Delhi District Court
State vs Pankaj @ Sonu on 13 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - SPECIAL. FAST TRACK COURT : SAKET DISTRICT COURTS : NEW DELHI. Unique ID No. 02406R0340602013 SC No. : 30/2014 FIR No. : 349/2013 U/s. : 417/376/323/506/313/292 IPC PS : Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ........................ Complainant. Versus Pankaj @ Sonu S/o Shri Navneet Kumar R/o House No. 17/84, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi. .........................Accused person. Date of Institution : 15-2-2014 Judgment reserved for orders on : 13-03-2014 Date of pronouncement : 13-03-2014 JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 31-7-2013 the prosecutrix made the following statement before the police officials of P.S Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi, stating, inter alia, that :
"I am residing with my parents and SC No. : 30/2014 FIR No. : 349/2013 U/s. : 376/313/328/292 IPC PS : Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 1 am working with M/s Paar Tax Investment Consultant. I know Pankaj for the last four years and rather were in love with each other. Pankaj had talked to his father about our marriage and both our families were inclined for this proposal.
On 10-6-2012 we had rokka ceremony but on 24-9-2012 on my birthday Pankaj @ Sonu asked me not to go to my office as he would celebrate my birthday. Pankaj took me to a guest house at Lajpat Nagar where he had also invited his 4 / 5 friends. Pankaj brought drinks in the said party and even compelled me to drink the same. When the party was over, his friend left the guest house and after about half an hour Pankaj pressurized me to have sexual relations with him. I told him that he had taken too much liquor and he should return to his home but he did not listen and sexually exploited me despite my objections to it. He had also beaten me at that time. I complained to his father about the incident on telephone and SC No. : 30/2014 FIR No. : 349/2013 U/s. : 376/313/328/292 IPC PS : Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 2 returned to my house. Navneet Kumar, the father of Pankaj called my parents on telephone to his house and my parents went there. A quarrel ensured and Pankaj had beaten me in front of my family members and then my parents broke the engagement between us. However, after few days Pankaj appologized for his behaviour and thereafter we again started talking with each other. He even assured me that he would make his parents agree and realize that he loves me and then again Pankaj continued making sexual relations with me in a guest house on the pretext of marriage. In the meanwhile, I became pregnant and when I asked him to marry me he insisted for abortion. I refused abortion and at that time Pankaj told that he had prepared a blue film and if I would not agree for abortion he would put the said film on facebook. He also showed me a blue film and due to fear I went for abortion at Mother Child & General Clinic where my SC No. : 30/2014 FIR No. : 349/2013 U/s. : 376/313/328/292 IPC PS : Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 3 check-up was done. Thereafter Pankaj brought some medicine and asked me to take the same. After this incident we stopped meeting but we used to talk on phone and used to message each other. In the meanwhile Pankaj used to threaten me that if I would not meet him then he would upload my photographs on the facebook. Due to this I used to meet him once or twice in a week. Pankaj took me to a park at Sadiq Nagar and made physical relations. I had not disclosed this incident to anyone but despite all this Pankaj uploaded some of my photographs on facebook. Action be taken against him."
2. On the basis of above complaint, a Rukka was prepared and FIR bearing no. 349/2013 was registered under section 376/313/A(f)=292 A(f)/328 IPC IPC at P.S Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. During investigation, accused was arrested ; statement under section 164 Cr.P.C of the prosecutrix was recorded and after completion of investigation SC No. : 30/2014 FIR No. : 349/2013 U/s. : 376/313/328/292 IPC PS : Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 4 the charge sheet was filed.
3. Since it was a Session's triable case, it was committed to this court. On 28-2-2014, a charge under 417/376/323/506/313/292 IPC was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
4. Till date the prosecution had examined two witnesses.
The prosecutrix was examined as PW1 who had stated that in the year 2013 she was working at M/s Paar Tax Investment Consultant Pvt. Ltd. and that the accused was known to her for the last four years prior to lodging the present complaint and that they were good friends and later they decided to marry each other but accused kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or other. The prosecutrix wanted to marry as soon as possible and due to some misunderstanding she filed the present complaint. However, she reiterated that she made physical relations with her own consent and now that accused had married with her and they are living happily. She do not want any action. She also reiterated that she had filed the complaint Ex.PW1/A due to anger and SC No. : 30/2014 FIR No. : 349/2013 U/s. : 376/313/328/292 IPC PS : Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 5 on account of delay caused by accused in marrying her. She also admitted that she made a statement Ex.PW1/B under section 164 Cr.P.C but was due to anger and misunderstanding because of delay in marrying me by the accused.
Ld. Addl. P.P requested to cross examine the prosecutrix since she was resliing from her earlier statements. However, during her cross examination she did not depose qua rape if committed upon her. Rather she reiterated that whatever relations she had with accused were with her own consent. She also admitted that she was got medically examined at hospital vide MLC Ex.PW1/C but the incident she narrated to the doctor were purely on account of misunderstanding / anger and due to delay caused by the accused in marrying her. She denied that accused was arrested in her presence.
Similar is the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, examined as PW2. She had also not disclosed any untoward incident if happened in the life of her daughter.
SC No. : 30/2014 FIR No. : 349/2013 U/s. : 376/313/328/292 IPC PS : Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 6
5. In the facts and circumstances and that there is no other public witness who could support the case of the prosecution and especially in view of the depositions of the prosecutrix and her mother that whatever relations PW1 had with the accused were with her own consent, I felt that there was nothing left for recording of further formal witnesses as it would have been a sheer wastage of time and thus, vide my separate order I closed the evidence of the prosecution.
Since the prosecutrix had not narrated any incriminating fact against the accused, so his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the testimony of the prosecutrix, I am of the view that nothing incriminating had come on record against the accused and as such the accused deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Thus, acquitted. His bail bond stands cancelled and surety discharged. Accused is SC No. : 30/2014 FIR No. : 349/2013 U/s. : 376/313/328/292 IPC PS : Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 7 directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 13-3-2014. ( Yogesh Khanna ) ASJ-Spl. FTC / Saket Courts New Delhi.
SC No. : 30/2014 FIR No. : 349/2013 U/s. : 376/313/328/292 IPC PS : Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 8