Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh on 21 November, 2014
State V. Rakesh
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG: ASJ-01( NORTH):
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No: 141/14
FIR No. 701/14
PS : SP BADLI
U/S: 376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO ACT
STATE
VERSUS
RAKESH
S/O. SH. BABU LAL
R/O. N-43/59 JJ CAMP BADLI
INDUSTRIAL AREA RAJA VIHAR, DELHI
.... Accused
Date of Institution: 21.07.14
Date of Argument: 21.11.14
Date of Decision: 21.11.14
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 04.07.14, DD no.
55B was received at police station SP Badli about the rape of a girl aged 14-15 years by her father and on receipt of the said DD, WSI Manju alongwith Ct. Sachin reached at Badli Industrial Area, Gate no. 4, near Prakash General Store, where at house no. N 43/59, Badli Industrial Area, Delhi, Complainant P (identity withheld) alongwith her mother Meena were found. Seeing the situation at the spot, she brought the prosecutrix and her mother to the police station while leaving the accused in the custody of Ct. Sachin. The prosecutrix was got counselled through Ms. Najma State V Rakesh SC no.141/14:FIR no.701/14:PS SP Badli: u/s.376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act Page no.1 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Rakesh Khan, Official, NGO, Navsrishti and thereafter in the presence of her mother the statement of the prsoecutrix was recorded by the IO, whereby she stated that she used to live with her maternal grand father Shri Babu Lal and her maternal grand mother Ms. Kailash Rani at C 268, JJ Colony, Shiv Vihar, Hastsal and she was studying in class 5th at a MC Primacy School, New JJ Hastsal no. 1. she had come to live with her parents in the summer vacations at their home at Raja Vihar. She further stated that her father always used to scold her mother. It is further stated that on 21.06.14, her father had scolded and abused her mother again and due to fear, her mother went somewhere. Thereafter, her father scolded her also and also asked to do household work.
2. On 22.06.14, when she was tired and was sleeping, she suddenly felt some push and she woke up and saw that her father was removing her clothes and when she questioned him about the same, her father threatened her to kill her brothers and sisters if she raised alarm. It is further stated that he laid down on her and put his urinating part into her urinating part. She felt pain and when she tried to raise alarm, her father gagged her mouth with his hand. Thereafter, her father was continuously threatening her that if she told this fact to her mother, he would push her mother out of the house and would kill all of them. After many days, when her mother came back, she narrated the whole incident to her and her mother told to her mother. Her maternal grand mother called the NGO, who came to their house and they told her about the said incident. The police came to their house and her statement was recorded in the State V Rakesh SC no.141/14:FIR no.701/14:PS SP Badli: u/s.376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act Page no.2 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Rakesh presence of the NGO official.
3. The prosecutrix was got medically examined by the IO from BSA Hospital vide MLC no. 113/14. Thereafter, on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix as well as the opinion of her MLC, he got the FIR registered us. 376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act. Statement of prosecutrix was also got recorded u/s. 164 Cr. PC.
4. During investigation, at the instance and identification of the prosecutrix, the accused was arrested in the present case. The accused was also got medically examined by the IO for his Potency Test and IO deposited all the exhibits of the accused as well as of the prosecutrix obtained from the doctors concerned to the MHC(M) and thereafter, these exhibits were sent to FSL vide RC no. 105/21/14, FSL receipt no. 4872 dated 07.07.14 and Vide RC no. 111/21/14, FSL receipt no. 5202 dated 18.07.14.
5. Later after completion of investigation IO filed charge sheet qua accused persons u/s.376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act and accused was put to trial.
6. 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.
7. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.09.14, charge for the offence u/s. 4 POCSO Act and in alternative u/s. 376(1) IPC and further u/s 506 IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State V Rakesh SC no.141/14:FIR no.701/14:PS SP Badli: u/s.376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act Page no.3 of 8 Contd./-
8. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 3 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 on 21.11.2014.
9. Prosecutrix 'P' has been examined as PW-1. She has not supported the case of the prosecution. She has deposed that she used to live with her maternal grand parents since her childhood and was studying there itself at Hastsal near Uttam Nagar, while her parents used to live at N 43/59, Raja Vihar, Delhi. During summer vacations she had come to live with her parents at Raja Vihar. It is further stated that her father always used to quarrel with her mother and also used to beat her. In anger her mother took her and her other siblings to her paternal home, where one of the friends of her maternal grand father, suggested her to implicate her father in a false case so that he could leave his habit of creating trouble and beating her mother as he deserved to be taught a lesson.
10. Since she was not supporting the case of the prosecution, she was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP and during her cross examination, she was read over her statement Ex. PW1/A, which she has admitted and has admitted her signatures on the same. She has admitted having made said statement to the police but stated that she had made the said statement on asking of her maternal grand father and no such incident had taken place with her actually. She has admitted her medical examination and also that she pointed the place of the occurrence. She State V Rakesh SC no.141/14:FIR no.701/14:PS SP Badli: u/s.376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act Page no.4 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Rakesh has also admitted her statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC. but stated that it was not correct version and that no such incident had ever occurred. She also admitted that she had handed over her underwear to the police but stated that she was not wearing the same on 22.06.14.
11. She has been cross examined by ld Amicus Curiae. During her cross examination also she has denied that any such incident of sexual molestation actually occurred with her. She stated that she had told her bua and grand mother that both her parents used to quarrel with each other. She admitted that she lodged a false complaint on the asking of a friend of her maternal grand parents as they wanted to teach him a lesson due to his bad behaviour with his family.
12. Ms. Meena, (PW-2 )is the mother of the prosecutrix K and she has also not supported the case of the prosecution. She further stated that her husband used to quarrel with her after consuming liquor. She further stated that she was fed up with the behaviour of her husband towards her. On 22.06.14, she went to her parents house with her children and returned to her matrimonial home on 01.07.14 and she persuaded her husband not to take liquor and asked him to do work and live peacefully with her and their children. She also stated that she had filed a complaint against his ill behaviour.
13. Since she had not supported the case of the prosecution, she was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State. During her cross examination, she was confronted with her statement made to the police. She has admitted her signatures on the same but stated that the same State V Rakesh SC no.141/14:FIR no.701/14:PS SP Badli: u/s.376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act Page no.5 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Rakesh were obtained on blank papers. She further stated that the complaint was regarding misbehaviour of her husband. She has completely denied having made any such statement to the police. She further stated that she had only made statement against the bad behaviour of her husband. She has admitted that her daughter was got medically examined by the police and that her husband Rakesh was arrested by police for committing rape upon her daughter P.
14. Since she was found to be resiling from her statement made to the police she was put that she was won over by the accused being her husband, which she completely denied. She also denied that her daughter i.e. prosecutrix P was ever raped by the accused.
15. PW-3 is Kailash Rani, who is the maternal grand mother of the prosecutrix. She has also not at all supported the case of the prosecution. She has stated that her maternal grnad daughter used to live with her and in the summer vacation, she had gone to live with her parents. She further stated that her daughter and her husband used to quarrel with each other and that her husband was a habitual drunkard and used to quarrel frequently with her daughter.
16. Since she was also resiling from her earlier statement she was cross examined by ld. Addl.PP where she denied that prosecutrix P told her that her father i.e. Rakesh had committed wrong act with her. She also denied having narrated the said incident to an NGO official. She was read over her statement Ex. Pw 3/A which she completely denied and also denied having called the police or having made any such statement to the State V Rakesh SC no.141/14:FIR no.701/14:PS SP Badli: u/s.376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act Page no.6 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Rakesh police.
17. She has also been cross examined by ld. Defence counsel whereby also she has admitted that P was living with her since her childhood. She also stated that the date of birth of P was 24.04.1996 and she had understated her age during her admission in the school as it could help her in future.
18. After examination of these witnesses, it appeared to the court that no purpose would be served by examining the remaining witnesses because their testimony only related to the investigation of the case and hence, PE was closed by the court on 21.11.2014.
19. It has been discussed earlier that prosecutrix 'P' has not at all supported the case of the prosecution and her deposition has been discussed above. The prosecutrix has rather completely denied having been raped by the accused. She has categorically stated that accused has not done any wrong act with her and that she had given her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. at the instance of the friend of her grand parents. She has completely denied the story of the prosecution and has not supported the version of the prosecution. As discussed above, her mother and grand mother has also not supported the case of the prosecution.
20. Hence, there is nothing on record to suggest that prosecutrix was raped by the accused. She rather refused about occurrence of any such incident and rather stated that she made her statement under pressure of her family members. She completely denied that the accused ever raped State V Rakesh SC no.141/14:FIR no.701/14:PS SP Badli: u/s.376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act Page no.7 of 8 Contd./-
State V. Rakesh her. She rather admitted that the accused the accused did not do anything wrong with her and stated that since the accused was a habitual drunkard and his behaviour was bad towards his family and in order to teach him a lesson she deposed falsely in her statements. The other two public witnesses also i.e. her mother as well as her maternal grand mother have also completely hostile in their statements and have not supported the case of the prosecution.
21. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove its case at all. Hence, accused is acquitted in the present case.
22. He be released from JC, if not required in any other case.
23. Accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount in terms u/s. 437 A Cr. P.C.
24. File be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DEEPAK GARG)
on 21st November 2014 ASJ-01 (NORTH), ROHINI:DELHI
21.11.14
State V Rakesh SC no.141/14:FIR no.701/14:PS SP Badli: u/s.376/506 IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act Page no.8 of 8 Contd./-