Delhi District Court
State vs . Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh on 10 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 08/12)
Unique ID Case No. 02404R0362222011
State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh
FIR No. : 280/11
U/s : 363/366 IPC
P.S. : Aman Vihar
State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal,
R/o B5/114,
Sultan Puri,
New Delhi.
Date of institution of case 22.11.2011
Date on which, judgment have been reserved 10.09.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment 10.09.2012
JUDGMENT:
1 Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as is made out from the charge sheet is that on 15.09.2011 Smt. Seema w/o Idrish Khan went to PS Aman Vihar and filed a complaint Ex.PW3/A regarding missing of her 17 years old daughter since 9:00 PM on 13.09.2011. She expressed her suspicion on accused Sudesh s/o S.C No. 08/12 State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh Page Nos. 1/ 8 2 Sh. Mohan Lal and alleged that he had influenced / enticed her daughter to go with him. On basis of complaint Ex.PW3/A, IO prepared rukka Ex.PW6/A and case u/s.363 IPC was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.PW5/B. During the course of investigations, IO made efforts to trace out for the prosecutrix by flashing wireless message. He also sent information to NCRB and CBI. The photograph of prosecutrix was got published in daily newspaper and reward was declared for informant. On 03.10.2011 prosecutrix was traced out from Ramesh Enclave, Aman Vihar. Prosecutrix was taken into custody vide memo Ex.PW6/D, pursuant to identification by her mother Smt. Seema. She was got medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW6/E and was thereafter brought to Police Station. Statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC, Ex.PW1/B, was also got recorded by the IO after which prosecutrix was produced before the concerned CWC for further orders regarding her care and custody. Section 366 IPC was also added in the case. The accused produced Ex.PW6/H to Ex.PW6/N i.e. copy of Nikahnama, conversion certificate, mutual consent agreement / marriage deed and affidavits at the time of hearing of his application for anticipatory bail which were verified by the IO and found to be correct / genuine and accordingly, accused was granted anticipatory bail whereafter he was formally arrested on 21.10.2011 by the IO vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/G. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was prepared and was filed before the court of concerned Ld. M.M. 2 After committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and on S.C No. 08/12 State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh Page Nos. 2/ 8 3 the basis of the material on record, the charge for committing the offence punishable u/s363/366 IPC was framed against accused Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh. The accused Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial.
3 In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 7 witnesses : PW1 Sh. Dheeraj Mor, learned MM, has recorded the statement of prosecutrix u/s.161 CrPC and deposed regarding the same. He proved the proceeding conducted by him in this regard as Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively and the statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC was proved as Ex.PW1/B. PW2 Smt. Neeru produced record from Government Girls Secondary School, BC Block, Sultanpuri, Delhi, wherein prosecutrix was admitted in 6th class on the basis of SLC of previous school and admission form filled by Smt. Seema, mother of prosecutrix, wherein her date of birth was mentioned as 25.04.1994. She proved certificate issued by her school as Ex.PW2/D wherein the date of birth of prosecutrix was found mentioned as 25.04.1994.
PW3 Smt. Seema is the complainant in the present case. She deposed as per her complaint Ex.PW3/A. She also stated that after about 22 days of filing S.C No. 08/12 State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh Page Nos. 3/ 8 4 of her complaint, she was told by Police officials of P.S. Aman Vihar that her daughter had been found and that she went to PS on receiving the said information, however, she was not told about the place from where her daughter had been recovered despite her asking about it and that she was not allowed to meet her daughter and that after about 5 days, she came to know that her daughter had been sent to Nari Niketan and that later she was given a call from Nari Niketan by her daughter and went there and took her custody. She categorically stated that her daughter did not want to stay with the accused. A leading question was asked from the PW3 regarding the recovery of the prosecutrix in her presence, however, PW3 denied that Police had recovered her daughter in her presence on 03.10.2011.
From the crossexamination of PW3, it is brought out that she did not have any MCD birth certificate of her daughter and that prosecutrix was born at home itself and that the date of birth of prosecutrix was got recorded by her father at the time of her admission in Primary school when she was aged about 6 years.
During her further crossexamination, PW3 denied that accused used to stay as her tenant while she and her family were residing at Sultan Puri or that he used to bear small expenses of her house or that she had demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/ from the accused to settle the matter or that prosecutrix had informed her, a day after she had married the accused about their marriage or that she had filed a false case against the accused.
S.C No. 08/12 State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh Page Nos. 4/ 8 5 PW4 prosecutrix deposed as per her statement u/s.161 CrPC and Ex.PW1/B i.e. her statement u/s.164 CrPC, wherein she had stated that she loved accused and that she had willingly gone away from her home and married accused Sudesh @ Kaka of her own free will. She further stated that she wanted to go with her husband and that accused had never exerted any force or pressure on her nor had he influenced her or enticed her in any manner and that whatever had happened, had happened, with her free will and consent.
PW5 HC Hardev Singh is the Duty Officer and he deposed about registration of the case FIR in the present case.
PW6 SI Subh Ram is the IO of the case. He deposed about the investigations carried out by him and the documents prepared by him during the course of investigations. More particularly, he deposed about genuineness of Ex.PW6/H to Ex.PW6/N i.e. copy of Nikahnama, conversion certificate, mutual consent agreement / marriage deed and affidavits executed by the prosecutrix and the accused.
PW7 Abdul Salam is the Cleric / Imam, who had solemnized Nikah between the prosecutrix and accused on 15.09.2011. He produced the original Nikahnama Register and proved the relevant entry pertaining to Nikah of prosecutrix and accused as Ex.PW7/A. He also deposed regarding the conversion S.C No. 08/12 State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh Page Nos. 5/ 8 6 certificate Ex.PW6/I, which was issued by him to the accused. It is also brought out from the statement made by PW7, he had checked the birth certificate, document of age of prosecutrix and accused as he generally did in all other cases, before solemnizing their marriage.
4 After recording the testimonies of abovenamed prosecution witnesses, it was apparent that prosecutrix was above 18 years of age as on the day she had left her home to marry accused according to Muslim Rites and Ceremonies and that accused, who was born a Hindu had converted himself and adopted Muslim religion, prior to his marriage with prosecutrix. It was also brought out that there was no enticement, inducement or otherwise force or coercion exercised by accused upon prosecutrix. All the remaining witnesses cited by the prosecution were Police officials and doctors, who were of formal nature being witnesses to medical examination of prosecutrix and the accused as well as witnesses to other investigations and their testimony would not have helped the prosecution in any manner to prove its case against the accused. Hence PE was closed. 5 The statement of accused u/s.313 CrPC was dispensed with as nothing incriminating came on record against the accused from the evidence led by the prosecution and the documents placed on record by it.
6 Arguments have been addressed by learned Additional PP as well as S.C No. 08/12 State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh Page Nos. 6/ 8 7 learned counsel for accused.
7 Learned Additional PP has submitted that the guilt of accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and he accordingly prays that the accused be convicted for offence u/s.363/366 IPC.
8 On the other hand, learned Amicus Curie has contended that prosecution has failed to prove its allegations against the accused and that there is nothing incriminating on record to prove the guilt of the accused and has accordingly prayed that the accused be acquitted of offence u/s.363/366 IPC. 9 I have heard the arguments and also perused the record carefully. 10 In the present case PW2 Smt. Neeru produced record from school attended by the prosecutrix wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 25.04.1994 which was recorded on basis of admission form filled by mother of prosecutrix as well as the SLC issued by previous school. There is nothing on record to doubt the record produced from the school and its stand established that the date of birth fo prosecutrix is 25.04.1994. The date of commission of offence in the present case is 13.09.2011 and if the age of prosecutrix is calculated on the basis of her date of birth mentioned in Ex.PW2/D then her age comes to be above 18 years on the date of commission of offence. This being so prosecutrix being a major was capable of S.C No. 08/12 State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh Page Nos. 7/ 8 8 taking decision regarding her life and to choose her life partner irrespective of the fact that her choice was not approved of by her family members. The testimony of PW3 i.e. the prosecutrix clearly brings out that she had gone with the accused voluntarily without any force, coercion, influence or enticement and that she had married him, according to Muslim Rites and Ceremonies after conversion of accused and his adopting Muslim religion and that their marriage / Nikah was solemnized by PW7, who after solemnization of their marriage issued Nikahnama Ex.PW6/H. There is no iota of evidence produced by prosecution to show that prosecutrix was forced by the accused in any manner for solemnization of their marriage and it appears that whatever has happened had happened with free will and consent of the prosecutrix.
11 The nutshell of foregoing discussion is that as the prosecution has failed to bring on record any incriminating evidence against the accused or to prove the charges against him and thus the accused Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh is acquitted of the charged offence punishable u/s.363/366 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 10.09.2012) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi.
S.C No. 08/12 State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh Page Nos. 8/ 8
9
FIR No. 280/11
PS Aman Vihar
State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh.
10.09.2012
Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel Sh. Ashok Kumar.
PW5 HC Hardev Singh, PW6 SI Subh Ram and PW7 Sh. Abdul Salam are present. They are examined, crossexamined and discharged.
No other PW is present.
From the perusal of the case file and after recording the testimony of abovenamed prosecution witnesses, it was apparent that prosecutrix was above 18 years of age as on the day she had left her home to marry accused according to Muslim Rites and Ceremonies. It was also brought out that there was no enticement, inducement or otherwise force or coercion exercised by accused upon prosecutrix. All the remaining witnesses cited by the prosecution were Police officials and doctors, who were of formal nature being witnesses to medical examination of prosecutrix and the accused as well as witnesses of other investigations and their testimonies would not have helped the prosecution in any manner to prove its case against the accused. Hence PE was closed.
The statement of accused u/s.313 CrPC was dispensed with as nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused from the evidence led by the prosecution and the documents placed on record by it.
S.C No. 08/12 State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh Page Nos. 9/ 8 10 Vide separate judgment, announced today in the open Court, accused Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh has been acquitted of the charged offence.
Accused request that his previously furnished bail bonds may be accepted in compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC. Request allowed. Accordingly, previous bail bond of the accused is extended for a period of six months from today in terms of Section 437A CrPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 10.09.2012 S.C No. 08/12 State Vs. Sudesh Khan @ Sudesh Page Nos. 10/ 8