Delhi District Court
State vs Nurul Islam @ Munna on 16 August, 2014
State V. Nurul Islam Etc.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG: ASJ-01( NORTH):
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No: 93/13
FIR No. 349/11
PS : Jahangirpuri
U/S: 498A/313/376/506 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. NURUL ISLAM @ MUNNA, S/O. AAMIR HASAN
2. KULSUM, W/O. ABDUL KALAM
3. AAMIR HASAN, S/O. ABDUL GAFFUR
4. KALAM, S/O. AAMIR HASAN
5. IKRAM, S/O. AAMIR HASAN
6. SAEEDA,W/O. AAMIR HASAN
ALL RESIDENTS OF:- H-2 MARKET N 34B 47 JAHANGIRPURI
7. JUBAIDA, W/O. TINKU R/O. G BLOCK JAHANGIRPURI
.... Accused
Date of Institution:28.03.13
Date of Argument: 16.08.2014
Date of Decision: 16.08.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant 'R' (identity withheld), whereby she alleged that when her parents had gone to their native village and she was present in her jhuggi while her sister had gone for medical check up at the hospital, she had gone to Toilet, where accused Nurul Islam @ Munna called her on the pretext of State V. Nurul Islam Etc. ;SC no. 93/13;FIR no.349/11; u/s.498A/313/376/506 IPC; PS Jahangirpuri Page no.1 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Nurul Islam Etc. giving him a Mug. When she went with the mug of water, he dragged her in his room. He held her mouth with his hands and bolted the door and raped her. After raping her, he threatened her that if she disclosed his act to anyone, he would kill her. Thus she did not reveal the said fact even to her parents. After some days when she fell ill, she suspected that she had conceived and she informed this fact to accused Nurul Islam. Thereafter, the accused Nurul Islam, his mother Saeeda Khatoon, his sister in law Kulsum Khatoon took the prosecutrix to a nurse. During her medical examination the said nurse informed her and the family members of the accused Nurul Islam that prosecutrix was pregnant. Thereafter, the mother of Nurul Islam asked the said nurse to abort the foetus. However, prosecutrix did not want to get the child aborted. But she was given a cup of tea and after drinking the same, she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she came to know that her abortion was done. She went to her house and on asking her mother, she revealed the facts to her mother. Her parents went to house of Nurul Islam, where the family members of Nurul Islam advised them not to make any complaint to the police and assured them that they would marry their son Nurul Islam to the prosecutrix and on 18.02.2011 in the presence of few people, the Nikah of Nurul Islam and the prosecutrix was performed, but since the said date till 24.03.2011 i.e. the date of the complaint, the accused persons did not take the complainant alongwith them to her matrimonial house and whenever the parents of the complainant went to ask them about the reason of not taking the complainant to her matrimonial, dowry State V. Nurul Islam Etc. ;SC no. 93/13;FIR no.349/11; u/s.498A/313/376/506 IPC; PS Jahangirpuri Page no.2 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Nurul Islam Etc. demand of 80,000/- Rs. And gold and silver jewellery was made. It is further stated that since the father of the complainant was a poor person, he could not arrange the dowry for them.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint of the prosecutrix the present case FIR no. 349/11 was got registered through Duty Officer and the further investigation of this case was entrusted to WSI Vineeta.
3. IO SI Vineeta thereafter arrested the accused Nurul Islam and he was thereafter released on bail by the court since the prosecutrix had stated to have compromised the matter with her in laws before the court. Thereafter on the basis of the same her mother in law Saeeda and sister in law Kulsum Begum were given anticipatory bail by the court. After completion of the investigation the chargesheet u/s. 498A/313/376/506 IPC was filed by the IO before the court.
4. Ld MM after compliance of provision u/s 207 Cr.P.C committed the case to Sessions Court through Ld District Judge, which was assigned to this court.
5. Thereafter, charge for the offence u/s. 376/506/ IPC against the accused Nurul Islam while charge for the offence u/s.313/34 against Nurul Islam, Kulsum Khatoon and Saeeda Khatoon and charge for the offence u/s. 498A/34 IPC against all the accused were framed, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined only 2 witnesses and when it appeared to the court that no purpose would be served by examining the remaining witnesses, PE was closed by the court.
State V. Nurul Islam Etc. ;SC no. 93/13;FIR no.349/11; u/s.498A/313/376/506 IPC; PS Jahangirpuri Page no.3 of 8 Contd./-
7. Dr. R. S.Mishra, Casualty Medical officer, BJRM Hospital, has been examined as PW-1. He has proved the MLC of the accused Nurul Islam prepared by Dr. Shailender as Ex. PW 1/A, whereas, the MLC of the prosecutrix 'R' prepared by Dr Shailesh Pratap Singh as Ex PW 1/B. He has identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Shailesh Pratap Singh and Dr. Gopal Krishan as they had left their services from the hospital.
8. The complainant 'R' has been examined as PW2. She has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. She has totally denied the occurrence of any such incident and hence, has not supported the case of the prosecution.
9. She in her testimony has deposed that the accused Nurul Islam is her husband and they married on 18.02.2011 and prior to the said date, accused never took her to his house or committed any offence with her. She also deposed that after two days of her marriage, she went alongwith her husband Nurul Islam @ Munna and since then she is living in her matrimonial home with her husband and his family members happily. She also stated that she did not want to pursue this case as she was living happily with her husband and stated that she made the said complaint at the instigation of her family members. She further deposed that she was more than 18 years of age at the time of her marriage with Nurul Islam.
10. Since she was resiling from her earlier statement, she was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP, whereby also nothing could come in her cross examination. She completely denied the contents of her statement Ex. PW 2/A when confronted with and stated that she made complaint under State V. Nurul Islam Etc. ;SC no. 93/13;FIR no.349/11; u/s.498A/313/376/506 IPC; PS Jahangirpuri Page no.4 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Nurul Islam Etc. the instigation of her family. She further deposed that she was taken by the accused Nurul Islam to her matrimonial house after two days of their marriage and since then they are living happily with each other at her matrimonial home with her matrimonial family. She completely denied having lodged any such complaint to the police or having been threatened and allured by the accused persons and rather she stated that she had confidence that accused Nurul Islam would not desert her.
11. She specifically denied that she had stated to the police that when her condition deteriorated and she became pregnant, then, mother of the accused Nurul Islam namely Saeeda and his elder bhabhi Kulsum Khatoon took her for her medical investigation to a Nurse or that on the instigation of mother of the accused her pregnancy was terminated. She also denied that she was given tea to drink or after having the same, she became unconscious or that when she regained her consciousness, she got to know that pregnancy had been terminated.
12. She also specifically denied that on the repeated request of her parents the parents of the accused agreed for their Nikah and solemnized their Nikah on 18.02.2011 or that she was not taken to her matrimonial house after marriage and a dowry demand of Rs. 80,000/- and gold jewellery was made to take her to her matrimonial home.
13. Since, prosecutrix 'R' did not support the case of the prosecution and nothing came out in her testimony and the testimony of her mother and other public witnesses was formal in nature, while the remaining witnesses were police officials and they related to the investigation of the State V. Nurul Islam Etc. ;SC no. 93/13;FIR no.349/11; u/s.498A/313/376/506 IPC; PS Jahangirpuri Page no.5 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Nurul Islam Etc. case, thus, it appeared to the court that no purpose would be served by examining the remaining witnesses and the same would be a futile exercise. Even if they were examined, in no way the prosecution could connect the accused persons with the offence in question. Hence, PE was closed by the court on 16.08.2014.
14. Since nothing incriminating came in evidence against the accused persons, the statements of accused u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. were dispensed with.
15. I have heard Sh. A. K. Gupta, ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as ld. Defence counsel and have carefully perused the record.
16. The only material witness is the complainant/ prosecutrix 'R' (PW-2), who has deposed in the court that the accused Nurul Islam is her husband and that she and her husband are living happily since their Nikah and that she was above 18 years of age at time of her marriage. When confronted with her compliant on the basis of which the present case was registered, she completely denied about any such incident ever occurred and rather stated that she made the said complaint only on the instigation of her family. She has completely denied that on the instigation of her mother in law Saeeda and her sister in law kulsum Khatoon her pregnancy was terminated before her marriage to the accused. She completely denied the contents of her complaint and rather deposed that she was living happily with the accused persons at her matrimonial home. She has also denied her averments regarding the demand of dowry made by the parents of the accused Nurul Islam.
State V. Nurul Islam Etc. ;SC no. 93/13;FIR no.349/11; u/s.498A/313/376/506 IPC; PS Jahangirpuri Page no.6 of 8 Contd./-
17. Since she did not support the case of the prosecution, she was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP, whereby also she has reiterated the same facts and stated that the accused Nurul Islam is her husband and she denied that her pregnancy was terminated by the accused persons. She also denied having been under influence of the accused to depose falsely before the court.
18. Prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons made demand for dowry after the marriage of the prosecutrix R with their son from the parents of the prosecutrix. The only material witness i.e. The complainant/ prosecutrix 'R' has not supported the case of the prosecution and her deposition has been discussed above.
19. She has categorically stated that she had married the accused Nurul Islam with her own wish and since then they are living happily with each other and that they are blessed with a child. The prosecution has also failed to prove the act of forced abortion of the foetus as alleged in the complaint of the prosecutrix. No medical document in support of the said contention has been proved by the prosecution in support of this.
20. Hence, there is nothing on record to suggest that prosecutrix was raped by the accused Nurul Islam or that he threatened her in any manner or that her pregnancy was terminated at the instance of the accused persons or that she was ever subjected to mental or physical cruelty regarding demand of dowry etc.
21. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above, State V. Nurul Islam Etc. ;SC no. 93/13;FIR no.349/11; u/s.498A/313/376/506 IPC; PS Jahangirpuri Page no.7 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Nurul Islam Etc. accused persons are acquitted in the present case.
22. Their bail bonds are cancelled and surety bonds stand discharged.
23. The accused are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety each in the like amount in terms of section 437 A Cr.P.C. within a week.
24. File be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DEEPAK GARG)
on 16th August 2014 ASJ-01 (NORTH), ROHINI:DELHI
16.08.2014.
State V. Nurul Islam Etc. ;SC no. 93/13;FIR no.349/11; u/s.498A/313/376/506 IPC; PS Jahangirpuri Page no.8 of 8 Contd./-