was fixed on 25.04.2010. I may hasten to add that though the Prosecutrix claimed that she was engaged to the accused on that day, the accused on the other hand submitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that only Roka Ceremony was solemnized on 25.04.2010 and no rings were exchanged.
39. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the accused was fixed with the Prosecutrix on 25.04.2010. It is also not in dispute that the house of the accused and Prosecutrix was nearby and the both families were on visiting terms, particularly after the marriage of the accused was fixed on 25.04.2010. Though the Prosecutrix claims that an engagement ceremony performed on 25.04.2010 wherein she was given certain articles viz., watch, Pajeeb and Rs.501/ by the family of the accused, however, no photographs of any such ceremony were brought on record. When questioned about her 'Mangalsutra' during her cross examination, Prosecutrix deposed that the same was taken back by the mother of the accused stating that it will be given to her at the time of marriage.
40. The case of the Prosecution is that on 11.04.2011, accused took the Prosecutrix with him on his motorcycle to his house at Dwarka on the pretext that they are going to visit his father at the hospital. However, he took her to a house at Dwarka stating that he has to collect some papers from there and upon reaching the said house, the accused committed rape upon the Prosecutrix and thereafter assured her that there is no cause to worry as they are going to get married shortly and also told her not to disclose about the incident to anyone in her family. The Prosecutrix alleged that the accused made her MMS with the help of his mobile phone, which he showed to her after 23 days and threatened to circulate it in case she does not accompany him to his house at Dwarka and under this threat he again established physical relations with her 34 times thereafter.
41. It is noteworthy that though the Prosecutrix deposed that the accused forcibly established physical relations with her, apparently she did not resist the advances of the accused by use of any physical force. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that after registration of the FIR, the Prosecutrix was got medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. During her crossexamination, the Prosecutrix deposed that she correctly stated the alleged history to the examining doctor. The relevant extract of the alleged history given by the Prosecutrix as recorded by the examining doctor in the MLC Ex.PW2/A is reproduced hereunder:
"History given by patient herself. Patient got engaged on 25.04.2010. Pt. had sexual intercourse against her will 4 times, first on 11th April, 2011. During the Ist intercourse, an MMS was made, last in November, 2012 the pt. was slapped 23 times on face. The patient was blackmailed and there was forceful intercourse 3 times more. Patient was given threat of life and engagement was cancelled in January, 2013."
42. However, when the Prosecutrix appeared in the witness box, she did not utter even a single word that she was slapped by the accused when he alleged raped her on 11.04.2011. The MLC Ex.PW2/A also indicates that the examining doctor while recording the alleged history as stated by the Prosecutrix also recorded that there was history of oral intercourse and intake of 'UNWANTED 72'. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the Prosecutrix did not depose anything to this effect upon stepping into the witness box, nor did she allege the same either in her complaint (Ex.PW1/A), or in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC (Ex.PWE) that she consumed 'UNWANTED 72', which is an emergency contraceptive pill.
43. To my mind, the fact that as no such facts were brought on record by the Prosecutrix during her testimony, would indicate that physical relations, if any, between Accused and the Prosecutrix were consensual.
44. I also find myself unable to accept the claim of the Prosecutrix that the accused also recorded her MMS while forcibly having sexual intercourse with her on 11.04.2011, as alleged. It is also noteworthy that no such MMS was recovered from the mobile phone, which too as per the case of Prosecution itself was produced by the father of the accused, and not by the accused during the course of investigation.
45. Besides the aforesaid, I also find on going though the record that the apparent delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained on record. It is noteworthy that in her examinationinchief, the Prosecutrix deposed that "When my brother requested the parents of accused that they are unable to meet their demands, parents of accused stated that they will solemnized the marriage of the accused with some one else in case the demands were not met. Because of this reason, my mother suffered heart attack and she expired on 06.02.2013."
46. On the other hand, PW3 brother of the accused deposed that "After demise of mother on 06.02.2013, accused and his family started avoiding issue of marriage of accused and my sister. I visited the house of accused in March, 2013 for again fixing a date for marriage.......... But, as I was unable to arrange for marriage function at the venue suggested by the family of the accused, they finally refused for marriage of my sister with the accused."
47. It is thus apparent that the deposition of the Prosecutrix and her brother is at much variance with each other. Whereas the Prosecutrix claimed that the family of the accused refused for marriage due to which her mother suffered heart attack and expired on 06.02.2013, on the other hand, her brother PW3 deposed that he requested the family of the accused for marriage after demise of their mother on 06.02.2013, but as they were unable to arrange the marriage function at the venue of their choice, they refused for the marriage of his sister with the accused.
48. Prosecutrix also deposed that the family of the accused refused for her marriage with accused finally in October, 2013, on the other hand PW3 stated that the family of the accused finally refused for marriage after February, 2013. Moreover, as per the Prosecutrix, the complaint Ex.PW1/A was got typed by her brother in August, 2013. She also claimed that she told her brother and sister about the rape committed by the accused upon her in June, 2013. The brother of the Prosecutrix PW3 further deposed that he came to know about the commission of rape upon her sister only in April, 2013. The question of delay in lodging of FIR thus remained unexplained during the trial, thus making the case of the Prosecution extremely doubtful.
49. It is further noteworthy that the accused has consistently been taking the stand that he refused for marriage with the Prosecutrix upon coming to know that she was three years elder to him. Further, that she failed to produce her educational certificates despite repeated requests and when it was revealed to him that she was not much educated, he refused for marriage since he was himself pursuing the course of C.A. and wanted to marry an educated girl.
50. The claim of the defence is that the Prosecutrix and her family deliberately concealed her real age and the fact that she was not much educated and when the same was revealed, the accused refused to marry her. On the other hand, the Prosecutrix in her deposition claimed that she was only 34 months elder to the accused and this fact was revealed to the accused even prior to their engagement on 25.04.2010. The brother of the Prosecutrix PW3 however deposed upon stepping into the witness box that his sister i.e. the Prosecutrix is 89 years younger to him. He further admitted that at present the Prosecutrix is aged about 3233 years and that she is 34 years elder to accused Deepak Anand. Though, PW3 also claimed that they had revealed the age of his sister before her marriage was fixed with the accused, however, there is no explanation as to why the Prosecutrix continue to conceal her real age even during her deposition if it is the claim of the Prosecutrix as well as her brother that the correct age had already been revealed to the accused and his family even before the engagement ceremony. It is also a matter of record that no educational certificates were produced either by the Investigation Agency, nor were they brought on record by the Prosecutrix during the trial despite an opportunity having been given to her for this purpose. Therefore, the fact that the Prosecutrix was concealing her actual age from the court also makes her testimony doubtful. There is no reason as to why she could not have stated her real age before the court which was categorically deposed by her brother PW3 during trial.
51. I also myself unable to accept the submission of the Prosecution that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 4 of Dowery Prohibition Act. In the entire deposition of the Prosecutrix, there is not even a whisper as to whether any such dowry demand was made by the accused from either the Prosecutrix or her family members. The allegations of demand of jewellary and arranging the marriage at an expensive venue are all general and vague allegations and neither the Prosecutrix nor her brother specified any date when such demand was made by the accused. In these circumstances, I find myself unable to accept the case of the Prosecution with regard to the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
52. In view of the above discussion, I find that the allegations against the accused have not been proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. The claim of the Prosecutrix that she was raped by the accused on 11.04.2011 does not seem convincing and her testimony to this effect does not appear to be reliable in view of the above discussion. Moreover, her claim that the accused criminally intimated her by threatening to circulate her MMS and by threatening to cause injuries to her by throwing acid on her face also does not stand established on record. Her testimony to the effect that while establishing physical relations with her forcibly, accused also recorded her MMS does not sound very convincing. Moreover, no such MMS clip has been recovered from the mobile phone of the accused. Even the mobile phone has not been seized from the possession of the accused and was admittedly produced by the father of the accused during the course of investigation of the case.
53. In these facts and circumstances, the Prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused, who is certainly entitled to be acquitted of all the charges for which he was facing trial. It is thus ordered accordingly.
54. Consequently, Accused Deepak Anand S/o Sh. Sohan Lal Anand stands acquitted for the offences with which he was charged in the present case. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on 05.09.14 (Kaveri Baweja)
Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.