Delhi District Court
State vs Mansukha Yadav -:: Page 1 Of 7 ::- on 7 April, 2016
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 29/2016.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0089312016
State
versus
Mansukha Yadav
Son of Sh. Namvar Yadav
Resident of Village Karodi Kallan,
P.S.Sureri, Distt. Jaunpur, U.P.
First Information Report Number : 1281/15
Police Station: Nihal Vihar
Under sections: 376/366/307/417 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 05.02.16
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal : 11.03.16
Arguments concluded on : 07.04.16
Date of judgment : 07.04.16
Appearances: Ms. Madhu Arora, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Accused produced from JC.
Sh. K.K.Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Prosecutrix is also present.
***********************************************************************
Sessions Case Number :29/16
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0089312016
FIR No. 1281/15, Police Station. Nihal Vihar
Under sections 376/366/307/417 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Mansukha Yadav -:: Page 1 of 7 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Mansukha Yadav has been charge sheeted by Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi for the offence under sections 376/366/307/417 IPC of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that he had made physical relations with prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file and withheld to protect her identity) on false promise of marriage. He had kept her in a house in Nangloi and was trying to take her to his village. On way, he tried to throttle her and also attempted to throw her from the train. The local police intervened at Bhadoi Railway Station and Zero FIR was registered u/s. 366/376/307 IPC, which was then transferred to PS Nihal Vihar.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 05.02.2016 and after its committal, the case was assigned to this Court on 11.03.2016.
3. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under section 376 r/w section 417 IPC and 307 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.
5. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi Sessions Case Number :29/16 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0089312016 FIR No. 1281/15, Police Station. Nihal Vihar Under sections 376/366/307/417 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Mansukha Yadav -:: Page 2 of 7 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the "Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses" have been followed.
6 The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she has been residing in Delhi for 2-3 years and working as a maid servant in the house of Jain Jaiswal. She met the accused while working in the locality. In November, 2015 the accused was taking her to Banaras as she wanted to see his village. On way an altercation took place between him and the accused in the train. She got down at Bhadoi Railway Station where police official met her. Both she and accused were taken to the PS, where her signatures were obtained on the blank papers. The prosecutrix was scolded when she asked about the signatures being taken on blank papers. Nothing was read over to her and she did not know what was written over the papers. She stated categorically that the accused did not make any physical relations with her on promise of marriage, nor he attempted to kill her by throwing her from the train. She stated that she was not taken to any hospital for medical examination. Admitting her signatures on her statements Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B, she stated that the same were obtained on blank paper. She stated that she had given one statement to the Magistrate and identified her signatures on statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, which is Ex.PW1/D. Sessions Case Number :29/16 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0089312016 FIR No. 1281/15, Police Station. Nihal Vihar Under sections 376/366/307/417 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Mansukha Yadav -:: Page 3 of 7 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
7. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, she was cross-examined at length by Ld. Addl. PP Ms. Madhu Arora.
8. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for State, she denied that she had got written the complaint Ex.PW1/A from somebody and had handed it over to the police. She denied that accused had kept her in the house of one Tilak Raj, where he made physical relations with her on promise of marriage. She denied that on 05.11.15 she was abducted by the accused and was taken in Nilanchal Express. She also denied that on reaching at Bhadoi Railway Station, he attempted to throw her from the train or that he attempted to kill her by throttling. She denied having given such statement to the police. She also denied that she was medically examined in hospital or that she had shown the place of occurrence to the police. She denied that she had shown Mark D the house, where accused made physical relations with her to the police (address not mentioned to protect the identity of the prosecutrix).
9. In her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, the girl stated that she had come to the court to tell the truth, which she has deposed.
10. The prosecutrix thus has denied her entire statement made to the police including the allegations of rape on promise to marry as also of attempting to kill her. Relevantly in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C also she stated that nothing as stated in FIR had taken place. In her statement u/s. Sessions Case Number :29/16 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0089312016 FIR No. 1281/15, Police Station. Nihal Vihar Under sections 376/366/307/417 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Mansukha Yadav -:: Page 4 of 7 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/D, she stated that the police had caught the accused after she had a quarrel with him and had registered the FIR of rape against him. Nothing as stated in the FIR had taken place. She used to live with accused Mansukha Yadav but no physical relations were established between them.
11. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being raped by the accused. She has deposed that accused has not committed any offence against her and not deposed anything incriminating against the accused.
12. In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the star witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to the accused by not deposing anything incriminating against the accused, the precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself, the most material witness, as well as the complainant has not supported the prosecution case and is hostile.
13. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of the accused Mansukha Yadav is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
14. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW1, who happens to be the material witnesses, I am of the Sessions Case Number :29/16 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0089312016 FIR No. 1281/15, Police Station. Nihal Vihar Under sections 376/366/307/417 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Mansukha Yadav -:: Page 5 of 7 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
15. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
16. Crucially, the materials and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilt of an accused, particularly in cases where the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence.
17. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mansukha Yadav is guilty of the charged offence under section 376 r/w section 417 IPC and section 307 IPC. There is no material on record to show that accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her and also attempted to kill her.
18. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the Sessions Case Number :29/16 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0089312016 FIR No. 1281/15, Police Station. Nihal Vihar Under sections 376/366/307/417 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Mansukha Yadav -:: Page 6 of 7 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
prosecution has failed to establish the offence of rape and attempt to mur- der. The evidence of the prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place.
19. Consequently, accused Mansukha Yadav is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 376 r/w section 417 IPC and section 307 IPC
20. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
21. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
22. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
23. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on this 7th day of April, 2016.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ) Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************ Sessions Case Number :29/16 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0089312016 FIR No. 1281/15, Police Station. Nihal Vihar Under sections 376/366/307/417 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Mansukha Yadav -:: Page 7 of 7 ::-