Delhi District Court
Complainant vs Saurabh Sirohi on 24 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL. FAST TRACK
COURT : SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Unique Case ID: 02406R0358872013
SC No. : 12/14
FIR No. : 358/13
U/s. : 417/376 IPC
PS : Amar Colony
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
................... Complainant
Versus
Saurabh Sirohi
S/o Sh. Harender Singh
R/o A62, Ist Floor, ODS,
Amar Colony, New Delhi .........................Accused
Date of Institution : 16.01.2014
Judgment reserved for orders on : 24.01.2015
Date of pronouncement : 24.01.2015
J U D G M E N T
1. A complaint was given by the prosecutrix to the SHO PS Amar Colony Ex. PW 8/A that on 12.01.2013, she had gone to Sagarpur, Gandhi Market to attend birthday party of her friend. There she met the accused. They started talking to each other. At that time, she used to work as counselor at DNS Engineering SC No. : 12/14 FIR No. : 358/13 U/s. : 417/376 IPC PS : Amar Colony, New Delhi. Page No. 1/6 College, NFC, Delhi. Accused came in her office and took her number and stated talking. He lured her that he loved her and would marry her. He used to call her at A62, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, where he established sexual relation with her. She lived with the accused at Lajpat Nagar in livein relationship, where he established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage. In September, 2013, she took her to Shimla, Manali, Chandigarh and Vaishno Devi. One day, he took her from Friends Colony to Faridabad, where he gave her cold drink containing some intoxicant. At that time, Ram Sewak was also there. Thereafter, they established physical relations with her. Accused Saurabh threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. He thereafter, dropped her at her office at NFC saying that he would not marry her.
On this complaint, case was registered against the accused under section 376 IPC. Prosecutrix was sent to AIIMS, where her medical examination was conducted. Her statement under section 164 CrPC was got recorded after counseling. Accused was arrested. Call detail records of the mobiles of the prosecutrix, accused and Ram Sewak were verified. After the investigation, accused Saurabh was sent for trial.
2. Since it was a Session's triable case, it was committed to this court. After hearing the arguments, prima facie case was made out and vide order dated 19.05.2014, charge under section 417/376 IPC SC No. : 12/14 FIR No. : 358/13 U/s. : 417/376 IPC PS : Amar Colony, New Delhi. Page No. 2/6 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses.
PW 1 Dr. Juhi Bharti did the medical examination of the prosecutrix vide MLC Ex. PW 1/A after recording history alleged by the prosecutrix. She did not find any evidence of external injury.
PW 2 HC Prabhu Lal recorded the FIR Ex. PW 2/A on receipt of rukka from ASI Bua Lal.
PW 3 Dr. Piyush Sharma did the medical examination of the accused and found him capable of performing sexual intercourse under normal circumstances vide MLC Ex. PW 3/A. PW 4 Ms. Anu Aggarwal, Ld. MM recorded the statement of the prosecutrix Ex PW 4/B. PW 5 HC Vijender was the MHC(M). he received the exhibits, made the relevant entries in the register no. 19 Ex. PW 5/A and got it sent to FSL vide RC Ex. PW 5/B and proved its acknowledgment Ex. PW 5/C. He stated that so long as exhibits remained with him, they were not tampered with.
PW 6 ASI Bua Lal made the endorsement on the complaint Ex. PW 6/A and got the case registered. He handed over the investigation to WSI Narender Kaur.
SC No. : 12/14 FIR No. : 358/13 U/s. : 417/376 IPC PS : Amar Colony, New Delhi. Page No. 3/6 PW 7 Ct. Rajesh took the exhibits to the FSL and deposed on the lines of PW 6 on the point that exhibits were not tampered with.
PW 8 is the prosecutrix. In her testimony, she admitted her meeting and friendship with the accused. She stated that she liked the accused and asked him to marry in September, 2013 but he refused. She stated that she never lived with the accused. However, sometimes when she got late, she stayed with the accused. She stated that accused never established physical relations with her nor took her to Faridabad nor any incident happened at Faridabad. She stated that she had given the complaint without reading its contents. She was disturbed and perturbed when her statement Ex. PW 4/B was recorded. She stated that she was medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW 1/A. She stated that since accused had refused to marry her, she became upset and lodged complaint.
She was declared hostile by the Ld. Addl. PP for State but she denied about this incident. She denied that the accused on the false pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her. She was confronted with her complaint Ex. PW 8/A and the statement under section 164 CrPC Ex. PW 4/B but she stated that no such incident of sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage, had happened.
PW 9 Smt. Shashi Bala is the mother of the prosecutrix. She too did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. She stated that she never saw the accused with the prosecutrix. She denied that prosecutrix had told her that accused on the false pretext of marriage had physical relations SC No. : 12/14 FIR No. : 358/13 U/s. : 417/376 IPC PS : Amar Colony, New Delhi. Page No. 4/6 with her. She was confronted with the statement Ex. PW 9/A but she stated that she did not state such facts to the police.
4. In the instant case, testimony of the prosecutrix is categorical to the effect that accused never promised her to marry nor established any physical relations with her rather she stated that she wanted to marry the accused but the accused refused due to which she became upset and called the police. She did not support the prosecution case in any manner and stated that no incident at Faridabad had taken place. Even PW 9 who is the mother of the prosecutrix, did not support the prosecution case and stated that she did not see the accused in the company of her daughter.
5. PW 8 and PW 9 were the material witnesses in this case. They did not support the prosecution case in any manner. Considering their testimony, I did not find any purpose to examine remaining prosecution witnesses as they are not the witnesses of the incident and their testimony, even if unrebutted could not form the basis of the conviction of the accused. The prosecution evidence was accordingly, closed as examination of other formal witnesses would have been a dead formality.
6. Since the prosecutrix has not narrated any incriminating fact against the accused, so his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with.
SC No. : 12/14 FIR No. : 358/13 U/s. : 417/376 IPC PS : Amar Colony, New Delhi. Page No. 5/6
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the testimony of the prosecutrix, I am of the view that prosecution case is not proved against the accused under section 417/376 IPC. The accused deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. I therefore, acquit the accused of the offence punishable under section 417/376 IPC. His bail bond is cancelled and his surety is discharged. Accused is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety in the like amount, in compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C.
8. The case property be confiscated to the State after the expiry of period of the appeal or revision.
9. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 24.01.2015 ( Sanjiv Jain) ASJSpl. FTC / Saket Courts New Delhi.
SC No. : 12/14 FIR No. : 358/13 U/s. : 417/376 IPC PS : Amar Colony, New Delhi. Page No. 6/6