Delhi District Court
20. In Balraj Singh vs . State Of Punjab, 1976 Cri. Lj 1471 on 29 May, 2017
-1-
IN THE COURT OF MS. BIMLA KUMARI: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI
DELHI
Sessions Case No : 58/16.
CIS No. : 59154/2016
STATE
VERSUS
ANJANI LAL @ ANNI
S/O SHRI HIRA LAL,
R/O. VILLAGE RISORA,
PS TEHSIL NARAINI,
DISTT. BANDA, UP
FIR No :77/16.
Police Station :Shahbad Dairy.
Under Sections :365/376/354C/506 IPC.
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 21.04.2016
Date on which Judgment reserved : 27.05.2017
Date on which Judgment announced : 29.05.2017
J U D G M E N T
1.In the present case, charge against the accused in respect of offences U/S 365/376/354C/506 IPC was framed against the accused, with the allegations that in the month of November, 2015, at unknown -2- time he abducted the prosecutrix, from Village Shahbad Daulatpur and took her to Panna, Madhya Pradesh with an intention that she might to seduced to illicit intercourse and thereafter he committed rape upon her against her will and consent.
2. It was also alleged that during the stay of prosecutrix, at Panna Madhya Pradesh, accused took her nude photographs, when she was having bath and thereafter criminally intimidated her by saying that he would make her nude photographs public, if she did not give money to him.
3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined two witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.
5. PW1 is prosecutrix. She has deposed that she got married with Ramanand six years ago and started living with him at Shahbad Dairy. One male child was born out of the wedlock.
6. She has further deposed that Anjani Lal Gautam was residing in a room, adjacent to her room, as a tenant. One day, she does not remember the date and month, but, it was in the year 2015 she was talking with Anjani Lal and her husband saw that. Thereafter, a quarrel took place between her and her husband. She went to the PS, where one person met her in the PS and obtained her signature on some papers, which were not read over and explained to her. Her sister Seema was also accompanied her and she also put her signature by the name of Kajal. She (PW1) was taken to BSA hospital for medical examination.
-3-After 23 days she was produced before Judge Sahab, who recorded her statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C, which is Ex.PW1/A. Accused Anjani Lal is present in the court.
7. In crossexamination by Ld. APP, PW1 has deposed that statement Ex.PW1/B bears her signature at point 'A' but has volunteered that police obtained her signatures on some papers, which were not read over and explained to her. Police asked her to give the name and address of the accused.
8. She has further deposed that she had not stated in her statement that accused Anjani Lal promised to marry her and took her to his village and in the month of November, 2015 and established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. She has denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP in this regard.
9. She has further deposed that she had not stated in her statement that one day, when she was alone in the tenanted room, friend of accused Anjani Lal came and established physical relations with her without her consent and that when accused Anjani Lal came to home she narrated the facts of the committal of rape by his friend and that accused Anjani Lal told her that it did not matter.
10. She has further deposed that she had not stated in her statement that Anjani Lal had taken her photographs, when she was taking bath and thereafter, he refused to marry and started threatening her that he would show her photographs to public persons, if she did not give money to him and that thereafter, he ran away from there. She has denied that she is deposing falsely or that accused established physical -4- relations with her on the pretext of marriage or that a compromise has taken place with her. She has admitted that accused Anjani Lal was arrested at her instance and arrest memo Ex.PW1/C bears her signature. She has further deposed that she told the doctor at the time of her medical examination that accused established physical relations with him but has volunteered that she told the facts at the instance of police official.
11. In crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW1 has admitted that she deposed before the court that without any pressure, threat, or coercion in any manner. She further admitted that she had given the statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C, Ex.PW1/A at the instance of police official. She has further admitted that she told the facts to the doctor, in the alleged history, at the time of her medical examination, at the instance of police official. She further admitted that police obtained her signature on blank papers.
12. PW2 is Kajal. She is the sister of prosecutrix. She has deposed that she alongwith her daughter and husband has been residing at house no.D1/94, Karan Vihar, PhaseV, prem Nagar, Delhi. Her sister used to reside at Shahbad Dairy alongwith her husband. Accused Anjali Lal Gautam, present in the court, used to reside in the same premises in which her sister was residing. A quarrel took place between her sister and accused who took her sister to Banda, UP and kept her sister there. Her sister came back to Delhi after one month. Her sister had received injury on her face and on seeing her (PW2), she (her sister) started weeping. She (PW2) took her sister to Shahbad Dairy, where her statement was -5- recorded, which is Ex.PW1/A. Her sister was taken to BSA hospital, where she was medically examined. Her statement was recorded by IO.
13. In crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW2 has deposed that her sister told her that accused established physical relations with her sister and committed rape upon her sister, forcibly.
14. In crossexamination by ld. Counsel for accused, PW2 has deposed that her statement was not recorded by IO. She does not know as to whether her sister is residing with accused. She has admitted that she is not happy, as her sister is residing with the accused .
15. Statement of accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded separately, wherein he has submitted that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He does not know the prosecutrix and never met her.
16. Accused has not examined any witness in his defence.
17. I have heard the arguments from Ld. Counsel for the accused, who has prayed for acquittal of accused by submitting that the the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story. The evidence of PW2 cannot be taken into consideration being hearsay evidence.
18. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that the prosecutrix has, initially, supported the prosecution story but later on, she has been won over by the accused.
19. It is settled that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
20. In Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Cri. LJ 1471 (DB) (Punj), it has been held that:
-6-"The guilt of accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record. Even if, there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole the prosecution may be true but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted."
21. In Mousam Singha Ray & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2003 (3) J.C.C. 1358, it was held by the Supreme Court that:
"The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. The law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone."
22. In the present case, out of two witnesses. PW1 is the star witness of the case, being the prosecutrix. However, she has not supported the prosecution story either in examinationinchief or in crossexamination by Ld. APP. She has categorically deposed that in the year 2015, when she was talking with accused Anjani Lal, her husband saw that and thereafter, a quarrel took place between her and her husband. She went to the PS, where one person met her in the PS, who obtained her signatures on various blank papers, which were not read over and explained to her.
-7-23. In crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP also she has deposed that police obtained her signatures on papers, which were not read over and explained to her. She has categorically denied all contents of her statement Ex.PW1/B, when the same were put to her by Addl. PP. She has also deposed that she told the doctor, the facts of establishing of physical relations by accused, at the instance of police official when she was medically examined.
24. In crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused she has admitted that she gave the statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C at the instance of police official. She has further admitted that police obtained her signatures on certain blank papers.
25. The other material witness PW2, who is the sister of prosecutrix has also not supported the prosecution story and has been crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP, wherein she deposed that her sister told her that accused established physical relations with her sister and committed rape upon her. Since, the testimony of PW2 is hearsay, the same cannot be taken into consideration.
26. Since, the star witness of the case, has not supported the prosecution story and there is no material on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence. I am of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
27. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the offences, he was charged with. His personal bond and surety bond are hereby cancelled. His surety is discharged.
-8-28. However, in term of Section 437 (A) Cr.PC, accused has furnished fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of the like amount, which are accepted for a period of six months with the directions to appear before higher court, in the event, he receives any notice of appeal or petition against this judgment.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Bimla Kumari)
on this 29th May, 2017 ASJ : Spl. FTC (North)
Rohini Courts : Delhi