Delhi District Court
State vs . Dharmendra @ Mukesh @ Chotu on 4 July, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL LD. ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC No. 154/09
FIR No. 219/08
P.S. Aman Vihar
U/s 376/366 IPC
State Vs. Dharmendra @ Mukesh @ Chotu
S/o Sh. Ram Parsad
R/o D-176, Gali No. 7,
Aman Vihar, Delhi.
Date of Institution in Sessions Court: 6.12.2008
Date of transfer to this Court: 8.12.2008.
Date of Judgment: 4.07.2009.
JUDGMENT
1. In brief, the prosecution story is that prosecutrix (R) (the name of the prosecutrix is hereinafter being referred to as (R), as it is a case U/s 376 IPC) lodged a complaint with the police on 7.7.08 that she was residing at Aman Vihar and opposite their house one boy named Dharmender @ Chotu was also residing, who was doing the work of sewing at his house and being a neighbour he used to come to their house and she also used to visit him and on 3.7.08 the said boy enticed her and thereafter took her to sector 2 21,22, Rohini on the pretext that he will get her some articles from the market and on his enticement she accompanied her and thereafter he forcibly took her to a park in a jungle and thereafter committed rape with her against her consent. She also tried to raise an alarm but he closed his mouth and threatened her that he would kill her in case she raised an alarm.
2. On the said complaint of the prosecutrix(R), FIR bearing no.
219/08 U/s 376 IPC was registered at P.S. Aman Vihar. Prosecutrix (R) was medically examined at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri and after her medical examination the relevant samples were also seized by the doctors. The accused was also arrested and his medical examination was also conducted. The statement of the prosecutrix U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. After the completion of investigation(s) a charge-sheet u/s 363/366/376/506 IPC was filed in the court.
3. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, a charge U/s 366/376 IPC was framed on 19.1.09 against the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3
4. Thereafter, the prosecution in support of its case has examined two witnesses.
PW1 is prosecutrix (R) and the star witness of the prosecution. PW2 is Smt. Shakuntla who is the mother of the prosecutrix.
5. In the present case, PW1 the prosecutrix and PW2 Smt. Shakuntla her mother have turned completely hostile and have not supported the prosecution case at all, despite lengthy cross- examination by the ld. Addl. PP for the State. In these circumstances, it was submitted by the ld. Counsel for the accused that prosecution evidence be closed, as the star witness of the prosecution had turned hostile and no purpose was to be served by continuing with the trial, as even iff all the remaining prosecutions witnesses were allowed to be examined, even then it would be impossible to get the conviction of the accused on the said remaining testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
6. On the other hand ld. Addl. PP opposed the same.
7. I have perused the record.
8. In the present case, PW1 the prosecutrix (R) has not supported 4 the prosecution case at all. Despite lengthy cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, she has not supported the prosecution case a little bit. Even her mother PW2 Smt. Shakuntla has also turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story. There is no other material witness which is left to be examined by the prosecution and all the remaining prosecution witnesses are either doctors or police officials, therefore, even if, all the remaining prosecution witnesses are allowed to be examined, even then it shall be impossible to get the conviction of the accused on the testimony of the remaining prosecution witnesses. Therefore, continuing with the trial in these circumstances would be a completely futile exercise. In these circumstances, prosecution evidence stands closed. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. stands dispensed with, as no incriminating evidence has come on the record to connect the accused with the commission of offence. The accused is acquitted of the charges U/s 366/376 IPC, vide separate judgment of even date. Bail-bonds of the accused are cancelled. Surety discharged. Endorsement, if any, made on the 5 documents of the surety and accused be cancelled. File on completion be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on dt. 4.7.2009. (Sanjeev Aggarwal) Addl. Sessions Judge:
Rohini Courts: Delhi.