Delhi District Court
State vs Mr. Ved Mitra @ Amit, on 5 February, 2014
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
State versus Mr. Ved Mitra @ Amit,
Son of Mr. Braham Singh
Resident of Village Gurana, PO & Tehsil,
Baraut, Distt. Baghpat, U.P.
First Information Report Number : 126/2013.
Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 06.07.2013
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal : 06.08.2013.
Arguments concluded on : 05.02.2014.
Date of judgment : 05.02.2014.
Appearances: Ms.Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Accused has been produced from judicial custody.
Mr. Harshit Jain, counsel for accused.
Prosecutrix in person.
Ms.Shubra Mehndiratta and Ms.Poonam Sharma, counsel
for the Delhi Commission for Women.
************************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Ved Mitra @ Amit, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Nihal Vihar Delhi for the offence under section 376 of the Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 1 of 11 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that in November, 2012 exact date and time unknown in your rented accommodation in Kailash Puri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Maya Puri, he committed rape on the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) under the false promise of marry and thereafter about 21-22 days after December 2012 at his house in village Gurana, PO & Tehsil Baraut, Distt Baghpat, U.P., he again committed rape upon the prosecutrix. In the month of December, 2012 at unknown time and place he intentionally put presectrix in fear of injury and dishonestly demanded Rs. 4 lacs from the prosecutrix.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 06.07.2013 and after its committal, vide order dated 06.08.2013 of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, the case has been assigned to this Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for 06.08.2013.
3. After hearing arguments on 08.08.2013, charge for offences under sections 376, 384 and 511 the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Mr. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer as PW1; ASI Saranmal, Duty officer who had recorded the formal FIR in this case as PW2; Dr. Babita , who had Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 2 of 11 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
examined prosecutrix as PW3; Ct Sunil, witness of investigation, arrest and medical examination of the accused as PW4; Dr. Rajender Singh, Director, CFSL, CBI as PW5 and Prosecutrix as PW6.
5. PW1, Mr. Vishal Gaurav is the Nodal Officer, who had proved the CDR of mobile phone number 9760663752 in Delhi Circle and U.P Cirle for period of 13.03.2006 to 09.06.2013, certificate under section 65 B Evidence Act, certified copy of customer application form and computer generated location chart of Delhi Circle (Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/F).
6. PW2, ASI Saranmal is the duty officer, who had recorded the formal FIR (Ex.PW2/A) in the present case and has proved the endorsement on the rukka (Ex.PW2/B) and certificate under section 65-B Evidence Act (Ex.PW2/C).
7. PW3, Dr. Babita has deposed that Dr. Debjanee had medically examined the prosecutrix under her supervision vide MLC (Ex.PW3/A) and she has identified the writing and signatures of Dr. Debjanee. The patient was referred to gynecological emergency for further examination and expert opinion.
8. PW4, Ct. Sunil, has deposed that on 06.05.2013, he had joined the investigation and had arrested the accused vide arrest memo (Ex.PW4/A) and his personal search was taken vide personal search memo (Ex.PW4/B). Accused also made his disclosure statement (Ex.PW4/C). Accused was medically examined and exhibits pertaining to the accused Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 3 of 11 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW4/D).
9. PW5 Dr. Rajender Singh, Director CFSL,CBI has proved the detailed DNA Profiling Report (Ex.PW5/A) and Chemical Examination Report (Ex.PW5/B).
10. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the "Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses" have been followed.
11. The prosecutrix, as PW6, has deposed that in the year 2013 she was working as Cashier in Mahatma Gandhi University situated at Noida, UP. Accused Amit used to drive the mini bus from Kailash Puri to Tilak Nagar. She knew accused by the name of Amit but later on she came to know that his other name was Ved Mitra. On her way back from her office from Noida, she used to take the metro from Noida to Tilak Nagar and then from Tilak Nagar to Lajwanti Garden, she used to travel in the mini bus driven by the accused. She did not travel in the bus of accused in the morning. Gradually they developped friendship. Accused had introduced her to a lady Ms.Shashi and he had told her that he had taken Rs.50,000/- as loan from her. She had told that lady that the accused would repay the Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 4 of 11 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
amount to her. One day in April, 2013 that lady with police came to her residence and demanded the money which the accused had taken as loan from her. Accused and his father had come to her residence and had given the money to Ms. Shashi. The prosecutrix had a live-in relationship with the accused and they resided together on rent in a house in gali no.1, Kailash Puri. She had physical relations with the accused with her free consent. The accused had although offered to marry her but she was not willing to marry him. Even today she did not wish to marry him. She also did not want any legal action taken against accused. Accused has not raped her. He has not committed any offence. He is innocent. She has prayed that the accused may be acquitted.
12. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.
13. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for State, the prosecutrix admitted that she had lodged the complaint (Ex.PW6/A) against accused in PS Maya Puri. She had gone to the PS to make a complaint against the accused as he had not returned Rs.50,000/- to her which had been taken by him from her for repaying the same to Ms. Shashi. Two ladies had met her in the PS to whom she had narrated the entire incident and showed her interest to lodged a complaint against accused. They both got the complaint typed and asked her to sign the same. She put her signatures on the complaint (Ex.PW6/A) without reading the contents of the same. She did not know the name of those two ladies. She even can not tell whether or not they were the police officials. The Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 5 of 11 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
complaint (ExPW6/A) was read over to the witness in the Court and she denied having made the same to the police. She was confronted with the contents of Ex.PW6/A. She admitted that she was medically examined in DDU hospital where her internal examination was also done. She had given the history to the doctor at the instance of the above said two ladies. She denied the suggestion that she had made the complaint (Ex.PW6/A) to the police on her own and put her signatures at point A after reading and understanding the contents of the same. She had denied the suggestion that before the doctor she had given the alleged history voluntarily and not at the instance of those two ladies present in the PS. Her statement was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. At the instance of those two ladies, she had made her statement before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as they both told her that if she do not make such kind of statement, a criminal case might be lodged against her. Therefore, under this apprehension she had made her statement before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. She admitted that she was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by the police and her statement (Ex.PW6/B)was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. She denied the suggestion that she had given her statement before learned Metropolitan Magistrate voluntarily, without any threat, fear, pressure or coercion. She denied the suggestion that in November 2012, the accused committed rape upon her in his rented accommodation Kailash Puri under the false promise to marry her and thereafter about 21-22 days after December 2012 he again committed rape upon her in his house in Village Gurana, Distt Baghpat, UP. She denied the suggestion that in the month of December 2012, accused attempted to extort money of Rs. 4 lacs from her. She denied the suggestion that she is Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 6 of 11 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
deliberately not telling the truth before the Court today in order to save the accused as she has been won over by him. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
14. In her cross examination by the accused, the prosecutrix has admitted that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence. She has admitted that she did not have any grievance against the accused. She has admitted that she had physical relations with accused with her free consent. She again prayed that the accused may be acquitted as he is innocent.
15. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being raped at all or that the accused had attempted extortion of Rs.4 lacs. She has not even mentioned the word "rape" in her evidence nor has deposed anything incriminating against the accused Mr. Ved Mitra.
16. In the circumstances, as PW6, the prosecutrix, who is the star witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to the accused, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Additional Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record the testimonies of other witnesses, who are official in nature. The precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself has not supported the prosecution case and is hostile.
Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 7 of 11 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
17. Statement of the accused is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
18. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
19. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW6, who happens to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered view that her deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
20. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
21. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of raping the prosecutrix or dishonestly demanding Rs. 4 lacs. There is no material on record to suggest that the prosecutrix was ever raped by the accused on the false pretext of marriage or that accused demanded Rs. 4 lacs from her. No case is made out against the accused as there is no Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 8 of 11 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
incriminating evidence against him.
22. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
23. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of the charged offences under sections 376, 384 and 511 IPC. There is no material on record to show that the accused in November, 2012 in his rented accommodation in Kailash Puri, Delhi committed rape on the pros- ecutrix under the false promise of marry and thereafter about 21-22 days af- ter December 2012 at his house in village Gurana, PO & Tehsil Baraut, Distt Baghpat, U.P., the accused again committed rape upon the prosecutrix and that in the month of December, 2012 he intentionally put presectrix in fear of injury and dishonestly demanded Rs. 4 lacs from the her.
24. From the above discussion, it is clear that the evidence of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish rape or attempted extortion. The evidence of the prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place.
25. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 9 of 11 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused, Mr.Ved Mitra @ Amit, for the offences under sections 376, 384 and 511 of the IPC.
26. Consequently, the accused, Mr.Ved Mitra @ Amit, is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offences under sections 376, 384 and 511 of the IPC.
27. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
28. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
29. It would not be out of place to mention here that today there is a public outrage and a hue and cry is being raised everywhere that Courts are not convicting the rape accused. However, no man, accused of rape, can be convicted if the witnesses do not support the prosecution case or give quality evidence, as in the present case where the prosecutrix is hostile, as already discussed above. It should not be ignored that the Court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the contents of the file as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media.
30. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 10 of
11 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
31. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 05th day of February, 2014. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************ Sessions Case Number : 127 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0332592013.
FIR No. 126/2013, Police Station Maya Puri.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ved Mitra @ Amit -:: Page 11 of 11 ::-