Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepanshu Khanna on 22 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 52/2013
Under Section : 376/384 IPC &
4 POCSO Act
Police Station : Shahdara
Sessions Case No. : 41/2013
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0190292013
STATE Vs. DEEPANSHU KHANNA
S/o Sandeep Khanna
R/o 1/9327, Gali No. 7, West Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi. ........Accused
Date of Institution : 10.06.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 22.04.2014
Date of pronouncement : 22.04.2014
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.02.2013, on direction of senior officers, SI Neera Singh reached at PS Shahdara where prosecutrix was present alongwith her parents as well as NGO official Neetu Joshi. SI inquired the prosecutrix in their presence. Prosecutrix gave a written complaint to SI alleging therein that her friend Rohit introduced her to the accused about 1½ years back and for the last 10 months, they started talking much with each other over phone and they met only for 2-3 minutes occasionally. Once he called her at his home where he tried to do 'jor-jabardast' with her but on her negative reaction, he stooped himself. He again called the prosecutrix on the pretext of having some important talk and this time he succeeded in having physical relations with her, forcibly. After ½ hour, prosecutrix went back to her home where she did not disclose FIR No. : 52/13, PS Shahdara, 1 of 7 pages anything. Initially, everything was normal but gradually, accused started to blackmailing her emotionally on the pretext of need of money and thereafter by extending threat to her to defame her by disclosing her relationship with him to everyone and therefore, she had to obey him and he demanded her ring which she had to give and from the said ring he paid the money lost (hara hua paisa) by him in the gambling. His demands were increasing and he started demanding more money from the prosecutrix. Sometimes he used to emotionally blackmail her and sometime he threatened her to disclose everything to all, due to which prosecutrix got afraid and for fulfilling his demands, she gave jewellery to him three times by removing the same from her house and on 17.01.2013 he demanded more money from her on which she gave Rs. 10,000/- by withdrawing from her mother's ATM. On 18.01.2013, he again demanded the ATM card from the prosecutrix to withdraw money himself which she had to give to him and he withdrew Rs. 10,000/- and then Rs. 1,700/- from the ATM through his friend Jatin. She was not aware of the fact that the message was received by her mother on her mobile phone while the money was withdrawn from the ATM. On 24.01.2013, her father went to withdraw money from the ATM and then he came to know about the deficit balance in the account and made complaint in this regard and requested to see the video recording of ATM. On checking, the jewellery was also found short at home. On inquiry by her father at home and on having come to know the fact that her father will see the video recording of ATM, prosecutrix got afraid and she disclosed everything to her father. Thereafter, her father talked with parents of accused but they did not take any action in this regard and are sitting quiet.
2. After receiving the written complaint of prosecutrix, she was taken by the SI and Ct. Soniya to GTB Hospital where her medical examination FIR No. : 52/13, PS Shahdara, 2 of 7 pages was got conducted vide MLC No. C-522/13 whereupon doctor reported the hymen torn. The doctor also handedover a sealed sexual assault kit alongwith sample seal to Ct. Soniya for giving the same to the SI who seized the same and prepared seizure memo thereof.
3. On the basis of complaint of prosecutrix, her MLC as well as facts and circumstances of the case, commission of offences u/s 376/382 IPC and u/s 4 POCSO Act were prima-facie made out and present case FIR was got registered and further investigation was taken over by the SI Neera Singh herself.
4. During investigation, copy of age proof of prosecutrix was obtained by the IO and her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC was got recorded from Ld. MM wherein she corroborated the allegations of her written complaint given to the police. IO recorded statement of other witnesses also. Search of accused was made but no clue was found. The copy of invoices/bills of jewellery articles produced by father of the prosecutrix were seized by the IO and she also sent request letter for providing of CCTV footage of ATMs of Canara Bank and PNB. Since the IO was on leave, further investigation was assigned to SI Balbir. On 21.02.2013, accused was granted anticipatory bail. On 28.02.2013, accused was formally arrested and thereafter, he was got medically examined. On his MLC, doctor mentioned that there is nothing to suggest that accused cannot perform sexual intercourse. Exhibits handed over by the doctor were seized and thereafter, accused was released on bail in compliance of anticipatory bail orders. On 08.03.2013, exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini. On 02.04.2013, SI Neera Singh was again assigned further investigation. On 06.04.2013, she received CCTV footage from PNB and sent reminder to Canara Bank and awaiting the FSL result, charge-sheet was filed.
5. Copy of charge-sheet and accompanying documents were supplied to the accused and vide order dated 27.08.2013, he was charged for FIR No. : 52/13, PS Shahdara, 3 of 7 pages offences punishable u/s 376/342/506/384 IPC and u/s 3/4 POCSO Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In support of its case, prosecution has cited 25 witnesses and examined 6 witnesses as under :-
(a) PW-1 prosecutrix is the complainant in this case who resiled from her statement in her cross-examination.
(b) PW-2 Sh. Pooran Mal, the father of prosecutrix did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.
(c) PW-3 Smt. Kamla the mother of the prosecutrix also turned hostile.
(d) PW-4 HC Kamal Singh the Duty Officer proved the present case FIR.
(e) PW-5 Ms. Harleen Singh proved the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of the prosecutrix, recorded by her.
(f) PW-6 SI Neera Singh deposed about the the investigation conducted by her in the present case.
7. Out of six witnesses, the 3 material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.
Since all three material witnesses i.e i.e. PW-1 prosecutrix, PW-2 Sh. Pooran Mal and PW-3 Smt. Kamla did not support the prosecution case, no useful purpose would have been served in continuing the trial as the prosecution could not have succeeded even after examining the remaining witnesses who are formal/official in nature and therefore, PE was closed.
8. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC has been recorded wherein he opted not to lead defence evidence and stated that he is innocent, he never had any physical relations with the prosecutrix with or without her consent. She was above 18 years when their friendship started and during their friendship, she told him that she lost two years of studies in the past. He had talked to his parents for his marriage with the prosecutrix but they did not agree due to cast difference.
FIR No. : 52/13, PS Shahdara, 4 of 7 pages
9. I have heard the submission from Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor and from Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. counsel for accused and have also gone through the record.
10. With regard to the charges framed against the accused, testimony of material witnesses is required to be appreciated.
PW-1 Prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case only in her examination-in-chief but in her cross-examination, she turned hostile and admitted that accused had not done any galat kam with her at his house or anywhere. She admitted that she had never paid cash or jewellery to the accused Deepanshu and the ATM card always remained with her. She admitted that accused had not blackmailed her any time. PW-1 also stated in her cross-examination that she had written her complaint/ statement under the guidance of police because she liked the accused very much and wanted to marry him. She further admitted that before recording of her examination-in-chief on 30.10.2013, the IO had read over the statement to her and told her to depose accordingly otherwise she will be in problem. She affirmed that even at the time of recording of her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC before Ld. MM, the IO had told her to make statement accordingly. She admitted that she had never handed over the ATM card to the accused Deepanshu. PW-1 also affirmed that she had not apprised the court about the fact that IO had asked her to make the statement as directed by her and she did not tell this fact to Ld. MM who recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. PW-1 in her cross- examination denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that her father has compromised with the accused and that is why she is making this statement. She denied to have made statement Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B to the police correctly. She further denied the suggestion that accused used to blackmail her emotionally and used to extort money and jewellery from her for not exposing her. She FIR No. : 52/13, PS Shahdara, 5 of 7 pages denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely due to fear and pressure put upon her by the family of the accused. She also denied the suggestion that she made her statement dated 30.10.2013 without any fear or pressure and said statement was her true and correct statement. She also denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that nobody dictated her statement Ex.PW1/A or that same was written by her on her own as had happened with her.
11. The second material witness PW-2 Sh. Pooran Mal the father of prosecutrix also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case despite his cross-examination conducted at length by Ld. Addl. PP wherein witness denied all the suggestions put to him by Ld. Addl. PP. In his examination-in-chief, PW-2 deposed that her daughter/ prosecutrix was having love affair with accused Deepanshu and wanted to marry him but his parents refused for marriage. After some days, he was called at the PS where police obtained his signatures besides of her daughter and her wife on some blank papers. PW-2 further deposed that he did not make any statement to the police at any point of time. However, PW-2 admitted to have handed over photocopies (Mark A1 to Mark A5) of some jewellery items to the police who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/A but in the cross- examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that he was not told by the police as to for what purpose, photocopies of jewellery bills were taken from him. He further affirmed in his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel that money was always withdrawn from ATM by him and his family members for meeting domestic needs. He affirmed that no jewellery item was found missing from his house. PW-2 further affirmed that he was never told by her daughter/ prosecutrix that she was ever sexually abused by accused Deepanshu. He admitted that her daughter failed twice during her school days and her daughter was above 18 years in August 2012. He admitted that police never FIR No. : 52/13, PS Shahdara, 6 of 7 pages demanded birth-certificate of her daughter.
12. The third and last material witness PW-3 Smt. Kamla is the mother of the prosecutrix who also resiled from her statement made to the police and did not support the prosecution case despite being cross- examination at length by Ld. Addl. PP.
13. Keeping in view the testimony of all the above three material witnesses i.e. PW-1 prosecutrix, her father PW-2 Sh. Pooran Mal and her mother PW-3 Smt. Kamla and the fact that in her cross- examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, prosecutrix PW-1 herself has not stood with allegations as made by her in her written complaint Ex.PW11/A and in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/B recorded by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, the commission of alleged offence by the accused is not proved. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused and as such, accused is entitled for acquittal.
14. Accordingly, accused Deepanshu Khanna is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. Accused is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and Surety is discharged. However, accused is directed to furnish Personal Bond and Surety Bond u/s 437-A Cr.PC, in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each, for a period of six months, within a week from today. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (T.S. KASHYAP)
today on April 22nd, 2014 ASJ-01/Spl. Judge (NDPS)
Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi
FIR No. : 52/13, PS Shahdara, 7 of 7 pages