Delhi District Court
State vs Neeraj Goswami on 28 March, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF MR.BHUPESH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT)01,WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. : 117/17
STATE
versus
Neeraj Goswami
son of Sh. Roopram Goswami
R/o H.No. 32A, LIG Flat,
Madhuban Enclave, Madipur,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 364/17
Offence U/S : 376 /377/313/365/342/323/506 IPC
Police Station : Punjabi Bagh
DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE
AFTER COMMITTAL: 26.09.2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28.03.2018
JUDGMENT
1.Brief facts of the matter as emerged from the charge sheet are that on 27.07.2017, prosecutrix (name withheld in order to protect the identity of the prosecutrix) made complaint with the police of PS Punjabi Bagh to the effect that she is Graduate and was working with NGO run by the accused Neeraj Goswami and one Deepali Handa. She became friendly Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01 West, THC, Delhi/28.03.2018 2 with the accused and accused used to take the prosecutrix from her house for office and also drop her back to her house from office. In the month of February 2016, the accused for the first time under threat forcibly committed upon the prosecutrix in a car in the area of Delhi Cant. Thereafter, the accused continued raping her at various places. In the last 1½ year accused has aborted fetus of the prosecutrix for three time. On 01.07.2017, accused took the prosecutrix to his rented house in the area of Sarita Vihar. At that time, prosecutrix was carrying 18 weeks pregnancy. The accused used to beat her there. On 26.07.2017, the accused has committed unnatural sex with the prosecutrix. The accused kept the prosecutrix in the said house forcibly. On 27.07.2017, the accused was gone to Naryana for meeting and in his absence, one girl namely Deepa who also work in the NGO came there and the prosecutrix told everything to her. Then, the prosecutrix made the complaint in this respect on 27.07.2017 at PS Punjabi Bagh. On the basis of the complaint of the prosecutrix FIR No. 364/2017 U/s 376 (2)
(n)/377/506/313/323/342/365 IPC registered. After registration, prosecutrix was medically examined. Her statement was recorded U/s 164 Cr. P. C. The accused was arrested. After completing other formal investigation charge Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01 West, THC, Delhi/28.03.2018 3 sheet U/s 376/377/506/313/323/342/365 IPC were presented in the court of Ld. M. M. against accused. The case was committed to Ld. Sessions Court by Ld. Trial Court.
2. Vide order dated 28.10.2017 of my Ld. Predecessor Court has prima facie found the charge for offence punishable under section 376/377/506/313/323/342/365 IPC against the accused. The separate formal was framed accordingly, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1. Proseuctrix has not supported the case of prosecution and in unmistakable terms submitted that the physical relations were established between her and the accused with her consent and she was already married with accused. She was cross examined by Ld. APP with permission of court on the ground that she was resiling from her earlier statement but even at her cross examination of this witness by APP, this witness has not stated anything against the accused. In respect to the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C, the witness submitted that she has made the statement under the pressure of her parents and police. In respect to complaint Ex PW 1/A she has submitted that she made this complaint under the pressure of her parents.
Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01 West, THC, Delhi/28.03.2018 4
4. Among the remaining prosecutin witnesses three witness are public witnesses i.e. father, mother of the prosecutrix and one Ms. Deepika. In case, even these witnesses are examined by the prosecution it would be of no use because the prosecutrix herself has not supported the case of prosecution and that these witnesses have not witnessed any incident qua which the accused was charge sheeted. The other witnesses are also formal in nature as they are either doctors and police official and no useful purpose would be served to examined the remaining prosecution witnesses also. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution stands closed by order.
4. Since no incriminating material/evidence came on record against the accused, hence, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stands dispensed with. The accused has been asked to furnished bail bond of Rs. 15,000/ with one surety of like amount, in view of the provisions of Section 437 A Cr.P.C. Same furnished and accepted.
5. In the light of above discussion, accused Neeraj Goswami stands acquitted for the offence u/s 376(2)
(n)/377/506/313/323/342/365 IPC. He be released from J/C forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01 West, THC, Delhi/28.03.2018 5 File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (BHUPESH KUMAR) this 28th March, 2018. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01 West, THC, Delhi/28.03.2018