Delhi District Court
SC/23/2016 on 16 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT)-02
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Manika
State v. Daljeet
FIR No. 90/15
Police Station : Kotwali
Under Section: 354 Indian Penal Code
Unique Case ID Number: 02401R0127352015
Date of institution : 04.03.2015
Date of reserving : Oral
Date of pronouncement: 16.07.2016
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 24/2/15
b) Date of commission of : 27.01.2015 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Smt. Preeti W/o Sh. Sanjay Patel R/o H. No. Village Bakhroli, PS:
Chapiya, Distt. Ghonda, U.P.
d) Name, parentage and : Daljeet, S/o Sh. Bahadur address of the accused R/o Village Khatkar Khurd, PS:
Vanga, District Naya Sehar, Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab.
e) Offence complained of : Offence punishable under Section
354/506/366 of the Indian Penal
Code
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Accused acquitted of the offences
State v. Daljeet
FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 1 of 16
punishable under Section 354/506
of the Indian Penal Code
h) Date of final order : 16.07.2016
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Vide this judgment, the accused is being acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 354/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') in this case FIR No. 90/15 under Section 354/506 I.P.C. police station Kotwali for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') is that the complainant had come to Delhi on 27.01.2015 at about 9.00 am in search of her husband whom she suspected to be working in Delhi, rather than Mumbai as represented by him, as her brother-in-law Vishal also used to work in Delhi. It is alleged that from Old Delhi Railway Station, the complainant went to meet her brother-in-law Vishal at Nehru Nagar. It is further alleged that Vishal told the complainant that her husband was working in Mumbai itself. Further, it is alleged that thereafter at about 5.30 pm, the complainant returned to Old Delhi Railway Station with a view to return home. It is further alleged that there the complainant met a boy whose name and address upon enquiry came to be known as Daljeet Kumar, S/o Sh. Bahadur Chand, R/o Village Sarnada, PS Rama Mande, Tehsil and District Jalander, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as 'accused'). It is alleged that the accused inquired from the complainant about her destination, to which the complainant responded that she was going to Gorakhpur. It is alleged that the accused stated that he too had to go to Gorakhpur and went to buy the complainant's ticket. It is alleged that State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 2 of 16 thereafter the accused came to platform no. 9, Old Delhi Railway Station, where the complainant was present, and informed the complainant that the train to Gorakhpur was scheduled to depart at about 9.00 pm and proposed that they should go for an outing and eat something in the meantime. It is alleged that the accused hired a rickshaw from outside Old Delhi Railway Station and took the complainant to Golden Jubliee Park behind Red Fort, where the accused forcibly removed the complainant from the rickshaw. It is further alleged that the accused made the complainant sit in his lap and proposed that they should go into the park. It is alleged that seeing the acts of the accused, when the complainant raised alarm, police officials present there came there and the complainant narrated the incident to them. It is alleged that the said police officials apprehended the accused near Jubilee Park. FIR was thereafter registered.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. Upon completion of investigation, police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed in respect of the offence punishable under Section 354/506/366 IPC. Vide order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court, the case was committed for trial to the learned Court of Sessions. However, vide order dated 20.05.2015 passed by the Court of Sh. Rajiv Mehra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, it was held that the offence under Section 366 IPC was not at all made out and, thus, case was sent to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, who assigned the same to the Court of the learned predecessor of this court.
CHARGE
4. Vide order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court, charge for the offences punishable under Section 354/506 of the I.P.C.
State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 3 of 16 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
5. Vide order dated 23.05.2016, in compliance with the provisions of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the application for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. filed by the investigating officer, order sheets dated 28.01.2015 regarding assignment of the said application, proceedings under Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of Ms. Preeti under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by Ms. Manu Vedwan, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and application of the investigation officer for supply of copy of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which were all admitted by the accused and were accordingly exhibited as Ex.P/A/1, Ex. P/A/2, Ex. P/A/3, Ex. P/A/4, Ex. P/A/5 and Ex. P/A/6 respectively. In view of the admissions made, the evidence of prosecution witness Ms. Manu Vedwan, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was dispensed with.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses. PW-1 Smt. Preeti is the complainant in the present case. PW-2 Dr. Shaili had medically examined the complainant in the Obstetics and Gynaecology Department vide MLC No. 301/15 Ex. PW2/A. PW-3 Head Constable Mukesh is the PCR official, who had received the phone call from no. 7428431931 and typed the complaint Ex. PW3/A and dispatched the same to console i.e. communication staff and issued certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Mark A. PW-4 Dr. Kuldeep had examined the complainant in Casualty vide MLC No. 301/15 Ex. PW2/A. PW-5 Sh. Ajay Shah is an eye witness to the incident being the puller of the rickshaw in which the accused had State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 4 of 16 taken the complainant to the Golden Jubilee Park. PW-6 Constable Mahipal Singh and PW-11 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar had joined the investigation with the investigating officer. PW-7 Constable Samunder had recorded the DD entry no. 44 PP in the daily diary Ex. PW7/A. PW-8 Head Constable Nirankar is the Duty Officer, who had recorded FIR No. 90/15 Ex. PW8/A and made his endorsement Ex.PW8/B on the rukka and issued the certificate Ex. PW8/C under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. PW-9 (wrongly numbered as PW-8) Head Constable Mithan Lal @ Mishan is one of the police officials, who was on patrolling duty on the day of incident and had apprehended the accused from near Golden Jubilee Park. PW-10 Woman Head Constable Seema is the investigating officer in the present case.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
7. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the entire evidence put to him. He stated that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police at the instance of complainant. Though he admitted having met the complainant at Old Delhi Railway Station on the relevant day, he stated that she had sought his help and at her request, he had bought her a train ticket to Gonda, U.P. whereafter she requested him to take her around. He stated that upon his refusal, the complainant threatened to implicate him in a false case and demanded Rs. 2,000/- from him for not doing so. He stated that when he refused to pay the said amount, the complainant raised false alarm and falsely implicated him in the present case. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of Ms. Priyanka Bhagat and Sh. Lalit Pingolia, learned Assistant Public Prosecutors for the State and Sh. Deepak Kumar, Advocate, learned legal State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 5 of 16 aid counsel for the accused have been considered.
9. The case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day, the accused voluntarily used criminal force upon the complainant with intention to outrage her modesty.
Re: Absence of independent public witnesses
10. The only material witnesses cited or examined by the prosecution are PW-1 Ms. Preeti and PW-5 Sh. Ajay Shah. While PW-1 Ms. Preeti is the victim/complainant herself, PW-5 Sh. Ajay Shah is the rickshaw puller in whose rickshaw the accused is alleged to have taken the complainant from Old Delhi Railway Station to Golden Jubilee Park.
11. As per the prosecution, the complainant had met the accused at platform no. 9, Old Delhi Railway Station at about 5.30 pm. Further, as per the prosecution, the accused and complainant had together boarded the rickshaw from outside the Old Delhi Railway Station. According to the prosecution story, the accused tried to forcibly remove the complainant from the rickshaw and made her sit on his lap at/near Golden Jubilee Park behind the Red Fort. The Old Delhi Railway Station, the Red Fort and the stretch between these two places are all crowded places. As such, independent public persons, such as passengers, hawkers and coolies etc., at the railway station, street vendors, passersby and co-users on the road between Old Delhi Railway Station and Red Fort and other visitors at Golden Jubilee Park, must have been available at the relevant places through which the accused allegedly took the complainant.
12. In fact, as per the FIR itself, when the complainant raised alarm at Golden Jubilee Park, the police officials, who were present there had come near the complainant. Thus, if there were police officials present at the Golden Jubilee Park, there would also have been other persons present and available. No attempt whatsoever, however, seems to have been made by the investigating State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 6 of 16 officer to examine the said public persons as independent witnesses.
13. Thus, despite availability, no independent public witness to the alleged incident has been cited or examined by the prosecution. The same is a circumstance which casts doubt on the prosecution story.
Re: Lapses in the testimony of the star witness
14. PW-1 Ms. Preeti is the star witness of the prosecution in the present case being the complainant/victim. There are several lapses and contradictions in the testimony of the said witness of the prosecution. There are several improvements in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her testimony as PW-1 over her version contained in the complaint Ex. PW1/A.
15. As per the complaint Ex.PW1/A, when the complainant met the accused Daljeet at Old Delhi Railway Station, the accused had enquired from her as to where she was going and upon her response that she was going to Gorakhpur, the accused had stated that he would also go to Gorakhpur. However, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. while the complainant has stated that the accused had enquired from her as to where she was going and she had answered that she would be going to Gorakhpur, she has not stated that the accused had stated that he would also be going to Gorakhpur.
16. While in her complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant has stated that the accused went to buy her ticket, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant has merely stated that the accused told her that he would bring the ticket. Thus, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant has not stated as to whether the accused had gone to bring a train ticket for her or himself.
17. In the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant has alleged that the accused State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 7 of 16 hired a rickshaw from outside the Old Delhi Railway Station and took her to Golden Jubilee Park. However, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. P/A/5, the complainant has stated that after eating, the accused showed a knife to her and forcibly made her sit on a rickshaw and that the accused also showed a knife to the rickshaw puller and did not allow her or the rickshaw puller to raise alarm. The aforesaid is nothing but an improvement in the version of the complainant.
18. In the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant has alleged that when they reached the Golden Jubilee Park on the rickshaw, the accused started to forcibly remove her from the rickshaw and tried to make her sit on his lap and suggested that they should go into the park. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. P/A/5, however, the complainant has stated that the accused forcibly took her inside the park, held her hand and forcibly started to take her inside a bush. Thus, there is clear contradiction in the versions of the complainant, who has sought to improve over her earlier version contained in the complaint Ex. PW1/A.
19. In her complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant has stated that the accused started to forcibly remove her from the rickshaw, tried to make her sit on his lap and suggested going into the park and on seeing his said actions, she raised alarm and thereupon policemen present in the vicinity came there. However, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. not only has the complainant stated that the accused in fact took her inside a park and forcibly tried to take her inside a bush, she has further stated that when she raised alarm, the accused held her hand and took her to another park. Thus, while in the complaint Ex. PW1/A, there is mention of only one park namely Golden Jubilee Park, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., reference has been made to two parks without naming either. Moreover, while in the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the allegation is only State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 8 of 16 of a suggestion to go into the park, in the statement Ex. P/A/5, the complainant has leveled allegation against the accused of having forcibly taken her into two parks and also of having attempted to forcibly take her inside a bush in the first of the said two parks.
20. While in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that after the accused took her to the second park, three-four persons reached there, in her complaint Ex. PW1/A, she has stated that on her having raised alarm, policemen present there had come to the spot and apprehended the accused from near Golden Jubilee Park. Thus, while as per the complaint, police personnel had reached the spot upon alarm having been raised by the complainant, as per her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., some public persons rather than policemen had reached the spot upon alarm raised by the complainant.
21. In her testimony as PW-1, the complainant stated that at the Old Delhi Railway Station, she was sitting on a bench, on which two other persons including the accused were seated. No such fact has, however, been stated by the complainant either in the complaint Ex. PW1/A or even in her statement Ex. P/A/5 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thus, the said fact as stated in the testimony of PW-1 is in the nature of an improvement.
22. While in the complaint Ex. PW1/A and statement Ex. P/A/5, the complainant has stated that she had reached Old Delhi Railway Station at 5.30 pm, in her testimony as PW-1, she has not mentioned the time at which she reached the Old Delhi Railway Station.
23. In the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant has stated that at the Old Delhi Railway Station, she met a boy whose name and address came to be known upon enquiry to be Daljeet Kumar, S/o Bahadur Chand, R/o Village Sarnada, PS: Rama Mande, Tehsil and District Jalandar, Punjab and the said State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 9 of 16 boy asked her as to where she was going. However, in her testimony as PW-1, the complainant has stated that while she was sitting on a bench at the Old Delhi Railway Station, she asked one of the two other persons sitting on the bench about the train and after some time, accused Daljeet, who was also sitting on the same bench, started talking to her regarding time of the train. Thus, the complainant has introduced new facts in her testimony as PW-1. Nothing regarding the complainant and accused having sat on the same bench at the Old Delhi Railway Station and as to how they first met is stated in the complaint Ex. PW1/A or statement Ex.P/A/5. While as per the complaint, the accused had asked the complainant as to where she was going, no such fact has been stated by the complainant in her testimony as PW-1. Further, while PW-1 has deposed that the accused, who was sitting on the same bench as her, had started talking to her regarding the time of the train, in her complaint Ex. PW1/A, she had stated that the subject of the conversation initiated by the accused with her was her desired destination rather than the time of the train.
24. While as per her complaint Ex. PW1/A, after enquiring from the complainant as to where she was going, the accused went to buy a train ticket for the complainant, the testimony of PW-1 is silent with respect to the accused having gone to buy any train ticket.
25. While, in her testimony, PW-1 has stated that it was at around 8.00 pm that the accused had informed her that the train would arrive at 09.00 pm, she has not mentioned in her complaint or statement under 164 Cr.P.C., the time at which the accused had told her the same.
26. In the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant has alleged that the accused had proposed that since the train was scheduled to leave at about 9.00 pm, in the meantime, they should eat outside and go for an outing. Taking a contrary stand, in her testimony as PW-1, the complainant has deposed that after the State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 10 of 16 accused informed her at 8.00 pm, that the train would arrive at 9.00 pm, she went out and the accused also came outside. Thus, while as per her complaint, she had accompanied the accused upon his proposal, from her testimony it appears that the complainant had gone out of the Railway Station at her own instance and the accused had followed /accompanied her.
27. In her testimony as PW-1, the complainant deposed that the accused held her hand forcibly and made her sit on the rickshaw and put a knife on her back in order to desist her from raising alarm. However, in her complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant has simply stated that the accused hired a rickshaw from outside the railway station and took her to Golden Jubilee Park and has, therefore, not mentioned about any force having been used by the accused to make her sit on the rickshaw or about her having got on to the rickshaw involuntarily, let alone the use of any knife to prevent her from raising alarm.
28. In her testimony, PW-1 has deposed that after the rickshaw took them into a park, they got down from the rickshaw and the accused forcibly took her into the park and outraged her modesty by forcibly making her sit on his thigh. In contradiction thereto, in her complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant had stated that after they reached Golden Jubilee Park, the accused tried to forcibly remove her from the rickshaw and to make her sit on his lap and that the accused suggested going into the park. Thus, while as per her complaint, the accused had merely suggested going into the park, as per the testimony of PW-1, the accused had in fact forcibly taken the complainant into the park. While in her complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant has alleged use of force by the accused in removing her from the rickshaw at Golden Jubilee Park, in her testimony as PW-1, she has spoken of use of force by the accused only after they got off the rickshaw.
29. While in her complaint Ex. PW-1/A, the complainant had stated that, upon State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 11 of 16 enquiry by the accused, she had told him that she was going to Gorakhpur and thereafter, when the accused brought her train ticket, he informed her that the train for going to Gorakhpur was at 09.00 pm, in her cross examination, PW-1 admitted that there was no train for Gorakhpur on the day of the incident at 09.00 pm.
30. While, in her cross examination, PW-1 stated that she did try to raise alarm but the accused put his hand on her mouth, no such fact has been stated by her either in her complaint Ex. PW1/A or examination in chief.
31. In her cross-examination, PW-1 stated that though she could not tell the exact time taken to reach the park, it had taken a long time and the accused had also thrown away her mobile phone. No such fact finds mention either in the complaint Ex. PW1/A or examination in chief of PW-1.
32. As per the police report, the complaint/statement Ex. PW1/A of the complainant was recorded by the investigating officer lady Head Constable Seema and based on the same, FIR was got registered in the present case. Further, as per the police report, after registration of the FIR, the investigating officer recorded statement dated 28.01.2015 of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, PW-1 stated in her cross-examination that her statement was recorded by the police only once on the date of the incident and that she did not know whether the same was before the registration of the case or after.
Re: Lapses in the testimony of eye-witness PW-5
33. Besides the complainant/victim, the only alleged eye-witness cited by the prosecution is Sh. Ajay Shah, the rickshaw puller in whose rickshaw the accused had allegedly taken the complainant from Old Delhi Railway Station to Golden Jubilee Park. He was examined as PW-5 in the present case. The testimony of PW-5 Sh. Ajay Shah recorded in the court is, however, quite inconsistent with his State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 12 of 16 first statement given to the police i.e. his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
34. As per the case of prosecution, neither the accused nor the complainant were known to PW-5 Sh. Ajay Shah, who had pulled the rickshaw in which the accused had taken the complainant to Golden Jubilee Park from Old Delhi Railway Station. Further, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW Sh. Ajay Shah was recorded on 28.01.2015 i.e. on the next day of the incident. While during his examination in chief, PW-5 had identified the accused present in the court, the complainant has not been identified by the said witness as the girl who was accompanying the accused on the day of the incident. Thus, the testimony of PW-5, cannot be relied upon.
35. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW-5 Sh. Ajay Shah has stated that the incident was of "27.0.15", thus, the month has not been mentioned. Further, in his testimony as PW-5 recorded on 08.10.2015, Sh. Ajay Shah has not mentioned the date of the incident, but has vaguely stated that the incident was about 07-08 months old. Thus, the date of the incident has not been clearly stated in either of the two statements of PW-5.
36. While, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW-5 has stated that a boy and a girl had approached him and it was the boy who had asked him to take them to Navpul, in his testimony in Court, he has stated that one boy and one girl had come to him and asked to go to Navpul and, when he asked them for Rs. 50/-, they had agreed. Thus, while from his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it appears that the boy, i.e. the accused, had hired the rickshaw, from the testimony of PW-5, it appears that both the accused as well as the girl accompanying him had jointly hired the rickshaw. Thus, on the basis of the testimony of PW-5, it cannot be said that the girl, who was accompanying the accused, had not boarded the rickshaw voluntarily.
37. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW-5 has stated that after State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 13 of 16 they reached Golden Jubilee Park, the accused asked the girl accompanying him to get off the rickshaw, however, she refused, whereupon the accused tried to forcibly remove her from the rickshaw and the girl raised alarm. Further, he has also stated in his said statement that the accused had threatened to beat/kill him too. However, PW-5 did not state anything to the aforesaid effect in his testimony recorded in the court. Instead, in his testimony, PW-5 stated that when, upon being asked by the accused to do so, he turned the rickshaw towards Silver Jubilee Park, the girl started to cry. There is no such statement contained in the statement of PW-5 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
38. While, as per the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-5 Sh. Ajay Shah, the accused had threateningly asked him to take them to Jubilee Park, in his testimony as PW-5 Sh. Ajay Shah stated that the accused had asked him to take the rickshaw inside the Silver Jubilee Park. Thus, there is contradiction in the two statements as to whether the accused had threatened PW-5 or merely requested/instructed him to take them to a park.
39. While as per the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the accused had taken the complainant on a rickshaw to Golden Jubilee Park, in his testimony PW-5 has stated that accused had asked him to turn the rickshaw towards Silver Jubilee Park. Thus, there is contradiction as to the name of the park to which the accused had directed PW-5 to take them.
40. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW-5 had stated that after reaching Jubilee Park, the boy sitting in the rickshaw asked the girl to step down from the same, however, the girl refused and the boy started to forcibly remove her from the rickshaw. However, in his cross-examination, PW-5 denied having made any such statement to the police.
41. While PW-5 has been cited as an eye-witness, he has not deposed anything as to the allegations pertaining to the charge under Section 354 IPC State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 14 of 16 that the accused had made the complainant sit on his lap.
Re: Contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses
42. While as per the testimony of PW-1, at about 08.00 pm, the accused had informed her that the train would come at 09.00 pm and it was thereafter that she went out with him to eat and he forcibly made her sit on the rickshaw, PW-5 has deposed that the boy and girl referred to in his testimony had approached him at about 07.00 pm and asked him to take them to Navpul. Thus, there is contradiction as to the time at which the accused and complainant had hired the rickshaw from outside Old Delhi Railway Station.
43. As per PW-9 Head Constable Mithan Lal, when he alongwith with his staff reached the spot, the accused was sitting on a rickshaw alongwith a girl and he (PW-9) had stopped the rickshaw. However, according to the testimony of PW-1, the rickshaw took them to a park, where they got down from the rickshaw, and the accused forcibly took her into the park, whereafter she raised alarm and police vehicle stopped there and entered into the park. Thus, while as per the complainant, they had already gotten off the rickshaw and the police had met them inside the park, as per one of the said police officials, he had found the accused and complainant sitting on the rickshaw and had got the rickshaw stopped.
44. While PW-1 deposed that the accused had held her hand forcibly and made her sit on the rickshaw and also put a knife on her back not to raise alarm, the rickshaw puller PW-5, in his cross-examination, stated that the accused and complainant were cordially talking to each other and looked like friends or family members as also that they sat on the rickshaw willingly.
Re: Alleged knife not recovered
45. While in her testimony, PW-1 has stated that the accused had put a knife State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 15 of 16 on her back so that she did not raise alarm, no such knife has admittedly been recovered in the present case. PW-11 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar has admitted in his cross-examination that no knife was found in the possession of the accused. He had stated in his examination in chief that efforts had been made to search the weapon used in the commission of offence, however, same was not found. As per the version of the complainant in her testimony as PW-1, the police van had stopped and entered into the park when she raised alarm. Thus, there was no time lag between the alleged acts committed by the accused and his apprehension by the police. The weapon, if any, ought to have been in the possession of the accused. Since no weapon was, however, recovered, the version of PW-1 and PW-5 as to use of a knife by accused is rendered doubtful.
CONCLUSION
46. In view of the above discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. He is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 506 I.P.C.
47. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of the provision of Section 437 A Cr.P.C.
Announced in open Court on 16.07.2016 (MANIKA) Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 16.07.2016 State v. Daljeet FIR No. 90/15 PS: Kotwali Page 16 of 16