Delhi District Court
Sc No. 180/13 State vs Amar Babu Singh Page No. 1 Of 6 on 3 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SE01
DESIGNATED JUDGE: TADA/POTA/MCOCA: SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. RENU BHATNAGAR
IN THE MATTER OF
CASE ID NO. 02406R00303692013
SESSIONS CASE NO. 180/13
FIR NO. 207/13
POLICE STATION : AMAR COLONY
UNDER SECTION : 363/366A/376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT
STATE
VERSUS
1 AMAR BABU SINGH
S/O SH. BABU SINGH,
R/O S219/223, ASHOKA BINDUSAR CAMP,
EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 22.10.2013.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 03.01.2014.
DATE OF DECISION : 03.01.2014.
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution:
1 On 27.05.2013 complainant Smt. Lalita Devi came to police SC No. 180/13 State Vs Amar Babu Singh Page No. 1 of 6 station and gave her statement that she is residing at R/o J520, Ashoka Bindusar Camp, East of Kailash, New Delhi65 and working as maid servant. On 25.05.2013 at about 10.30 PM her daughter namely 'X' (name withheld to keep her identity confidential) went for toilet near the jhuggies but did not return home. She along with her family members searched her but the prosecutrix could not be found and thereafter complainant lodged the complaint and made suspicion that somebody had taken her daughter namely 'X'. Case was registered. Messages were flashed and prosecutrix was searched by the police. SI Rang Lal from the call details got recovered the prosecutrix and accused Amar Babu Singh from Gandhi Dham, Gujrat.
Accused was arrested. Both the accused and prosecutrix were medically examined. Statement of prosecutrix under section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C were recorded. Prosecutrix was produced before the CWC and on the directions of CWC, prosecutrix was handed over to her parents. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were got recorded by the Investigating officer and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 363/366A/376 IPC & 6 POCSO Act was filed against the accused in the court.
Charge against the accused: 2 Prima facie case under section 363/366A IPC, 4 POCSO Act and in the alternative under section 376 IPC was made out against the accused. Charge under Section 363/366A IPC, 4 POCSO Act and in the SC No. 180/13 State Vs Amar Babu Singh Page No. 2 of 6 alternative under section 376 IPC was framed upon the accused vide order dated 21.11.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Witnesses Examined: 3 In support of its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses in all. The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under: 4 PW1 is prosecutrix herself. She deposed that she knows the accused Amar Babu since childhood. The family of the accused Amar Babu has been staying in our neighbourhood. Prosecutrix and accused were childhood friend and often used to talk to each other and used to go for outings. They started liking each other which resulted into love affair. The accused proposed her for marriage which she agreed and discussed about the issue with their family members but they were reluctant to their marriage. On 26.05.2013 she voluntarily accompanied the accused and they went to the native place of the accused in Gujarat where she married with the accused and started living as husband and wife and accused made physical relations with her with her consent. She had intimated the said development to her mother from her matrimonial home and her mother told her that she had reported the matter to the police. The police located them and brought them to Delhi. This witness has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. Ld. APP for the state has cross examined the witness as she resiled from her statement but nothing material came out in the cross SC No. 180/13 State Vs Amar Babu Singh Page No. 3 of 6 examination.
5 PW2 is Ms. Lalita Devi, complainant of the case. She deposed that on 26.05.2013 at about 10.30 PM her daughter 'X' aged about 20 years had gone to the toilet near the jhuggi but did not return home. They made efforts to locate her but could not found her. On 27.05.2013 she reported the matter to the police and the police recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A. After about 1 ½ months her daughter made a phone call to her and informed about her marriage with the accused and also that she is happily living at her matrimonial home. Initially she and her husband were against the marriage but subsequently they agreed. She informed the police about the said development and asked them not to proceed with the case but the police did not hear and recovered her daughter from Gujarat. She stated that she had no grievance whatsoever against the accused now and does not want to say anything else. However this witness has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. Ld. APP for the state has cross examined the witness as she resiled from her statement but nothing material came out in the cross examination.
6 PW3 is Sh. Vishwanath Chaudhary, father of prosecutrix who also deposed on the lines of PW2. However this witness has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. Ld. APP for the state has cross examined the witness as he resiled from his statement but nothing material came out in the cross examination.
SC No. 180/13 State Vs Amar Babu Singh Page No. 4 of 6
Conclusion:
7 In the present case, PW1 Ms. Meena, PW2 Ms. Lalita Devi
and PW3 Sh. Vishwanath Chaudhary are the only material witnesses who all have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Prosecutrix has stated that she has voluntarily accompanied the accused, married him and voluntarily made physical relations with him. Her parents also corroborated her statement on this point. On the point of age of prosecutrix, all the three witnesses have stated that the less age of the prosecutrix was got recorded in the school record for the purpose of securing her admission in the school though actually, she was elder than the age recorded in the school records. Both PW2 and PW3 parents of the prosecutrix have stated that the age of the prosecutrix is about 20 years. Hence, all these three witnesses have turned hostile on the point of age of the prosecutrix. The school record of the prosecutrix is not based on any birth certificate issued by the MCD but the same is based on the information in the form of an affidavit given by the mother of the prosecutrix Smt. Lalita Devi/PW2 in the school. But, as the mother of prosecutrix PW2 has herself stated that she got the less age of prosecutrix recorded in school records, no authenticity can be attached to the school record in view of the testimony of prosecutrix and her parents. In view of the statement of the prosecutrix and her parents, the prosecutrix is proved to be major at the time of incident. Hence, as the prosecutrix is not minor, in view of retracted statement of the SC No. 180/13 State Vs Amar Babu Singh Page No. 5 of 6 public witnesses, no offence of kidnapping or under section 366A IPC or of penetrative sexual assault / rape upon the minor can be proved against the accused. Apart from these three star witnesses, remaining witnesses are formal in nature. Even if, the statement of remaining witnesses are recorded, it cannot bring home the guilt of the accused. Hence, it is futile to record the statement of remaining witnesses. Hence, prosecution evidence stands closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, statement of accused is dispensed with.
8 In view of the facts and circumstances, accused Amar Babu Singh is acquitted of the offence under Section 363/366A IPC, 4 POCSO Act and in the alternative under section 376 IPC.
9 In view of the Section 437A of Cr.PC, accused is directed to furnish bail bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety of like amount for the period of six months with the condition that he shall appear before the Hon'ble High Court as and when notice be issued in respect of any appeal filed by the state against the judgment within a period of 6 months. Case property be confiscated to the state after expiry of period of revision/appeal, if any. File be consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.01.2014.
( RENU BHATNAGAR )
DESIGNATED JUDGE
TADA/POTA/MCOCA
ASJ SE01/NEW DELHI
SC No. 180/13 State Vs Amar Babu Singh Page No. 6 of 6