Delhi District Court
Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) Scc 475" And "Om ... vs . State Of U.P. 2006, on 16 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL FTC - 2 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
Case No. 390/2018
Assigned to Sessions. 26.05.2018
Arguments heard on 16.08.2018
Date of Judgment 16.08.2018
FIR No. 385/2017
State V Manpreet @ Vicky, s/o Ram Ashra,
r/o. 144, Gate No.04, Pap Line,
Jalandhar, Punjab.
Police Station Nabi Karim
Under Section 354/376 IPC & 4 Dowry Prohibition
Act.
JUDGMENT :
1. In the present case Station House Officer of Police Station Nabi Karim had
filed a challan vide FIR No.385/2017 dated 21.11.2018 u/s. 376/354 IPC for
the prosecution of accused Manpreet @ Vicky in the court of ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate. After compliance of the requirement of section 207 Cr. P.C. the
case was sent to this court being the designated Special Fast Track Court for
trial of the offences of sexual assault against the women through the Office of
Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Keeping in view
of section 228 (A) IPC and directions of Supreme court in "State of Karnataka
Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) SCC 475" and "Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. 2006,
CRLJ. 2913", the name of prosecutrix is not being disclosed in the judgment.
Case No.390/2018
State Vs. Manpreet @ Vicky 1/10
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. On 21.11.2017, present FIR was registered on the complaint of prosecutrix Ex.PW1/A, who had given here written complaint in PS which was received vide DD No.51B and marked to W/ASI Babita. In the complaint the prosecutrix alleged that she came in contact with accused in January 2017 through facebook and she started talking to him. During the course of their interaction, accused gave a proposal her to marring her which was also accepted by her family member on 30.10.2017, her roka ceremony took place at the house of accused at Jalandhar, Punjab, where prosecutrix and her family members gone to perform the roka ceremony. She alleged that in the roka ceremony clothes, sweets, dry fruits, silver coins etc. and one lacs was given to the family members of accused. The marriage was fixed for 23.11.2017. thereafter, sister of accused Meenu demanded Rs.5 lacs as dowry and one flat in Uttam Nagar. Sister of accused also demanded Rs. 1 lacs to be given on 06.11.2017. Prosecutrix further alleged that on 06.11.2017 accused and his friend Tony came to her house and he sent his friend Tony outside the house and her mother was also not present in the house as she had gone to purchase marriage articles. Thereafter, accused started molesting, she protested and then accused demanded for doing sexual intercourse with her with full force. Accused also demanded Rs.1 lac and accused caused her beatings and then he left from the house taking away some important papers and her gold jewellery. Accused left for his house in Jalandhar. She tried to contact him and but accused refused to marry her. She did not disclose about the incident of rape to her family members. On 23.11.2017 all the preparation of her marriage were complete. She came to know that accused had made preparation to go to Case No.390/2018 State Vs. Manpreet @ Vicky 2/10 Malasiya and hearing this she informed about the incident to her mother and after mustering courage she lodged complaint with the police.
1. During investigation her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 23.11.2017 wherein apart from allegation of rape she further stated that accused had demanded Rs.10 lacs and a flat and did not return her articles. She had refused for her internal examination in the hospital. After completing investigation charge sheet was filed and the matter was committed to this court for trial.
CHARGE:
3. On the basis of material available on record, this court vide order dated 31.07.2018 framed charges against accused Manpreet @ Vicky for the offence punishable u/s 354/376 IPC & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
4. So far prosecution has examined only two witnesses.
5. PW1: Prosecutrix 'N' is a material witness being victim and complainant. She deposed that she has studied upto 10th class. Her family consists of her parents, two younger brothers, herself and her one married sister.
6. PW1 further deposed that accused had come into her contact through Facebook in the month of January, 2017. Accused had told her that he had been working in a Mall as a Salesman. He had also told her that he was the resident of Case No.390/2018 State Vs. Manpreet @ Vicky 3/10 Jalandhar, Punjab. He also told her that his father is in govt. job. She furhter deposed that accused and herself started liking each other and during our talks they agreed to marry each other with the consent of their family members. She has correctly identified the accused to be the same person against whom she had lodged the present complaint.
7. PW1 further deposed that on 30.10.2017, she and her family members had gone at the house of accused in Jalandhar where their Roka ceremony took place. She does not know how much amount was given to accused by her parents in the Roka ceremony and their date of marriage was fixed for 23.11.2017.
8. PW1 further deposed that after Roka ceremony in the month of November, 2017 accused had come at her house on the invitation of her parents for the service of invitation card. She further deposed that on that day her mother had gone outside and no one was present in her family at that time in her house. She further deposed that accused had established physical relationship with her with her consent.
9. On Court question:When physical relationship with you by the accused was with your consent, why did you register the present case against the accused?
She replied that since accused had left her house after physical relationship and thereafter, he did not pick up her phone, therefore, she got registered the present case.
10. She further deposed that she had lodged a complaint with the police which is Case No.390/2018 State Vs. Manpreet @ Vicky 4/10 not in her handwriting but it bears her signature at point A. She has proved complaint vide Ex.PW1/A. She deposed that somebody in the police station had written it on her dictation.
11. At this stage, ld. Addl. PP for State read over the contents of the aforesaid complaint Ex.PW1/A to the prosecutrix. On hearing the same witness denies that she had stated in her aforesaid complaint that accused did sexual intercourse with her forcibly against her wish and also demanded Rs.1 lac and on her refusal he had beaten her due to which she became unconscious.
12. She deposed that she had stated to the police in her complaint Ex.PW1/A that on 26.11.2017 she came to know that accused had made preparation to go to Malasiya and then she mustered courage and wrote this complaint and requested to take action against the accused.
13. She further deposed that she had narrated the fact in her complaint Ex.PW1/A that accused had refused to marry her. She has proved her MLC vide MarkA. She has proved her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW1/B running into 02 pages.
14. She deposed that she had narrated in her statement Ex.PW1/B that accused had sent his friend, Tony outside the house and then forcibly established physical relationship with her due to which she became unconscious.
15. She further deposed that she had also stated in her statement Ex.PW1/B that accused had taken her jewellary and important documents and then ran away Case No.390/2018 State Vs. Manpreet @ Vicky 5/10 from the house. She further deposed that she had also stated in her statement Ex.PW1/B that after 24 days accused had called her back on phone and demanded Rs.10 lacs and a flat and then refused to marry her and he did not return their articles.
16. This witness was declared hostile by ld. Addl. PP for the State. On being cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she admitted that whatever she had narrated before the Ld. Magistrate it was recorded by her in her statement Ex.PW1/B. She was also told by the Ld. Magistrate to depose about the correct facts without any pressure or influence. She admitted that till the registration of the present case she was not under any kind of misunderstanding from the side of accused. She also admitted that at the time of the registration of the present case she had realized that accused had cheated her and had established physical sexual relationship with her. She also admitted that till the registration of the case she was having the impression that accused and his family members were demanding dowry in the form of money and flat for her marriage with accused. This witness had denied to the suggestion that today she has deposed that sexual relationship with her and accused took place with her consent. This witness had denied to the suggestion that she is deposing falsely on this aspect as she has married with accused and compromised the matter with him. She admitted that she want today that accused should not be punished. She stated that she had pointed out place of incident to the police during the course of investigation and police had prepared site plan at her instance.
17. PW2 W/SI Babita is the Investigating Officer in the present case. She Case No.390/2018 State Vs. Manpreet @ Vicky 6/10 deposed on the lines of investigation. She deposed that on 21.11.2017, a complaint of the prosecutrix was marked to her as it was received in police station vide DD no. 51B. After perusing the complaint already Ex.PW1/A she prepared rukka Ex.PW2/A bearing her signature at point A and rukka was handed over to duty officer for registration of FIR. She deposed that then she reached at the house of the prosecutrix where prosecutrix met her and she made inquiry from her about the complaint lodged by her and prosecutrix had confirmed the contents of her complaint. She had recorded her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which is MarkX. She deposed that at her instance she prepared site plan Ex.PW2/B bearing her signature at point A and in the meantime Ct. Diwakar brought copy of FIR and original rukka at the spot and she received the same from him.
18. PW2 further deposed that on 26.11.2017 again the investigation of this case was assigned to her. She searched for the accused. He was the resident of Jalandhar, Punjab. He was not found available at his address, so on 16.04.2018 She got issued NBW against accused from the court of ld. Magistrate. She further depose that on 23.04.2018 she along with Ct. Rakesh reached in the area of house of prosecutrix and accused was found present outside the house of prosecutrix. He was apprehended on the identification of a secret informer and she also knew him. She has proved arrest memo of accused vide Ex.PW2/C, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/D and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW2/E.
19. She further deposed that on 24.04.2018 accused was also got medically examined in Lady Hardinge Hospital and MLC MarkB was collected by her.
Case No.390/2018State Vs. Manpreet @ Vicky 7/10 After medical examination accused was referred to RML Hospital for his potency test. On the same day accused was produced in RML Hospital where he was medically examined for his potency vide MLC MarkC.
20. She further deposed that in the hearing before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which she attended the proceedings against sister of accused were quashed whereas the proceedings against accused were not quashed. She has correctly identified the accused in the court. She further deposed that after completing investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court.
21. On being cross examined by Sh. Prem Singh, ld. counsel for accused, she deposed that she received the complaint of prosecutrix at about 07:30 p.m. from the duty officer in police station. She further deposed that she had reached at the house of prosecutrix at about 07:55 p.m. and mother of the prosecutrix along with prosecutrix was present at that time. She returned back to police station at about 09:00 p.m. on that day. This witness had denied to the suggestion that she has not done investigation in the fair manner and filed the charge sheet against the accused under the pressure of her senior police officers.
22. Ld. counsel for accused requested to close P.E. on the ground that prosecutrix being a star witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution and no purpose would serve in continuing further trial.
23. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has objected to the prayer of ld.
counsel for accused and submitted that the case of prosecution cannot be Case No.390/2018 State Vs. Manpreet @ Vicky 8/10 thrown overboard merely on the ground that prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution on material points and that prosecution should be allowed to continue with the trial so as to reach a logical conclusion as the prosecutrix has admitted about her complaint made to police and the statement given before ld. MM u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Heard.
PERUSAL OF RECORD:
24. Since prosecutrix herself has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution on any aspect, hence, no needful purpose would be served to continue with the trial. The allegation of rape cannot be proved by any other witness cited in the chargesheet except prosecutrix. Even if the testimony of other prosecution witnesses is accepted. It would not be of any help in the absence of supported version of prosecutrix which has not come on record as prosecutrix turned hostile and changed her version. Hence, the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State for further examination of other witnesses is declined and P.E. is closed.
25. Since no incriminating evidence has come on record. Hence, S.A. u/s 313 Cr. P.C. is dispensed with. Accordingly, accused Manpreet @ Vicky is acquitted from the charges u/s 354/376 IPC & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act IPC.
26. Accused is directed to execute bail bond u/s 437 A Cr. P.C. in sum of Rs. 25,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
27. Since prosecutrix has been turned hostile. Hence, prosecutrix does not deserve for any compensation from the court.
Case No.390/2018State Vs. Manpreet @ Vicky 9/10
28. The testimony in the present case is clear example of misuse of due process of law and such kind of cases is giving wrong message in the society. Earlier, prosecutrix has lodged the complaint with the allegation of rape by the accused and further before the Magistrate she had also given the same version and in the court, she had been turned hostile. On one call entire machinery of criminal system come in active mode and in the court prosecutrix turned hostile. Hence, it is a grave misuse of process of law by the prosecutrix. Therefore, SHO is directed to take necessary action against the prosecutrix/complainant in the present case.
29. Copy of this order be sent to SHO concerned for necessary action and compliance.
30. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.08.2018.
(RAMESH KUMARII)
Digitally signed ASJ/SFTC2(CENTRAL),
by RAMESH TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RAMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2018.08.17
13:41:28 +0000
Case No.390/2018
State Vs. Manpreet @ Vicky 10/10