Delhi District Court
State vs . on 21 December, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH TEWARI ASJVI(OUTER),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO.214/10
FIR NO. 107/05
U/S 376/506/34 IPC
PS S.P. Badli
Unique Case ID No. : 02404R0005542009
State
Vs.
1. Om Prakash s/o Het Ram
r/o WZ178, Shiv Nagar, Jail Road,
Hari Nagar, Delhi.
2. Ved Parkash s/o Ram Parkash
r/o B7/88, Sector 17, Rohini, Delhi.
3. Om Parkash s/o Balwant
r/o H.No.448, Rithala Road, Shahbad Daulat Pur,
Delhi.
4. Jagdish s/o Sokaran
r/o H.No. 266, Shahbad Daulat Pur,
Delhi.
5. Partap Singh s/o Mani Ram
r/o Flat No.51, Block E2, Pocket2,
Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi.
SC No.214/10 Page 1/9
Date when committed to the court of Sessions :11.07.2005
Date when case reserved for judgment : 21.12.2010
Judgment pronounced on : 21.12.2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.02.2005, the prosecutrix along with her mother and brother came to PS where W/SI Parvati was called and the prosecutrix along with her mother was sent for medical examination to BJRM hospital and thereafter her statement was recorded to the effect that she was taking tuition for Class Xth and that on 12.02.2005 at about 7 p.m one O.P. Sharma, the Principal of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalya No.II, Raghubir Nagar, Tagore Garden, Delhi, who was known to the prosecutrix and was imparting tuition to her, asked her to accompany him and to get a certificate of Xth class pass for her so that she could get service in Delhi Police and on this pretext the prosecutrix went along with him from Kesho Pur stand in an Indica car No.DL3CW0026 and was taken by said O.P. Sharma to Madhuban Chowk where one person met them who was introduced by O.P. Sharma as the Principal of Rohini School and who would issue her certificate of Xth class pass and for the said purpose the prosecutrix was asked to go to his office and that fellow also came inside the said car and thereafter O.P. Sharma took them near Badli Canal and from there to PWD rest house where two persons were already present in the rest house and on inquiry by her, O.P. Sharma told her to tell about the SC No.214/10 Page 2/9 said two persons and gave a signal to them and at the point of knife she was made to put off her clothes and first O.P. Sharma committed rape with her and thereafter his friend, alleged Principal of Rohini school, and afterwards the said two persons who were already present in the said house committed rape with her one after the other without her consent and she begged before them but they paid no heed and she was kept in the said rest house for the whole night and on 13.02.2005 at about 7 a.m she was made to sit in the said car and they left her near Kesho Pur bus depot and threatened her not to disclose the said incident to anyone otherwise she and her family would be killed and she was under fear but later on she disclosed the said incident to her mother and in the said manner she had come to the PS to make her statement. On the basis of the said statement, FIR was got registered.
2. During the investigation, at the pointing out of the prosecutrix, accused Om Parkash Sharma was arrested, the said Indica car was seized at the pointing out of the said accused and at his instance accused Ved Parkash, Om Parkash and Jagdish were arrested and the accused pointed out the place of occurrence, the bed sheet at the relevant time on the bed was seized, all the four accused were got medically examined and the samples of semen and blood were preserved, said accused except accused Om Parkash were produced before the court in muffled faces and a date was got fixed for their TIP and on 19.02.2005, the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 SC No.214/10 Page 3/9 Cr.PC was got recorded and from the said statement yet another accused Pratap Singh was found involved in the incident who produced his orders of bail u/s 438 Cr.PC from the Hon'ble High Court and he was arrested in the case on 24.05.2005 and was released on bail and the accused Ved Parkash, Om Parkash and Jagdish refused to join the TIP and the exhibits were sent to FSL and result of the FSL was filed subsequently and the charge sheet was filed against all the accused.
3. On the basis of the said evidence and the charge sheet my Ld. Predecessor, vide his order dated 10.10.2005, framed charges against all the accused u/s 376/506/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has produced as many as 15 witnesses, which have been discussed below.
5. The statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were dispensed with as there was no incriminating evidence against them and also for the reasons stated below.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsels for the accused and perused the record.
7. PW1, police official Ilam Singh has proved the rukka Ex.PW1/A and the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/B. PW4 Ct. Surender Singh deposed about seizure of the register of the rest house where the incident allegedly took place as Ex.P2 and the receipt book as Ex.P1 and thereafter he deposed about arrest of SC No.214/10 Page 4/9 accused Om Parkash Sharma and seizure of the car vide memo Ex.PW4/A and he further deposed about arrest of accused Jagdish and seizure of one more maruti car vide memo Ex.PW4/B. He further deposed about seizure of the bed sheet vide memo Ex.PW3/A and the samples seized by the doctor with regard to the semen and blood of the accused as Ex.PW4/C to Ex.PW4/E. PW5 HC Om Parkash was the MHC(M) who deposed about deposit of case property and sending the same to FSL Rohini. PW6 HC Buta Ram deposed about seizure of sample of vaginal swab etc pertaining to the prosecutrix vide memo Ex.PW6/A and taking the complaint to the PS for registration of FIR, reaching the PWD rest house near Badli Canal with the copy of the FIR and the complaint, preparation of site plan by the IO, seizure of rest house register and receipt book from the chowkidar of the rest house namely Hanuman vide memo Ex.PW6/B and thereafter arrest of accused Om Parkash vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B, seizure of the Indica car vide memo Ex.PW4/A, disclosure statement of accused Om Parkash as Ex.PW6/C, the arrest of accused Ved Parkash vide memo Ex.PW6/D, arrest of accused Jagdish, disclosure statements of all the accused, seizure of bed sheet from the rest house, the medical examination of all the accused and seizure of samples pertaining to the said accused and he identified the register as Ex.P2, the receipt as Ex.P1 and bed sheet as Ex.P3 and he also identified the cars i.e Indica and Maruti car. PW7 Dr. Gangotri identified the signatures of Dr. Sunita Gupta who SC No.214/10 Page 5/9 prepared the MLC of the prosecutrix Ex.PW7/A. PW9 SI Dhruv Narain also deposed on the same lines on which PW4 and PW6 have deposed and he also identified the register, receipt, bed sheet and cars. PW10 is W/Inspr. Parvati, IO of the case who also deposed regarding the investigation conducted by her and further proved the statement of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW10/A, her endorsement on the same as Ex.PW10/B, the site plan Ex.PW10/C and she also identified the copy of the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.PC although wrong exhibit number has been given to the same. She also deposed regarding arrest of accused Pratap vide memo Ex.PW10/E and releasing him on bail and bone age Xray of the prosecutrix vide report Ex.PW12/C and obtaining of School Leaving Certificate of the prosecutrix showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 09.10.1987, regarding refusal of TIP by accused Om Parkash s/o Het Ram and Om Parkash s/o Balwant, Ved Parkash and Jagdish and she also identified the said accused. PW11 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has proved the writing of Dr. Kamble who medically examined the prosecutrix vide observation in the MLC Ex.PW7/A. PW12 Dr. Shipra Rampal is the Radiologist who proved her report regarding pregnancy test of the prosecutrix which is Ex.PW12/A and the report regarding her age as Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C. PW13 is the concerned MM who deposed regarding TIP proceedings of the accused. PW14 is again the concerned Magistrate who recorded statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.PC. PW15 is Dr. Neeraj SC No.214/10 Page 6/9 Chaudhary who was inadvertently again examined as PW15 although he was earlier examined as PW11 and he proved the MLC of all the accused regarding their potency to commit sexual intercourse.
8. All the said oral and documentary evidence would have been put to the accused as incriminating evidence against them if the prosecutrix PW2, the chowkidar of the rest house PW3 and mother of the prosecutrix PW8 have supported the case of the prosecution because of its corroborative nature.
9. PW2 has deposed that on 17.02.2005 she had not met anyone and nothing happened with her and she had not filed any complaint to the police and she was declared hostile by the prosecution and in her extensive cross examination on behalf of the State, she was confronted with her previous statements Mark A, Mark C, Mark D, Mark E, Ex.PW2/D, the seizure memos of the documents, bed sheet etc but she denied all the things about the said incident as reproduced above.
10. PW3 Hanuman Singh was the watchman of the PWD rest house where the incident had taken place and he deposed that SDO Pratap Singh used to come in the rest house and stay there and none else used to come there with him and that he did not know any Jagdish and that on 12.02.2005 only accused Partap Singh, SGO had come in the rest house and at that time no other person or girl was accompanying him and he stayed in the rest house on the said night SC No.214/10 Page 7/9 and left in the morning. PW3 was extensively cross examined on behalf of the state by the Ld. APP wherein he admitted that he could be convicted for giving false statement in the court but he denied any statement made to the police which is Ex.PW3/1 although he admitted the seizure of the bed sheet vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and receipt book Ex.P1 and the register Ex.P2. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused he admitted that police had obtained his signatures on blank papers.
11. PW8, mother of the prosecutrix, deposed that in the year 2005 she was residing with her husband and children at H.No.WZ53, Raghubir Nagar, Chaukhandi, Khayala, Delhi and that she had 4 children and her daughter, the prosecutrix, was the youngest one and the prosecutrix was not attending any coaching classes in the year 2005 and that after passing the VIth class the prosecutrix left her studies and remained in the house and prosecutrix never told her about any sexual assault committed on her by any person in the month of February 2005 nor she had taken her daughter for medical examination before any doctor nor she had gone to the PS. After getting her declared hostile, PW8 was extensively cross examined on behalf of the State wherein she denied to have made any statement to the police. She also denied her any son by the name of Manoj (the said Manoj has been cited as a witness who remained untraced throughout the case as per repeated reports on the summons).
SC No.214/10 Page 8/9
12. In the said circumstances there remained no incriminating evidence against the accused to be put to them and accordingly, the statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were dispensed with.
13. In view of the said hostile deposition of PW2, PW3 and PW8, and in view of the fact that there is no other evidence connecting the accused with the offence, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused and they are acquitted of the charges u/s 376/506/34 IPC. Their PBs and SBs are hereby discharged. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
(Announced in the open court on 21.12.2010) (RAKESH TEWARI) ASJ06(OUTER) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI SC No.214/10 Page 9/9