Delhi District Court
State vs Jagveer on 22 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA, ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE02 (EAST) SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No.1969/16
FIR No.127/15
U/s 366/323/506 IPC
PS Kalyanpuri
In the matter of:
State
Versus
Jagveer
S/o Ranjit
R/o H.No. 5/225,
Khichripur, Delhi
Date of Institution 23.05.2016
Arguments heard 19.12.2017
Date of order 22.12.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that on 10.02.2015, the prosecutrix (hereinafter referred as 'P') gave a written complaint in the PS Kalyanpuri, wherein she stated that she is 18 years of age and student of Ist Year. She was having normal friendship with accused Jagveer for the last three years. On 04.10.2014 when she was going to attend her tuition at Pandav Nagar, accused made her sit on his motorbike stating that they will be back in a while but he took her to Arya Samaj Mandir, Tis Hazari where he beat her and threatened her that he would kill her and her brother and throw acid at her, if she FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 1 of 14 would not marry him. Due to threat, she got scared. The accused got signed the marriage papers and performed marriage with her against her will and after that he dropped her back to Pandav Nagar from where she went to her home. She did not tell anyone about the same as her father was operated upon recently and her grandparents are heart patients. On 07.02.2015, she visited the house of her maternal aunt whom she told everything upon which her aunt made a call at 100 number. She stated that nothing wrong happened to her. The accused used to threaten that he would make her MMS. She doesn't wish to live with him. The accused threatened her with the photographs which the accused had taken at the time of the marriage. On the basis of this written complaint, the FIR of the present case was registered.
2. During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by Ld. MM u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on dt. 11.02.15 wherein she stated that on 03.10.2014, Komal had called her at her home and when she reached there she found that accused Jagveer, Komal and their two friends were already present there. Komal told her that they have kidnapped his brother due to which she got scared. Komal gave water to prosecutrix and after drinking it prosecutrix became unconscious and she found herself in a car after she regained her consciousness. The said persons told her that they have taken her nude photographs and kidnapped her brother and if she would not follow their commands they would throw acid at her. They took her to Arya Samaj Mandir, Tis Hazari and due to fear she followed their command and performed FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 2 of 14 marriage with the accused Jagveer. After marriage they dropped her at Mother Dairy, Pandav Nagar from where she went to her home. She did not inform anybody about the said incident as her father was operated upon and her both parents were at hospital. Her grandparents are heart patients. On 07.02.2015, her maternal aunt visited her home to whom she informed about the said incident. Her aunt made a complaint at 100 number. She stated that she doesn't want to go with accused. Accused used to threaten her that he would ruin her life and kill her brother. He also threatened her by saying that he would make an MMS of her and put it on the website. Accused had beaten her. Accused married her on 3rd but got mentioned the date of 4th.
3. The accused was granted anticipatory bail by Ld. Sessions Court. After completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against him u/s 366/323/506 IPC and after completion of proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the sessions court.
4. Vide order dt. 05/07/2016, a charge U/s 366/323/506 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Points which emerged for determination in this case are:
Whether on 04.10.2014, within the jurisdiction of PS Kalyanpuri, Delhi, accused Jagveer alongwith his associates had kidnapped the complainant and beaten her and got forcefully signed the marriage papers and forcefully performed marriage with her by extending threats?
FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 3 of 14
6. In order to establish the aforesaid accusations, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Brief outline of the testimonies of these witnesses is as under: (6.1.) ASI Yatvir Singh (PW1) is the duty officer who got recorded the FIR (ExPW1/A) of the present case. This witness deposed that on 10.02.2015 WSI Santosh produced a Rukka (ExPW1/B) on the basis of which he got recorded the FIR of the present case in the computer and in this regard, he also issued certificate u/s Section 65B of Evidence Act.
(6.2.) Raju (PW2) is one of the witnesses to the marriage certificate. He stated that accused was known to him for the last about 1012 yrs. He further stated that on 04.10.14 the accused got married to the prosecutrix and he stood a witness to their marriage.
(6.3) PW3 is the complainant/prosecutrix. PW3 has deposed more or less on the same lines of her aforesaid complaint. She brought on record her complaint as ExPW3/A and the statement made by her u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as ExPW3/B. (6.4) Mr. Lallan Thakur (PW4) is the priest of the Arya Samaj Vaidik Mandal who had performed the marriage of the accused and the prosecutrix under Arya Marriage Validation Act and Hindu Marriage Act. This witness brought on record the marriage certificate as ExPW4/A. He deposed that at the time of marriage the accused and complainant had submitted their affidavits ExPW4/B and PW FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 4 of 14 4/C and their IDs ExPW4/D and PW4/E. He also stated that complainant had also furnished her SSC grade sheet ExPW4/F as her age proof.
(6.5) Mr. Deepak (PW5) is another witness to the marriage certificate (ExPW4/A). He stated that he had attended the marriage of the accused and prosecutrix and had signed on the marriage certificate as a witness.
(6.6) Mr. Suresh Kumar (PW6) is the head/Pradhan of the Arya Samaj Vedic Mandal, Rajender Market, Tis Hazari Court. He deposed on the same lines of PW4. He also deposed that complainant had given a statement in writing which this witness brought on record as ExPW6/A. (6.7) Ms. Neha Paliwal (PW7) is the Ld. MM who recorded the statement of complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
(6.8) Mr. Jai Prakash (PW8) is the official concerned of the RSKV School. This witness brought on record the admission form of complainant as EXPW8/A, the copy of the admission and withdrawal register containing the date of birth of complainant as Ex PW8/B and her school leaving certificate as ExPW8/C. (6.9) SI Santosh Sirohi (PW9) is the IO of the case.
7. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which accused stated that he has been FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 5 of 14 falsely implicated in this case. The complainant had solemnized marriage with him with her free will and after marriage she did not want to stay with him and left him. She made a complaint against him at the instance of her relatives and family members
8. I have heard Ld. Addl. P.P and Ld. Counsel for the accused and gone through the record of the case.
9. Ld Addl. P.P. submitted that prosecution has proved its case against the accused through the testimony of the complainant. It is submitted that prosecution has proved on record through her testimony that accused had threatened her and under threat, he forcefully solemnized marriage with her and had got forcefully singed the marriage papers from complainant against her wishes. Thus, Ld. Addl. P.P. submitted that accused may be convicted for the offences he is charged with.
10. On the other hand Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that testimony of complainant is not reliable as there are several material contradictions in the testimony of the complainant. The complainant and accused were having an affair and they got married with their free will and in this regard marriage papers were duly executed and signed by both the parties and later on, the complainant has dragged the accused in the present case due to the pressure of her family members. There is a considerable delay of five months in lodging the FIR which has not been explained. It is also submitted that the accused FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 6 of 14 had filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights and during pendency of this petition a settlement has been arrived at between the accused and complainant and they agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the first motion petition has already been allowed by Ld. Family Court and second petition has also been filed which is likely to be accepted during this month. Thus, Ld. Defence Counsel prayed that accused may be acquitted.
11. After considering the testimony of the witnesses and perusing the record, this court finds that the case of the prosecution doesn't inspire any confidence and is full of material contradictions which goes to the root of the case and prompts this court to discredit and disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
12. The prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of the complainant. It is well settled law that the conviction can be held on the testimony of a solitary witness if the evidence of such a witness is reliable and doesn't suffer with material contradictions or material improvements. The version of the complainant (PW1) is not reliable as her three statements are available on record i.e. her initial complaint, her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement made before the court. Every time she gave different account of the alleged incident. The complainant made a complaint with the police on 10.02.2015 which is the basis of the FIR and thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 11.02.15 her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded and finally her FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 7 of 14 testimony was recorded before the court. In her complaint (EXPW3/A) she stated that she was having simple friendship with the accused and on 04/10/2015, the accused had taken her to the Arya Samaj Mandir on the pretext of some work and after reaching there he threatened her and got solemnized the marriage forcefully. It is clear from the first version of the complainant that it was accused only who committed the offence of performing the forceful marriage with her while in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.(Ex3/B) she introduced a new story and stated that on 03.10.14 her friend Komal had called her at her home where Komal was present alongwith accused Jagveer and his two friends. Komal told her that they had kidnapped her brother. Komal gave her water and after drinking water she became unconscious and after regaining consciousness she found herself in a car where they told her that they have taken her nude photographs and threatened her to follow their command and in case, she would not do as they say, they would throw acid at her. They took her to Arya Samaj Temple where accused forcefully solemnized marriage with her and she did not protest due to fear. Thus, in her subsequent statement, she gave a different account about how she was forcefully taken to the temple for marriage. Here she indicted four persons with altogether a different story about which no explanation was given neither in the statement itself nor thereafter. She even did not clarify this fact in her statement before the Court as to which statement is giving the true facts. Both statements cannot go hand in hand. Thus, the foundation of prosecution case is based upon two contradictory statements which FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 8 of 14 prosecution has not been able to clarify during entire trial. Thus, prosecution story about the manner in which she was allegedly forced and taken to the temple for marriage becomes highly doubtful and compel this court to discredit the same.
13. Furthermore, there is another material contradiction in the statements of the complainant. In her first complaint, she stated that she was forcefully taken Arya Samaj Mandir for marriage on 04.10.2015 while in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that accused had forced and solemnized marriage with her on 03.10.2015. She categorically stated that marriage was performed on 3 rd and accused got mentioned the date of 4th.
14. During investigation, two versions of complainant had come on record. One on the basis of which the FIR was registered and another one was the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. In her first complaint, she indicted only accused Jagveer while in her subsequent statement which she gave just next day to her first complaint, she indicted four persons i.e. her friend Komal, accused Jagveer and his two friends namely Raju and Deepak. Perusal of the record shows that no investigation has been conducted qua the subsequent allegations of the complainant. Nothing has been brought on record to show that what action was taken by the IO on the subsequent version of the complainant. It is also not explained as to why no investigation was conducted on these allegations. The complainant has also not put forth any grievance qua the same. The prosecution neither took her FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 9 of 14 subsequent statement into consideration nor gave any explanation for the same. Furthermore, the prosecution has cited Raju and Deepak as prosecution witnesses though in the statement 164 Cr.P.C. the complainant had alleged that these persons had played active role in threatening and forcing her to perform marriage with the accused. Again prosecution has not put forth any explanation qua this also.
15. Regarding the nature of threats caused to her by the accused, the complainant has made three different statements. In her complaint she stated that she followed the instructions of accused as he had threatened her that he would kill her brother while in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, she stated that accused and his associates forced her by threatening that they had kidnapped her brother and during cross examination she again changed her stand and stated that accused had not kidnapped her brother rather he had threatened her that he would kidnap her brother.
16. The complainant stated in her complaint that she was having simple friendship with the accused, thus, endeavored to say that she was not having an affair with him. During cross examination the complainant was confronted with as many as 58 letters (ExPW3/D1) which she had written to the accused. The complainant admitted that those letters were in her hand writing. It is clear from perusal of these letters that complainant was having an affair with the accused and they were planning to get married. These letters clearly belie the claim of the complainant that she was only having a simple friendship and shows FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 10 of 14 that she was having an affair and was in regular contact of the accused. Thus, under these circumstances, the allegations that she was forced to get married seem to be highly doubtful and rather the defence of the accused that the complainant was having an affair with him and got married with him with her free will seems to be quite probable.
17. The allegations that she was forcefully taken to the temple for marriage seem to be highly doubtful for another reason. Complainant stated that accused had suddenly taken her to the temple to perform marriage with her. PW4 and PW6 who are the Priest and Pradhan of the Arya Samaj Temple have brought on record several documents which were submitted at the time of marriage. They brought on record the marriage certificate, affidavits as well as ID proof of the both the parties as Ex PW4/A to PW4/E. Besides, the PW4 has also brought on record the secondary school examination Grade Sheet of the complainant as ExPW4/F. Apart from these documents, PW6 placed on record the statement given by the complainant as Ex PW6/A. It can be assumed that accused got prepared the affidavits of his own, however, it is not explained as to how the ID card and the SSC certificate of the complainant came to be submitted with the temple authorities. The affidavit of complainant as well as her ID card and certificate bears the date of 03.10.2014 which clearly shows that these documents were prepared on 03.10.2014 for submission before the temple authorities. All these facts again belie the claim of the FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 11 of 14 complainant that she was forced to sign the papers on 04.10.2014. There is no explanation by the complainant as to how her ID card and certificate which were duly attested by her were submitted with the temple authorities. The complainant never alleged that accused had ever taken her said documents. As per allegations, on the day of incident, the complainant had no chance to carry the same. Thus, under these circumstances, it is clear that all these documents only came in possession of the temple authorities as the same were submitted by the complainant herself. Furthermore, PW6 has placed on record the statement given by the complainant at the time of marriage as ExPW6/A. The complainant only stated that she was forced to sign the marriage papers; however, she never stated that she was also forced to give a statement in writing that she is major and was marrying the accused with her sweet will. Thus, the allegation of the complainant that she was forced to sign the marriage papers seems to be highly improbable.
18. The claim of the complainant is beyond logic and comprehension and not trustworthy as she claimed that accused performed forceful marriage with her yet the accused allowed her live to with her parents. The motive of the alleged forceful marriage is not proved on record. Nothing has come on record to show the purpose behind the forceful marriage. If the accused wanted to forcefully marry her then after marriage why he allowed the complainant to go back to her parents and live with them.
FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 12 of 14
19. The complainant claimed that the marriage was forcefully performed while the claim of the accused has been all along that marriage was solemnized with the free will and consent of the complainant and after marriage they lived together as husband and wife. Accused claimed that he filed a petition u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act when the complainant left his company. It is also claimed that during pendency of the said petition, a compromise was arrived at between them before Mediation Cell on 01.6.2017 and they agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. In order to prove these facts, the accused has examined himself and brought on record the certified copy of the first motion petition filed u/s 13B (1) of HMA as well as supporting affidavits. The accused has also filed on record the Joint Statement made by them before the Ld. Family Court on 17.07.2017 as well as order of Ld. Family Court by virtue of which the first motion petition has been allowed. The certified copies of said documents have been placed on record as DW1/1 (Colly). It is clear from perusal of these documents that complainant has stated before the Ld. Family Court that the marriage between them was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and it was consummated also. Thus, under these circumstances it is difficult to assume that marriage between them was performed forcefully.
20. Thus, it is clear from these discussions that prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had forced the complainant to marry him. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that the testimony of the FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 13 of 14 complainant is full of material improvements as well as contradictions. Thus, it is held that testimony of the complainant is not trustworthy.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is hereby acquitted from the charges leveled with.
22. File be consigned to record room after compliance of the provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C. AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY GUPTA Location: Delhi GUPTA Date: 2017.12.22 16:28:26 +0530 (Ajay Gupta) ASJ02/ Special Judge(NDPS) KKD/East/Delhi Announced in open court on 22.12.2017 FIR No. 127/15 State Vs Jagveer U/s 366/323/506 IPC 14 of 14