Delhi District Court
State vs Vinod Kumar on 15 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs Vinod Kumar
FIR No.: 344/2016
U/s : 307/313/506 IPC
PS : Badarpur
SC No. : 166/2021
Brief Details Of The Case
FIR Number : 344/2016
Offence complained of : U/s 307/313/506 IPC
Date of Offence : 30.08.2016
Name of the complainant : Rubina Nazz
W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
R/o H.No.A-15, Gali No.8,
Molarband Extension New Delhi
Name of the accused : Vinod Kumar
S/o Sh. Parshu Ram
R/o H.No.D-19, Harsh Vihar,
Hari Nagar III, Jaitpur,
New Delhi
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Institution : 23.03.2021
Date of Arguments : 16.03.2026
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 1 of 63
Date of Judgment : 15.04.2026
Decision : Accused stands acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Vinod Kumar, faced trial in this case, for committing offence punishable under Section 307/313/506 IPC.
2. Prosecution case, as per charge-sheet is that on 31.08.2016 information was received vide DD No.22A and thereafter HC Anil Kumar alongwith Ct. Mukesh reached at H.No.15A, Gali No.8, MD Extension Badarpur Delhi and met complainant Rubina. The complainant handed over a written complaint which is mentioned below in verbatim.
"सेवा में, S. H. O. साहब, थाना बदरपुर, श्रीमान जी कि मैं स्वीना नाज कि विनोद कुमार के द्वारा किये गये अपराध की वजह से मैने एक FIR की थी जिसका नं. 237 है जिसकी वजह से मैंने उसकी बेाल करा दी उसके घर वालों के कहने पर सबने कहा हम रखेंगे। पर किसी ने मुझे न घर पर रखा। और वह पहले से शादीशुदा है। अब वह मुझे रखता है और मुझे मारता पीटता है। और कहता है कि तुझे जो करना कर ले। मुझे 17/7/2016 को मारा था मैने 100 नं० पर भी काल किया था। जिसकी वजह से मैं 45 दिन की प्रेग्नैन्सी थी जिसकी वजह से मिस कैरिज हुआ जिसकी वजह से मुझे आज भी प्रोबलम बनी है। पेट में। और कल दिनांक 30/8/2016 की रात में मुझे बहुत मारा FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 2 of 63 और मेरे गले में फॉसी लगा दी जिसमे मेरे मकान मालिक ने बचाया मैं उस टाइम 100 न० काल करती मेरा मुबाइल तोड दिया था। मैं चाहती हूँ उसके घर बाले भाई उसकी बीबी अनीला और विनोद कुमार के खिलाफ सख्त से सख्त कार्यवाही की जाये। और उसके खिलाफ मुकदमा दर्ज किया जाये। और उसके घर वालो के खिलाफ भी कार्यवाही की जाये सख्त से सख्त आपसे गुजारिश है। जो घर वालो ने और उसकी बीबी के खिलाफ अनीता शमी के खिलाफ मुकदमा दर्ज किया जाये क्योकि उसने मुझसे झूठ बोलकर सबने बेल करा ली अब मारता है विनोद और धमकाते हैं। सबा, आपसे गुजारिश है विनोद कुमार के खिलाफ मुकदमा दर्ज किया जाये और उसके खिलाफ सख्त सख्त कार्यवाही की जाये।"
3. Thereafter, the FIR in the present matter was registered. At the instance of complainant site plan was prepared. MLC of injured was got conducted on 31.08.2016 vide MLC no.581136/2016. Complainant handed over medical documents pertaining to termination of pregnancy and one dupatta which was allegedly used by the accused to strangulate her and the same was seized.
4. During investigation, documents pertaining to the Get Well Clinic furnished by complainant was got verified wherein doctor opined "rubina naaz was pregnant on 10.07.2016. On 17.07.2016 she again came with alleged history of trauma in LIF but she denied her consent for ultrasound. On 20.08.2016, she again visited at hospital and found that there was no sign of pregnancy".
5. The nature of injury on MLC No.581136/16 was opined simple FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 3 of 63 and blunt. During the aforesaid period accused was granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court on the ground of settlement on 16.12.2016 and first installment of settlement of Rs.3 Lakhs was paid by the accused to the complainant.
6. During investigation it was also found that complainant Rubina with the name Anshika had got married with accused on 12.10.2015 at Arya Samaj Mandir, and the documents were verified and found to be correct. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed. Court took cognizance of the offence against accused. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded.
7. During investigation statement Of Complainant Recorded U/s 164 CR.P.C. ON 07.09.2016 which is mentioned below "Meri naukri H.V. Art & Glass Pvt. Ltd. mein 06.03.2014 koh lagi thi, waha key malik ka naam ashok hai par unka bhai Vinod Kr. Hi pura kaam sambhalta hai. Vinod mujhey company ki kai meetings mein jaaney ke liyee protsahit karta tha. 02.10.2014 koh weh mujhey meeting ke naam par ek jegah le gaya jeha usney mujhey cold drink mein koi nasila dawamila ke pila di aur mere saath sharirik sambandh banayee. Jiskey liyee maine baad mein vinod ke khilaf FIR bhi karwai jiska no.237/16 hai.
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 4 of 63 12.10.2015 koh meri shaadi arya samaj mandir mein vinod sey ho gai jismein usney nahi bataya ki woh phaley sey shaadi shuda hai. 6.07.2016 koh weh shyam koh ghar pe aaya kyoki uss din ID thi aur aatey hi mere gaal par thappad mara aur keha ki tum meri biwi koh phone nahi karegi. Phir 17.07.2016 koh vinod ney mujhey factory bulaya aur jab mein factory pahuchi toh factory ke guard ney mujhey ander ghusney nahi diya aur guard neh mujhe dhamki di ki tera woh haal karunga ki chalney ke layak nahi rahegi aur na hi police pay jaa payegi. Mein jaisey hi factory sey bahar aayee toh vinod mujhey factory ke bahar jata dikha. woh motor cycle pay tha, usney mere pait par bhut jor sey laat maari aur dhakka de ke bhag gaya. Iss wejeh sey mera miscarriage bhi bo gaya. Miscarriage 22.07.2016 koh hua. Maine 100 no. pay call kiya aur complaint di par police ney uukt FIR mein vinod kumar koh giraftar nahi kiya gaya aur usney ek bail application court mein legayee. Bail application leganey ke baad vinod ki biwi Anita wah uskey pita ji pashuram mere uper vinod ki bail ke liyee dabaw bananey lagey. Weh log mujhey behlaney fuslaney lage aur kehaney lage ki woh mujhe ghar par rekhangey aur kabi nahi marengey.
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 5 of 63 Vinod kumar bhi mujhe dhamki dene lega. Weh kehta tha ki weh mere bhaiyo koh jail mein dalwa dega. Maine dabaw mein aa kar vinod ki bail karwa di. Bail sey bahar aa kar vinod phone pay mujhsey achey sey baat karney lega. Lekin jab ghar aata toh mujhey sharirik samband bananey ke liyee jabardasti karta hai. Weh kehta hai ki mujhey rekhel banakar rakhega. Mujhey july mein pata chala ki mein karib 1 month pregnant hu. Koi karwai nahi ki. Phir uskey baad 30.08.2016 koh raat weh mere ghar aaya aur weha humera jhagda ho gaya. Phir usneymere dupattey sey mujhe fasi leganey ki kossish ki aur haath sey mera gala dabaya. Usney mere sir par ghosa bhi mara. Mujhey uss sey meri makan malik ney bachaya"
8. On 12.11.2021, court took cognizance against the accused. Arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused was charged with offences punishable under Section 307/313/506 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
9. Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case: -
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 6 of 63 Sr. No. Name of the Witness Crux of deposition PW-1 Ms. Rubina Nazz To prove the material essentials of the (complainant) complaint filed by her. She tendered the following documents in evidence :-
a) Statement/Complaint - Ex.PW1/A
b) Site plan Ex.PW1/B
c) Seizure memo of dupatta Ex.PW1/C
d) Seizure memo of Medical slips Ex.PW1/D
e) Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/E This witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-2 HC Anil Kumar To prove the various stages of investigation being carried out by the witness. He tendered the following documents in her evidence:
a) Endorsement Ex.PW2/A The witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-3 Sh. Amit (landlord of He proved the factum regarding the complainant) complainant being her tenant and denied remaining aspects of her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
PW-4 Dr. H P Miglani, Witness deposed that he had conducted the Ultrasonologist Raj ultrasound of complainant.
Ultrasound Center The witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-5 Dr. Pratiama Kumari, Get To prove the medical documents. She tendered Well Clinic the following documents in her evidence:
a) Prescription dated 10.07.2016 Ex.PW5/A
b) Prescription dated 17.07.2016 Ex.PW5/B
c) Prescription dated 20.08.2016 Ex.PW5/C FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 7 of 63
d) Prescription dated 22.08.2016 Ex.PW5/D The witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-6 Inspt. B D Meena To prove the various stages of investigation (1st IO) being carried out by the witness. He tendered the following documents in his evidence:
a) Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW6/A
b) Personal search memo of accused Ex.PW6/B
c) Disclosure statement accused Ex.PW6/C
d) Verification report from Dr. Pratima Kumari Ex.PW6/D The witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-7 HC Mukesh Meena To prove the various stages of investigation being carried out by the witness.
The witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW8 Dr. Piyush Sharma (AIIMS To prove the MLC No.581136 dated
Hospital) 31.08.2016 of injured Rubina which was
Ex.PW8/A
PW9 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, To brought on record the record pertaining to
MRT AIIMS MLC No.581136 dated 31.08.2016
PW10 Inspt. Rajinder Prasad Was incharge of investigation from May 2018
(2nd IO) till 2019.
PW11 SI Amit Bhati Conducted the investigation and got verified the
(3rd IO) marriage certificate of complainant and the
accused.
10. Vide statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 24.08.2024, the accused has admitted the genuineness of the following documents: -
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 8 of 63 S. No. Documents Admitted
1. FIR No.344/2016 recorded by HC Dinesh Ex.A (without content)
2. Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by Ld. MM Already Sh. Anubhav Jain Ex.PW1/E (Colly)
3. Statement of Sh. Anil Shastri, Arya Samaj Ex.A1 Mandir Harit Vihar, Delhi regarding conversion certificate
4. Statement of Sh. Anil Shastri, Arya Samaj Ex.A2 Mandir Harit Vihar, Delhi regarding marriage certificate
5. Statement of Ct. Arvinder regarding arrest of Ex.A3 accused
11. Prosecution witnesses deposed regarding the offence in the present matter as follows:-
PW-1 Rubina Naz (complainant) deposed that she joined the company of accused on 06.03.2014 as computer operator. He asked her to make arrangements for meetings with Architects. On 02.10.2014, a meeting was organized with architects, in the office of accused. During one of those meetings, she had gone to Surajkund, Faridabad, where she drank some drink and thereafter, she felt uneasy. In that state, she was raped by accused. Thereafter, when she confronted accused, he promised to marry her. Thereafter, she married him. Subsequently, he used to ill treat her FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 9 of 63 and she got register one FIR no.237/2016, P.S. Jaitpur u/s 376/328/506 IPC, on 05.05.2016. After registration of said FIR, accused and his family members pressurized her and her family for cooperating them for the purpose of grant of bail to accused. Accused and his family members had visited her place and had met her family members, in this regard. She succumbed to that pressure and also got convinced that family members of accused and accused will accept her, being wife of accused. She did not oppose the bail application and the accused was granted bail by the concerned court. Thereafter, accused asked her to live in one rented accommodation i.e. house no.A-15, Gali no.8, Molarband Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi where she started residing alone. Thereafter, accused used to visit the said place and used to have sexual intercourse with her. Whenever, she asked him to reside with her for two or three days, he used to refute. Accused was a married person. He was married to one Anita Sharma. When she had come to the court for the purpose of arguments on bail application of accused in rape case, said Anita Sharma had told her that she was like her sister and she could reside with her and her husband. She talked to her on phone, on the night of 05.07.2016 and asked her as to why she was left alone and made to live a solitary life. Anita Sharma did not respond to her said request and only told her to not call her. On 06.07.2016, accused came to her rented accommodation and threatened her as to why she had called Anita Sharma. He slapped her many times and punched her on her head. Thereafter, he left the place. On 10.07.2016, when she was not having FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 10 of 63 her regular periods, accused took her to Get Well Clinic at Molarband Extension. After examining her, concerned doctor told that she was pregnant. Thereafter, accused left her at her rented accommodation. After that nobody talked to her from the family of accused. In July, 2016 she called brother of accused namely Ashok Kumar and told him about the fact that she was pregnant and asked him to make her part of their family. In response to the same, Ashok Kumar told her that her marriage was illegal and the child which she had from the said relation with accused was also illegitimate. Ashok Kumar asked her to get the said child aborted. Then she called Anita Sharma on her mobile phone and told her about the said facts. She told her that she had no concern with the child, she was carrying and threatened her not come to her house otherwise she will face dire consequences. She told her "agar ghar pe aayi toh taange tod dungi". On 17.07.2016, since nobody responded from accused and his family, so she went to the factory of accused. There she was not allowed to go in the office of accused by his guard Amar Singh. That guard threatened her to leave the place otherwise she will face dire consequences. That guard had threatened her by saying "agar aap ander jaogi, toh aapka aisa haal karenge ki aap police thane nahi jaa paoge". She kept on waiting outside the factory of accused. After sometime, when she was hiding, accused came out with another person and started going on a bike. She tried to catch him but he kicked her on her stomach and left the place. She fell down and people gathered. She felt extreme pain in her stomach and somebody called FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 11 of 63 police. Thereafter, police took her to Get Well Clinic. The concerned doctor after examining her told her that her child was alright and discharged her. Thereafter, she came back to her home. After one day, she started feeling pain in her stomach. At that time, due to disturbance in her life as deposed by her above, she was not taking medicine. She also started bleeding. She told the said facts to the landlord concerned and the said landlord told her to get medical checkup done. She called accused but he did not pick her phone. On 22.07.2016, she felt extreme pain and miscarriage took place in night at her home. Nobody was present with her at that time. The baby was 45 days old. She got myself medically examined by the doctor after said miscarriage. The doctor told her that she should have come to her in the night when she had felt pain. Doctor gave her certain medicine which she took. On 30.08.2016, accused came to her home around 07.00/08.00pm and started making er understand whatever has happened to her should be forgotten and she should move forward. She responded that since miscarriage had taken place due to the act of accused, she would file application in the court for cancellation of bail. Thereafter, he started beating her and threatened her by saying "jab jail jaunga hi toh tujhe maar kar hi jail jaunga". She tried to call police but he broke her mobile. Then after picking her duppatta, she tried to move out of the house but accused caught hold of her dupatta and tried to strangulate her. As a result of said strangulation, blood accumulated in her neck. She handed over one photo to the police which was Ex.PA-1. She shouted and thereafter, landlord and his family FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 12 of 63 members came and intervened the situation. They freed her from accused and shunted accused out of the home. Thereafter, she felt pain in her neck and was not fully conscious. On the next day, in the morning landlord told her that she should call police at 100 number as she may get killed at the hands of accused. Thereafter, she called police at 100 number and police came to her home and recorded her statement which was Ex.PW1/A. FIR was then registered. She was medically examined by doctor. Police prepared site plan on her instance which was Ex.PW1/B. Police collected her dupatta and seized the same vide seizure memo was Ex.PW1/C. She handed over medical slips to the police which was seized by the police vide seizure memo was Ex.PW1/D. Her statement was also recorded before the court u/s 164 Cr.P.C. During examination, an envelope duly sealed with the seal of 'AJ' was taken out from the judicial file. Seal was broken and the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C of witness was taken out and shown to the witness. After seeing the same, witness correctly identifies her signature. The statement was now Ex.PW1/E colly. During examination, MHC(M) has produced one cloth sealed pullanda bearing sealed with the seal of 'AK'. Seal was broken and one duppatta of black and grey colour was taken out and was shown to the witness. After seeing the same, witness states that it was the same duppatta which was used by the accused at the time of incident. The duppatta was Ex.P-1.
During examination witness was asked following court questions:-
"Court Q: Tell me about your family and your family background?
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 13 of 63 Ans: I was born in Bhira Khiri, Uttarpradesh. My father had a business. My mother was a housewife. I have five brothers and three sisters including me. I have two younger brothers. My father expired in 1999. After the death of my father, I started giving coaching class and from that I used to earn. We all shifted to Barely, after the death of my father. I shifted to Delhi in the year 2013 in the house of my sister and her husband. At that time, when I came to Delhi, I was doing a job in Shaheen bagh.
Court Q: Accused is a Hindu by religion. He cannot have two wives. Why did you believe Anita Sharma, wife of accused when she told you that you can reside with her as wife of accused? Ans: After I was raped, I used to feel disturbed and used to get shivers. I did not use to sleep at nights property. In such circumstances, I started taking medicines from VIMHANS for my mental issues. In that situation, accused and his family members used to project before me that accused will get divorce from his wife which infact he had taken and that is why I believed Anita Sharma when she told me that I can reside with accused as his wife.
Court Q: Whether at any point of time, you consulted your family members regarding the said chain of events? Ans: Before I could have consulted my family members regarding I being raped by accused, accused and his friends had shown my nude photographs to my Jija ji. As a result of that my family members out- casted me and did not support me."
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 14 of 63 During examination witness deposed that she handed over medical slips/prescriptions to the police vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/D and medical slips/prescriptions Ex.P-2 (colly) running into 6 pages. She handed over one photograph to the police which shows her injuries on her neck. Same was Ex.P-3.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW1 deposed that she did not know the date when premises bearing No.A-15, Gali no.8, Molarband Extension was taken on rent by her however, it was in the month of May/June, 2016. The name of landlord was one Amit. She did not remember rent agreement or not. She cannot produce the rent agreement. The rent of the said above mentioned house was Rs.5500/- or Rs.6000/- per month. she used to pay the rent in cash. She did not have rent receipt. She vacated the said premises in September, 2017. She left the house since there was no one with her to look after when she was ill. Thereafter, she took the house on rent in Ashram. She joined HV Art and Glass on 06.03.2014 and she left the company in the year 2016. She did not make any complaint on 10.07.2016. She had made a complaint on 17.07.2016 to the police. Again said, she had made a call at 100 number on 17.07.2016. It was correct that the record pertaining to 100 number was not on record. It was correct that the name of accused Vinod Kumar was not mentioned on the document Ex.P-2 (colly). Except the documents mentioned in the file, she did not have any other document, to show that accused had gone with her to the hospital. It FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 15 of 63 was correct that on 22.07.2016, she had not gone to any hospital. She went to hospital in August, 2016 after 22.07.2016. After 10.07.2016, she had gone to hospital on 17.07.2016.
During cross examination PW1 was asked following court questions:-
"Court Q1: Have you inspected the present case file and know each and every document?
Ans: No, I have not inspected the present case file and I do not know details of each and every documents."
During cross examination PW1 deposed that she could not answer as to whether there was any document on case file, which could show that police had taken her to the hospital on 17.07.2016. During cross examination court observed that witness was smiling without any reason. She was warned to be careful in future. Witness submits that she was not smiling. Her conduct was noted and appreciated at the time of judgment.
It was correct that on 30.08.2016, she had not filed any police complaint. During cross examination PW1 was again asked following court questions:-
"Court Q.1: Specify the date when you had gone to Suraj Kund Faridabad, where you were allegedly raped by accused?
Ans: 02.10.2014.
Court Q.2: Did you lodged FIR for the said incident of rape?
Ans: No. FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 16 of 63 Court Q.3: Why you did not lodge FIR? Ans: Because accused had my nude photographs. He also had
threatened me and my family with dire consequences if I make complaint to police.
Court Q.4: What is your educational qualification?
Ans: I am post graduate.
Court Q.5: Are you employed or earning in any manner? Ans: I am presently doing my business in Health Care Diagnostic Center.
Court Q.6: Have you told your paternal family members about the alleged incidents, as mentioned in your testimony? Ans: My family members came to know about the said incident in the year 2016."
During cross-examination PW1 deposed that she called police on 31.08.2016. Since her mobile phone was broken by accused so she had put her SIM in the mobile phone of her landlord. She had two SIMs viz. One her personal and other for office use. She did not recollect which SIM she had put in her mobile phone. 9502607391 was not her mobile number. Police had not seized her broken mobile phone during investigation.
During cross examination, photograph already Ex.P3 was shown to the witness. After seeing the same, witness deposes that said photograph was taken by police and she had not taken the said photograph by herself.
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 17 of 63 It was correct that she had resigned from the office of HV Art and Glass on 20.07.2015. It was correct that in September, 2015, I had again joined the said office. In the 2016 or 2017 approximately, Ashok Leyland Vehicle was purchased in her name. It was purchased by taking loan of about Rs.6lacs. She had taken the said loan for purchasing said vehicle. In the year 2017 she had given the said vehicle to accused. As on date, said vehicle was in her name. The registration number of the said vehicle was DL1LX 9627. The EMI of the said vehicle was paid by her. She could produce necessary bank details in this regard. In Divorce proceedings, she had given the said vehicle to accused and as per order of the said court, EMI, which were remaining had to be paid by accused. On certain occasions, accused did not pay the said EMI, then the concerned bank used to call her and used to take accused on conference. Thereafter, accused used to pay the said balance EMI. During cross examination court observation that witness was directed to bring details of her bank with respect to EMI paid by her pertaining to above mentioned vehicle and also certified copy of divorce proceedings/order, wherein it was noted that accused had to pay balance EMI.
During cross examination PW1 deposed that she had brought the details of her bank account with regard to EMI paid by her pertaining to vehicle bearing no.DLILX9627 purchased in February 2017. Same was Ex.PWI/C1 and rent agreement Ex.PW1/C2. She had also brought copy of divorce proceedings. Same was Ex.PW1/C3. She had brought said FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 18 of 63 documents in compliance of directions passed by this court vide order dated 06.02.2023. It was correct that in March 2016, she and accused had gone for a trip in Manali. It was correct that in January 2017, she along with her friend Parneet Kaur, had gone to Agra. It was correct that her birthday was celebrated by accused in his factory but she was not sure whether it was done in the year 2017. She had applied for issuance of Aadhar Card in the year 2016 and the address mentioned on the same was D-19, Harsh Vihar, Part III. It was correct that she never resided in D-19, Harsh Vihar, Part III. It was correct that she along-with her friends namely Parneet Kaur, Raju, Bobby and accused, had gone to Chokhidani, Murthal, but she was not sure whether he had gone there in August 2018. It was correct that she had applied for issuance of Passport with the address i.e. D-19, Harsh Vihar, Part III. She had not applied herself rather accused had done so, online. Her financial transactions with accused started in the year 2014 and it continued till 2019. She could not tell as to how much amount she had paid to accused and how much amount accused paid to her between 2014 and 2019. It was correct that she never paid any amount to accused. She could not confirm as to whether accused had given me Rs. 13,50,000/-. Part of that amount, was towards her salary, she received from accused company. In the year 2014, she used to receive salary of Rs. 12000/- per month and later on, it was increased to Rs. 17000/-. From 2014 till 12.10.2015, when she got married to accused, she used to receive salary directly in her bank account. After her marriage with accused, she used to receive Rs. 3000/-
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 19 of 63 Rs. 4000/- in her bank account from accused as salary, from time to time as accused used to say, there was no need for her to receive salary as she was his wife. It was correct that she had entered into a settlement vide settlement dated 15.12.2016. Copy of the same was Ex.PW1/C4. She had received Rs.8 Lacs pursuant to said settlement, from accused. It was correct that full and final payment of vehicle no.DLIL X 9627 was paid by accused. It was correct that accused used to pay EMI amounts in her account till 2019. Full and final payment was done by accused in the year 2022. She had made first complaint against accused in December 2015 but no action was taken on the said complaint. It was correct that there was no entry of Rs. 12000/-, being received by her as salary in her bank account statement for the year 2014-15, which she had furnished to this court. On the basis of her statement Ex.PW1/C1, she say that a total amount of Rs.11,05,400/- was received by her from the account of accused. It was correct that she was appointed as Additional Director in the company i.e. H.V. Arts & Glass P. Ltd. on 20.06.2016. Same was Ex.PW1/X. It was correct that between 2014 and 2016, she used to receive her salary in cash. It was correct the aforesaid company had provided a mobile phone no. 8800790240 in May, 2014 to her. Prior to issuance of said mobile phone to her, said mobile number was being used by a girl namely Bhabika. Said phone was used by her till the time she got divorced from accused i.e. August 2017. Mobile No. 9582607391 was used by her from 2014 till 2015 and Mobile No. 7703904199 was being used by her till date.
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 20 of 63 During cross examination PW1 was asked following questions:-
"Q.1 Can you place on record the rent agreement of property bearing no. A-15, Gali No. 8, Molar Band Ext. Badarpur, New Delhi. Ans: No. Q.2 Is it correct that you took aforesaid property i.e. A-15, Gali No. 8, Molar Band Ext. Badarpur, New Delhi on rent from the landlord Sh. Amit?
Ans: Yes. I had taken the same on rent in the year 2016 for about 3-4 months. I had taken the said property for a monthly rent which ranges from Rs. 3000/- Rs. 6000/-. I do not remember the exact monthly rent of the said property.
Q.3 Is it correct that from mobile. no. 7703904199, you were making calls and WhatsApp call to accused till December 2022? Ans: No. Vol. I was making regular calls to accused till 2017. Thereafter, 1 was not on regular touch with accused through calls from said mobile number but had made certain calls for the purpose of meeting the issue pertaining to EMI of vehicle, which was purchased in my name, by the accused.
Q.4: Give details of purchase of vehicle no. DLILX 9627? Ans: The said vehicle was purchased in my name in March 2017. I had taken loan of Rs. 6,05,907/- from Cholamandlam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. For repayment of said loan, I had to pay monthly EMI of Rs. 13838/-. The said vehicle remained in possession of accused. Accused used to transfer monthly EMI amount, in my bank account for FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 21 of 63 repayment of aforesaid vehicle. The said loan agreement was signed by me in a car at a place where accused had taken me. That place was locted in Faridabad. 1 had signed said loan agreement in February 2017. I had gone voluntarily to the said place for signing said agreement. Q.5: Is it correct that full and final payment of Rs. 89000/- was made by accused to Cholamandlam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.? Ans: I do not know as I was not present there."
It was correct that for one month, she was in possession of above mentioned vehicle, which she had handed over to accused pursuant to settlement. She had made call to police on 31.08.2016 from her mobile number, which she did not remember as she had two mobile numbers at that time.
PW-2 HC Anil Kumar deposed that on 31.08.2016, he was on emergency duty in PS Badar Pur. He received one call of quarrel vide DD No. 22A. He along-with Ct. Mukesh then went to the spot i.e. H.No. 15A, Gali No. 8, Molar Band Extension, Badar Pur, where complainant met them. He reached at the spot around 11.20 am. Complainant told him that last night around 8.30 pm, she was beaten by her husband Vinod Kumar and he tried to strangulate her with the help of her dupatta. Further, Vinod Kumar had broken her mobile phone. Thereafter, she shouted and landlord namely Amit came there and Vinod Kumar fled away from the spot. She told him that Vinod Kumar used to quarrel with FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 22 of 63 her on various occasions earlier and in this regard, she had lodged FIR No. 237/2016, PS Jait Pur. Thereafter, she requested him that she wanted to undergo medical examination. Thereafter, he called Duty Officer, PS Badar Pur and requested him to send one lady constable to the spot. Thereafter, W/Ct. Santosh came to the spot and he sent complainant with her to AIIMS Trauma Centre. Thereafter, she told him that after getting her medical examination, she will give her statement in writing. Thereafter, complainant returned back to the spot with W/Ct. Santosh after getting her medical examination and she gave her statement Ex.PWI/A, in her own handwriting. He made endorsement on the said statement which was Ex.PW2/A and sent Ct. Mukesh to police station for registration of FIR. Consequently, Ct. Mukesh returned back to the spot after going to police station with copy of FIR and Tehrir alongwith certificate u/sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act. FIR in question was lodged u/sec. 323/354/506 IPC. Before Ct. Mukesh reached at the spot, he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B, at the instance of complainant. He recorded supplementary statement of complainant and that of landlord Amit. Thereafter, anticipatory bail application was filed by Vinod Kumar and during hearings of said application, SHO concerned appeared in the court and Sec. 313/307 IPC were added. During his tenure as Investigating Officer, he prepared seizure memo Ex.PW1/C regarding the chunni/dupatta of complainant. He also got recorded statement of complainant u/sec. 164 CrPC. He also seized the pregnancy documents from complainant vide memo Ex.PWI/D. Subsequently, FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 23 of 63 investigation was given to SI B.D. Meena.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW1 deposed that he did not seize the broken mobile phone of complainant. He did not collect CDR Record and location record based on mobile phones of complainant and accused. He did not collect cctv footage. There was no cctv camera installed in the area where he had met complainant. He did ask landlord Amit to show him the rent agreement but he told him that there was no rent agreement of the property where complainant was residing. He did not seize the chunni/ dupatta on 31.08.2016.
PW-3 Sh. Amit (landlord) deposed that he had given one room, kitchen bathroom and toilet to Rubina on rent on first floor, about 5-6 years back. She had to pay rent of Rs.3000/- per month to him. She was alone. Police had met him during investigation and had made inquiry from him. He had told police that he had given some portion of his property on rent to Rubina. He did not know as to whether police had written his statement.
The witness did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile.
PW-4 Dr. H P Miglani, Ultrasonologist deposed that on 12.07.2016, patient Rubina came to him and she was carrying of pregnancy of 5 weeks and 3 days in which cardiac activity was not present. Again, on FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 24 of 63 14.08.2016, patient again came for the ultrasound in which there was no pregnancy or retained products. He prepared the ultrasound report and Ex.PW4/A. Pregnancy film was Ex. PW4/B. During cross examination on behalf of accused PW4 deposed that he did not remember if patient Rubina had brought alongwith her any report of UPT (urine pregnancy test). As per the report Ex.PW4/A she was referred to him by one Doctor Ms. Ranjana Malhotra. Without the prescription he would have not done the ultrasound but he did not remember today, if patient Rubina had brought with her the report of aforesaid Doctor Ms. Ranjana Malhotra. It was correct that on the judicial record the prescription of aforesaid Doctor Ms. Ranjana Malthotra was not filed. When the patient comes to reception, the receptionist takes the prescription and takes the payment and send the patient to him for the ultrasound. The entry was also made in the register maintained by them. It was correct that he had not handed over the invoice or entry register of the aforesaid date i.e. 12.07.2016. He maintained record in his clinic only for the period of two years. He had never handed over the invoice or entry register qua the patient Rubina of 12.07.2016 to IO. The IO or any police official never came to him. His statement was never recorded by the IO in the present matter. He had not handed over the document Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B to the IO. The document Ex.PW4/B may be the original which was handed over to the patient by our clinic after the ultrasound. It was correct that once the FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 25 of 63 report was given, it was given a number and the same number was also mentioned against the name in the entry register. He could not show the entry of 12.07.2016 as the record may have been destroyed. It was correct that the document Ex.PW4/B (film) does not mentioned the name of patient Rubina on the film. It was correct that the film does not mention the name of the patient or the number of the entry register. It was correct that upon seeing document Ex.PW4/B it cannot be said that the same was pertaining to patient Rubina. The hard disk of the procedure/ultrasound conducted was not saved with them. It was saved only for two years in the physical form and not in the hard disk. The report Ex.PW4/A was prepared on the same day and give it to the patient on the same day. There was no receiving taken from the patient at the time of handing over of the report. On the report Ex.PW4/A he had mentioned at point A "5 weeks 3 days gestation" was mentioned by me upon conducting the ultrasound. It was correct that there was no embryo in the G sac and there was no cardiac activity. It was correct that the size mentioned 1.38 cm was small and was equal to a small gram/pea. He did not know patient Rubina personally. It was correct that in the court the complainant came to talk to him when he was looking for the aforesaid documents Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. PW-5 Dr. Pratima Kumari deposed that on 10.07.2016, patient Rubina Naaz came at her clinic and told him that her period was six days overdue and she had checked in which her pregnancy test was positive.
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 26 of 63 She was complaining of burning while passing urine and thereafter, few drops of blood at the end of passing urine. She had advised her medication and investigation for urine culture and follow up after some days. On 17.07.2016, aforesaid patient again visited at her clinic with complaint of history of trauma in left side of the abdomen. She advised her for early pregnancy ultrasound and some medicines for pain in abdomen. But she did not come to her with report of ultrasound on that day. Again she came on 20.08.2016 with report of ultrasound dated 14.08.2016 which was showing that there was no pregnancy and the ultrasound was normal and not showing pregnancy and with complaint of history of spontaneous abortion in July, 2016 and complaint of fever and burning in urine. She advised her some medicine for fever and burning urine. On 22.08.2016 patient again to visit to her and was complaining of fever and body ache and she was advised medicines and one test platelet count. She have prepared the prescriptions dated 10.07.2016 Ex. PW5/A and prescription dated 17.07.2016 Ex.PW5/B. The prescription dated 20.08.2016 was Ex. PW5/C and prescription dated 22.08.2016 was Ex. PW5/D, the same prescription was prepared by Dr. Deepak Kumar Singh. Dr. Deepak Kumar Singh was his husband and they were running the same clinic in the name and style of Get Well Clinic.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW5 deposed that Rubina Naaz (RN) came to see to him for the first time on 10 July, 2016.
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 27 of 63 Again said he cannot say she might have come earlier and he cannot recall whether she had come earlier to her clinic. It was correct that on 10 July, 2016 RN did not bring any UPT (Urine Pregnancy Test). It was correct that on 10th July, 2016 when RN had come it was her version only that the pregnancy was 5 weeks 5 days and there was no other record to corroborate this. It was correct that as per advice on 10 July, 2016 RN did not bring urine culture investigation and follow up. It was correct that on 17.07.2016 when RN had come there was no evidence to suggest that there was any trauma. It was the version of the complainant that she had suffered any trauma. On 17.07.2016 when she visited her clinic and stated that she had trauma affecting her pregnancy he immediately advice for immediate ultrasound. She did not undergo ultrasound immediately. It was correct that his clinic having the facility of ultrasound but they cannot pressurize the patient to get ultrasound at their clinic. She came on 20.08.2016 alongwith ultrasound report dated 14th August, 2016. The pregnancy reflects in ultrasound report after 5 weeks, however, in this case the ultrasound was normal and did not see anything regarding pregnancy. On 20th and 22nd August 2016 when she visited the clinic and complain about some blood spot coming and fever, he did not see any such blood clot and only fever was detected for which medicine was advised.
PW-6 Inspt. B D Meena deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted as SI at PS Badarpur. After direction of the Court, Section 307/313 IPC FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 28 of 63 were added. After adding the above actions i.e. 307/313 IPC in this case, further investigation was marked to him on 07.09.2016. During investigation, he came to know that complainant lodged a rape case against accused Vinod at PS Jaitpur. The anticipatory bail on that case was granted on the ground that prosecutrix was living with the accused Vinod Kumar as a wife and accused Vinod Kumar was paying the maintenance to the prosecutrix. The treatment of the complainant Rubina Naaz was already placed on file. He had perused the medical papers and the same was get verified from the Get Well Clinic and Diagnostic center. He had collected the MLC result pertaining to the complainant Rubina Naaz from the Trauma Center AIIMS. Doctor had advised simple injury caused by blunt object/weapon. On 30.09.2016, he had attended the anticipatory bail of the accused in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and on that day Hon'ble High Court had given directions to the accused to join the investigation. Accused had joined the investigation as per order of the Hon'ble Court. He had formally arrested the accused Vinod Kumar vide Ex.PW6/A. He conducted the personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW6/B. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW6/C. He had also recorded the statement of the witnesses. Thereafter, he had been transferred and investigation was marked to SI Rajinder. Witness has correctly identify the accused. He collected the verification report from the Dr. Pratima Kumari on 22.09.2016 which was Ex.PW6/D. FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 29 of 63 PW-7 HC Mukesh Meena deposed that on 31.08.2016, he was posted at Ct at PS Badarpur. On that day, he was on emergency duty alongwith HC Anil Kumar who received an information vide DD No.22A. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Anil Kumar reached at spot i.e. H.No.15A Gali No.8 Molarband Extn. Badarpur, Delhi where they met the caller lady Rubina who made a complaint against her husband Vinod Kumar regarding beating incident with him by her husband Vinod Kumar that is accused. She also alleged that her husband tried to strangulate her and she requested to get her medical examination. Thereafter, they call lady Ct. Santosh at spot. Complainant Rubina sent to AIIMS Trauma Hospital, Delhi with W/Ct. Santosh and got medically examined and she also stated that she may give the complaint after medical examination. He alongwith IO reached at the house of the complainant in the evening and she had given a written complaint to the IO which was Ex.PW1/A and same was endorsed by the IO and handed over to him for registration of the case. He went to police station and FIR got registered. Thereafter, He came back to the spot and copy of FIR and rukka was handed over to the IO. They had tried to search the accused but accused was not traced on that day and thereafter they came back to police station. On 05.09.2016, he had joined the investigation of the case with IO. On that day, the complainant had produced one dupatta black color with white printed spot and same was sealed by the IO in the cloth parcel with the seal of AK and seized in this case vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/C. Complainant had also produced medical papers/ FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 30 of 63 prescriptions/treatment paper before the IO and same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/D. He could identify the above said dupatta if shown to him. During examination, MHC(M) has produced parcel the case property duly sealed with the seal of Court. The parcel was opened. It was containing black color dupatta having white color dots/prints and the same was shown to the witness. After seeomg the same witness has correctly identify the dupatta which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. The dupatta was already Ex.P-1 in the statement of PW-1.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW-7 deposed that IO had received the call at about 11:10 am (day) on 31.08.2016. The call was made by the caller that is complainant by her mobile phone. He did not remember the mobile number of the complainant. Call was made to the duty officer then DO informed to the IO. They reached at spot at about 11:15 am. It was correct that he did not notice any injury on the body of complainant. She requested to get her medical examination. On the day of complaint, nothing item was seized by the IO nor any items were handed over by the complainant to the IO on the day of complaint. IO had not collected any CCTV footage in his presence in this case. The statement of landlord was examined by the IO.
PW-8 Dr. Piyush Sharma Sr. Resident Trauma Surgery & Critical Care JPNATC deposed that he had been deputed by Faculty Incharge, FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 31 of 63 Medical Record Centre, JPNATC, AIIMS, New Delhi to prove the MLC No. 581136 dated 31.08.2016 of injured Rubina. She was medically examined by Dr. Shaik Mohammad Saheb who left the hospital. He had seen the aforesaid MLC and as per his opinion, simple injury and scratch mark and red marks over the neck which was caused by blunt object. The MLC was Ex.PW8/A. The signature of the doctor may identify by the Record Clerk. He had not worked with Dr. Shaik Mohammad Saheb.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW8 deposed that it could not be said whether such injury was caused by dupatta or not.
PW-9 Sh. Bhunesh Kumar Sharma MRT AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi deposed that on he was working as a medical record technician at AIIMS Trauma Center, Delhi. He have been deputed by Faculty Incharge, Medical Record Centre, JPNATC, AIIMS, New Delhi to prove the MLC No. 581136 dated 31.08.2016 of injured Rubina. She was medically examined by Dr. Shaik Mohammad Saheb who left the hospital and his present whereabouts of the Dr. Shaik Mohammad Saheb are not know. He had worked with him and seen him writing and signing during the course of his service. He had seen the MLC the aforesaid MLC which was prepared by Dr. Shaik Mohammad Saheb. He had seen aforesaid MLC which was prepared by Dr. Shaik Mohammad Saheb. The MLC was Ex.PW8/A which bears the signature of the doctor Dr. Shaik Mohammad Saheb. In the aforesaid MLC, Dr. had given the FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 32 of 63 opinion as simple injury and his signature caused by blunt object.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW9 deposed that Dr. Shaik Mohammad Saheb worked in the hospital from 04.07.2016 till 23.09.2016. He has not signed any document during the aforesaid period in front of him. He had not seen him signing any document.
PW-10 Inspt. Rajender Prasad deposed that in the month of May, 2018, he was posted as SI PS Badarpur, Delhi. The present case file was marked to him for further investigation. He had gone through the file and discussed the case file with previous IO. The present case file was remained with him for about 8 months. In the year 2019, he was transferred from the PS Badarpur, Delhi and he handed over the present case file to MHCR.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW10 deposed that it was correct that during the aforesaid period complainant did not join the investigation. It was correct that during investigation of this case he did not call accused for investigation of this case. During the aforesaid period he had going to the place of incident. He did not enquire neighbour from the complainant as to whether the accused was residing at the address as mentioned in the chargesheet. He did not obtain the CDR or CAF with respect to complainant and accused during the investigation of present case. It was correct that when he visited the spot FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 33 of 63 accused was not found.
PW-11 SI Amit Bhati deposed that on 25.07.2019, he was working as SI at PS Badarpur. On that day, investigation of this case was marked to me alongwith case file. During investigation, he got verify the marriage certificate alongwith conversion certificate of complainant from Arya Samaj Mandir through police official. After verification of above marriage certificate and conversion certificate, he prepared the chargesheet and filed before the concerned court.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW11 deposed that he was IO of this case since July, 2019 till the filing of chargesheet in November, 2019. He had examined all the documents and contents thereof while filing the chargesheet. He did not collect CDR & Location Chart of complainant as well as accused of the date of incident. He had not verified if the accused was residing at the place where incident happened. He had not verified till which date, the complainant have been going for work in her company namely H.V. Arts and Glass. He had not collected any documents pertaining to the employment of the complainant from her company. It was correct that complainant had already filed one FIR against the accused for the offence u/sec. 376 IPC. He had not read the file of aforesaid FIR regarding offence u/sec. 376 IPC. The photograph annexed with the record which was Ex.P-3 was not sent to FSL which was furnished by the complainant. He had not seized FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 34 of 63 the dupatta in the present matter from the complainant and he had not sent the same to FSL. To his knowledge, the dupatta was never sent to FSL. He did not know if the MLC Ex.PW8/A was pertaining to the same date of the incident. It was correct that there was some settlement between the complainant and the accused during investigation but he did not remember the exact date of the same. He did not remember if the said settlement was pertaining to the present matter or pertaining to the previous FIR filed by the complainant against the accused. He had not taken any bank account statements of the accused and the complainant to verify if there was any financial transactions between them. It was correct that after seeing the charge-sheet, he could say that settlement had happened between the complainant and the accused in terms of which the accused had paid an amount of Rs.3 Lacs to the complainant as first installment. He had not filed the settlement between the parties with the charge-sheet.
12. After examination all prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.
13. Thereafter, statement of the accused Vinod Kumar was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to accused which he denied and also stated that the complainant joined in the company named HV Arts and Glass where his wife Anita Sharma and his brother FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 35 of 63 Ashok Sharma were Director. Sometime in March 2014, the complainant was interviewed by his wife and his brother for post of Accountant and office Assistant. During the course of interview, he entered appearance and his wife introduced him as husband to the complainant. The complainant thereafter was meeting his wife on weekly basis when she used to visit the office. On many occasions, the complainant used to meet his children Harshita, Sushant and Sushmita in the office, who used to accompany his wife in the office. During course of the work, the complainant used to go to his house also to deposit or take money for the office work. The complainant from the very beginning of joining in the office was aware about his marital status. The complainant somehow got one photograph/selfie with him and started black-mailing him and demanded money and he continued to make the payment in addition to the salary so that the complainant may not show the false photograph to his family. The complainant was in discussion with one of his worker Saurabh Singh to inquire about his financial status and in order to further black-mail him, pressurized him to get married otherwise, she would have implicated him in false case of rape and other cases. The complainant continued to work in the office for long and also visited with him at many places at Manali, Agra etc. She used to come to office till 2017 and participated in her birthday and Vishwakarma Pooja and also participated in the engagement ceremony in November 2015 and marriage in December 2015 of his brother namely Sanjay. He never visited the aforesaid property which was taken FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 36 of 63 on rent by the complainant on her own. He was never aware of any pregnancy or miscarriage of any other treatment which might have been taken by the complainant and he was never present with the doctor on any occasion. The alleged incident on 30.08.2016 is utterly false and neither he visited the said property nor he met the complainant or the landlord. The allegations are levelled without any evidence and in order to pressurize me to make further payments/ demands in previous FIR No.237/2016 PS Jaitpur u/sec.376 IPC. The complainant always demanded money and pressurized to make the payment for false implication in the cases and due to black-mail and in order to save his family, he continued to make the payment and acted as per the direction of the complainant so that the complainant, so that the complainant may not pursue the cases against him. She also entered into a settlement and extracted him and accordingly on the basis of settlement, quashing petition was filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi where the complainant had given her 'no objection' for quashing of all the FIRs registered on the complaint of the complainant against him, however, the FIRs could not be quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi being the cases of rape. To fulfill her demand, she was made Additional Director of the company, which she continued to hold till date. Further, on her demand, a property bearing no. D-19, Harsh Vihar, Hari Nagar Part -III, Badarpur, New Delhi -110044 was transferred by his brother Ashok Sharma in her name by way of GPA which she was holding till date. On her demand and pressure, he had to divorce his wife Anita Sharma vide FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 37 of 63 a decree dated 31.03.2018. The complainant had assured that on fulfillment of monetary and other demands, she would not pursue the cases against him and thereby he was entrapped by the complainant in web of litigation. Due to continuous black-mailing and harassment, he suffered severe depression with suicidal tendency for which he was treated till date. The complainant has made him and his family life miserable and hell for the last about 11-12 years.
14. After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
15. Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, I must mention here the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 38 of 63 the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
16. So, in the wake of above mentioned law, evidence brought on record, has to be read as a whole and has to be appreciated as a whole. Minor discrepancies over trivial matters and hyper technical approach while appreciating evidence, has to be avoided. It has to be seen whether shortcomings highlighted by accused, go to the root of the matter and if it so goes, then in that eventuality only evidence has to be discarded.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
17. It has been argued on behalf of accused that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted. It has been argued that no offence u/s 307 IPC is made out against the accused as the accused was never present at the place of incident on 30.08.2016. It has also been FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 39 of 63 argued that the prosecution prima facie failed to establish the presence of accused at the alleged place of incident. It has further been argued that PW3 Anil examined by the prosecution who was allegedly the land lord of the complainant which was at A-15, Molarband Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi (said premises/spot). The said premises was let out to the Complainant by PW-3. As per Complainant, was only eyewitness to the alleged incident of strangulation. As alleged, when the accused was strangulating the Complainant, PW-3/Landlord came and freed her from accused and shunted accused out of home and thus, it was claimed by the complainant that PW-3 was only eye witness, who witnessed the incident and could establish the presence of the accused on 30.08.2016. It has been argued that the aforesaid witness PW3 did not support the case of prosecution and denied having made and signed the Statement Ex.PW3/A which was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It has been argued that the said eye witness denied his presence and presence of the accused on the spot on the date of incident or prior or after. The cross examination of PW-3 dated 06.10.2023 is illustrative of the same.
18. It has further been argued that PW-2, PW-6, PW-10, PW-11 who were investigating officers, in their evidence categorically denied any CCTV footage, call details- CDR and location to support the allegation that the accused was present at the site on the alleged date of incident. No statement from the neighbor or other occupants of the building was recorded to prove alleged incident and presence of accused at spot on the FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 40 of 63 date of incident, prior or after.
19. It has been argued that the accused never visited the place of incident on 30.08.2016 and no offence u/s 307 IPC is made out against the accused. It has further been argued that the investigation conducted in the present matter has not been conducted fairly and there are several contradiction in the testimony of complainant which show that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and fabricated. It has been argued that the complainant had alleged that the incident took place on 30.08.2016 and the Accused threw the mobile of the Complainant and it got damaged due to which she could not call police/100 number and on next day 31.08.2016, at about 11, the Complainant called the police on 100 no. However, the complainant was not supported in her aforesaid allegation by PW3 which itself show that the complainant was not truthful. Further, the alleged mobile number from which the said 100 no. call was made did not belong to the complainant or to PW3 but allegedly belong to some person namely Ajay, who was never examined by the prosecution as a witness.
20. It has been further argued that there was no recovery of damaged mobile due to which no call was made on the date and time of alleged incident.
21. It has further been argued that the investigation in the present matter continued from the year 2016 - 2019 and the chargesheet was filed only on 29.01.2020, however, the CDR location of the accused was never FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 41 of 63 investigated to establish the presence of the accused on the spot.
22. It has also been argued that the complainant alleged that no visit to factory where the Complainant was working and alleged incident of 10.07.2016 and 17.07.2016 took place. Deposition of PW-2, PW-10, PW-11 categorical that there was No statement from neighbors. PW-11- testifies that there was No investigation on financial transactions.
23. It has further been argued that the photograph Ex.P-3 was never sent to FSL to ascertain veracity. Further, IO did not disclose as to who had taken the photograph during investigation and did not disclose as to when the same was seized.
24. It has further been argued that PW-2, PW-10, PW-11 deposed that Dupatta not sent to FSL-DNA of Accused for matching on dupatta. The Dupatta was never seized on 30.08.2016 or 31.08.2016. It has further been argued that seizure of dupatta was not as per law and was not admissible in evidence. Further, as per PW-2, dupatta was not seized on 31.08.2016. It was seized on 05.09.2016. There is no explanation as to why the seizure was made after 6 days from the alleged date of incident.
25. It has further been argued that no investigation about alleged incident 06.07.2016, 10.07.2016, 17.07.2016. It has further been argued that the complainant alleged that on 06.07.2016, the Accused came to her rented FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 42 of 63 house and slapped as the Complainant talked to wife of Accused and expressed desire to live with the Accused. Neither any complaint was made nor was any investigation done whether Accused actually visited the house of the Complainant. This falsifies the allegation and statement of Complainant.
26. It has further been argued that it has been alleged by the complainant that the accused took the Complainant to Doctor PW-5 on 10.07.2016 whereas PW-5 in her Statement and cross examination never mentioned the presence of accused on 10.07.2016 nor the prescription Ex.PW-5A/P2 mentions the presence of the accused along with the Complainant. The Statement and cross examination of PW-5 is illustrative in this regard which falsifies the allegation and statement of Complainant.
27. It has further been argued that the complainant that on the date of alleged incident on 17.07.2016, she visited factory and allegedly she was assaulted by Accused Vinod and guard Amar Singh, who did not allow her to enter factory. The Complainant also alleged that the incident on 17.07.2016 was witnessed by public. However, no investigation was conducted qua the aforesaid fact and the IO did not record statement of Amar Singh, and he was not made witness as he was material witness to the alleged incident of assault on 17.07.2016. The Complainant alleged that she made a call on 100 number however, no such record was FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 43 of 63 produced.
28. It has further been argued that the complainant has made sweeping allegation that she was subjected to cruelty by the family of accused when she had registered an FIR against the accused for the offence of rape and therefter, she was pressurized by the family of accused to withdraw her complaint, however, no complaint was made to police nor any call was made to IO nor any cancellation Application was filed against the Bail granted in FIR No.237/2016 for the alleged conduct of the Accused post grant of bail in serious offence of rape. It has also been argued that the question also arise as to why the complainant being rape victim wanted to live with the Accused and made sexual relation when the marital status of the accused was revealed and why the Complainant went to meet the Accused in his office and did not call the IO about the incident of 06.07.2016, 10.07.2016 and 17.07.2016 and it shows that the Complainant thus concocted the story without any evidence and falsely implicated the accused.
29. It has been argued that the IO-PW-11 in his testimony admitted that he never visited factory to verify the allegations of the complainant in this regard.
30. It has been further argued that the medical documents placed on record by prosecution did not even prove that the complainant was pregnant or FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 44 of 63 that due to any beatings she lost the child which is evident from the testimony of both the doctors examined by prosecution. It has been argued that since, the pregnancy of complainant, was not proved, the offence u/s 313 IPC is also not made out against the accused.
31. It has been argued that the allegations of the complainant regarding threats or intimidation by the accused and his family members or regarding strangulation by the accused or commission of causing of miscarriage of the complainant also do not stand proved against the accused and he is liable to be acquitted.
32. It has been argued that the complainant registered three FIRs against accused but continued to go to accused's office and continue to receive money till 2019. As per the present FIR and testimony of Complainant- PW-1, she continued to make physical relation with accused even after knowing that he was married and rather insisted that the accused stays with her at her house. Further, the conduct of the complainant showed that even after the alleged incident she kept on meeting the accused and forced the accused to talk to her and never complaint regarding the same to any police authority. Further, after performing marriage with accused, she subsequently settled the matter before Hon'ble High Court where the accused even paid an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the complainant but later she denied the settlement and pursue the present matter against the accused with intention to harass him.
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 45 of 63 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
33. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for State that the testimony of all the witnesses is corroborative in nature and there is no contradiction and all the evidence placed on record by the prosecution substantiate the charge against the accused. It has also been argued that complainant PW1 has categorically mentioned the manner in which the incidents occurred and despite being cross-examined by the accused, she stood by her version and no contradiction can be pointed out. It has also been argued that PW3 who was the landlord of the premises has also stated that she was the tenant and had resided in the premises. It has also been argued that in view of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, the offence against the accused stand proved and the accused is liable to be convicted.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
34. On the other hand it has been argued by Sh. Sudipto Basso Ld. Counsel for complainant that the Complainant in her complaint had mentioned the manner in which the accused committed the offence against her. Further, upon her complaint the present FIR was registered as the accused Vinod Kumar assaulted her -attempted to strangle her and kicked her in the abdomen and that the complainant was pregnant at the time and she suffered immediate trauma and thereafter a miscarriage. It has been argued that the complainant gave statements to the police and lodged contemporaneous medical reports/entries recommending an FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 46 of 63 ultrasound, and ultimately gave evidence before this Court. It has been argued that the complainant was corroborative in her statement and there was no contradiction and therefore the accused is liable to be convicted.
35. It has been argued that the prosecution carries the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That standard does not require corroboration of every material fact, it requires that the Court be satisfied of guilt to the exclusion of reasonable doubt. It has been aruged that it is settled law that conviction can safely rest on the testimony of a single, wholly reliable witness.
36. Ld. Counsel for complainant relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Ral Sandeep v. State (NCT of Deini) wherein it has been opined and articulated and applied the concept of a "sterling witness" - a witness whose testimony is of such quality that the Court may safely rely upon it without external corroboration The appropriate approach is to test the prosecutrix's testimony on conventional criteria: (i) consistency from FIR to 161 to deposition; (ii) demeanour and behaviour in court: (iii) presence or absence of motive to falsely implicate; (iv) naturalness and circumstantial details which could not be easily fabricated. Where these factors point to credibility, a conviction may be recorded.
37. It has been argued that the complainant in her complaint, statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and deposition were consistent and the complainant FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 47 of 63 identified the accused, described precise sequence (attempt to strangle; kick to abdomen; immediate pain and subsequent miscarriage), and has no proven motive to falsely implicate. Under the "sterling witness"
doctrine her testimony should be accepted.
38. It has further been argued that even witnesses turning hostile is a recognized occurrence; the law prescribes careful analysis but not automatic rejection of the prosecution case. Evidence led earlier, contemporaneous records, and the testimony of other witnesses including the complainant must be weighed and the Court must not discard supporting parts of hostile witness' testimony merely because of hostility, their earlier statements may be used to test or bolster prosecution version where legally permissible.
39. It has further been argued that the statement of the complainant is consistent, credible and inspires confidence and medical witnesses give opinion evidence; contradictions in their testimony may be examined in light of their records, contemporaneous entries, and the totality of facts.
40. It has further been argued that the prosecution established that medical evidence is corroborative of ocular testimony; it is not conclusive to the point of always overruling consistent and reliable ocular testimony. Where ocular evidence is clear and reliable, medical opinion, even if imperfect or hostile, may not displace it. The Supreme Court has FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 48 of 63 repeatedly held that medical evidence is objective but opinionative; inconsistencies must be tested against the whole record and circumstances.
41. It has further been argued that prima facie offence under Section 307/313/506 IPC is made out against the accused as the complainants unbroken account is that the accused tried to strangle her and later kicked her abdomen; the sequence caused immediate grievous consequences culminating in miscarriage. The complainant identified the accused and described the acts with mentioning the date, time, place and manner of the offence and thus established the accused's dangerous act proximate to death (strangulation/assault on neck), and requisite mens rea (intention/knowledge) demonstrated by the nature and manner of the assault.
42. It has been further argued that the settled law that the nature of injury is not decisive; severity of injury is not the sole criterion-the intention and proximity of the act are determinative. It has further been argued that the injury was simple and therefore it cannot be said that there was no intention to kill. The aforesaid argument on behalf of the accused was refuted by Ld. Counsel for complainant and he argued that intention and knowledge are assessed from the act and surrounding circumstances. Simple injury as opined by a doctor on stand does not negate intention if the act was directed at vital parts (e.g. strangulation).
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 49 of 63
43. Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied upon following cases in support of his arguments.
1. Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 -on the "sterling witness" doctrine and conviction on sole testimony.
2. Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957) on sole eyewitness conviction and classification of witnesses.
3. Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484 evidence being corroborative and not necessarily decisive. on medical
4. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub, (1980) 3 SCC 57 on ingredients of attempt and proximate act.
5. Jage Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and related decisions on Section 307 ingredients.
6. Bishnu Prasad Sinha & Anr. v. State of Assam on proof of pregnancy and miscarriage and reliance upon contemporaneous material
7. State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra on approach to hostile witnesses and weight of evidence.
8. Select decisions of the Delhi High Court: Manoj v. State (NCT of Delhi) on appreciation of prosecutrix testimony in sexual offences.
44. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for accused persons, Ld. Addl. PP for State and the complainant.
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 50 of 63 THE LAW
45. As per Sec. 307 IPC ;
Attempt to murder : Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts - When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
46. Section 307 IPC deals with an offence of attempt to murder. It follows therefore, a person commits offence u/sec. 307 IPC when he has the intention to commit murder and in pursuance of the intention does any act towards the commission of murder, whether the act done is a penultimate act or not. If a man commits an act with such an intention and knowledge and under such circumstances, that if death had been caused, the offence would have amounted to murder and the act itself is of such a nature as would have caused death in the usual course of events but for something beyond his control which prevented that result his act would be punishable as an attempt to murder.
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 51 of 63
47. In a case of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh, 1988 4 SCC 551, it has been held "while examining whether a case of commission of offence u/sec. 307 IPC is made out, the court is required to see, whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with an intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or the knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence "attempt to murder". U/sec. 307 IPC, the intention preceds the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all the circumstances and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injuries inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. The state of mind of the accused has to be established from surrounding circumstances and the motive would be relevant circumstance. Where the evidence is not sufficient to establish with certainty, existence of all requisite intention or knowledge of the accused, there can be no conviction u/sec. 307 IPC."
48. Therefore, the evidence on record, nature of injuries have to be considered to arrive at the conclusion that the intention of the accused was to cause death. To prove the offence u/sec. 307 IPC, the prosecution was required to establish that (1) the accused did an act (2) the act was FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 52 of 63 done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder. The section makes a distinction between an act or the accused and its result if any. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. The court has to see whether an act, irrespective of its result, was done with an intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.
49. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, the court is required to see whether the accused had committed the offence against the complainant with an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances, that if, the injured had died due to such injury caused, accused would have been punished with the offence of murder. Further, that such act of the accused was of such nature as would have caused death in the usual course of events but for something beyond his control which prevented that result his act would be punishable as an attempt to murder. Therefore, the intention was required to be gathered from all the circumstances and not merely the consequences that ensued. The court was required to ascertain if the weapon of offence used in the commission of crime, the manner in which it was used, motive of the crime, and the severity of the blow and the part of the body where the injuries inflicted could show the real intention of the accused persons.
FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 53 of 63
50. It was held in the case of "Arvind Shah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2023 Criminal Revision No. 765 of 2022"
6.4. This Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana held that: (SCC p. 370, para 12) "12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and
(ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc."
(emphasis supplied) 6.5. This Court in the recent decision of State of M.P. v. Kanha held that: (SCC p. 609, para 13) "13. The above judgments of this Court lead us to the conclusion that proof of grievous or life- threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent."
65. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Kanha reported in (2019) 3 SCC 605 has held as under :
13. The above judgments of this Court lead us to the conclusion that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.
66. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Saleem FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 54 of 63 reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554 has held as under :
12. To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.
Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted.
What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
14. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. and R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka.
15. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar it was observed in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307.
16. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 55 of 63 accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury. The basic difference between Sections 333 and 325 IPC is that Section 325 gets attracted where grievous hurt is caused whereas Section 333 gets attracted if such hurt is caused to a public servant.
67. Thus, if the accused has a knowledge or intention that by his act, if murder is caused then he would be guilty of murder and does any act towards commission of that offence, then such act would be sufficient to make out an offence under Section 307 of IPC, irrespective of nature of injury."
51. To support a conviction under this section 307 IPC, the accused should have done the act with such guilty intention or knowledge and in such circumstances, that but for some intervening act, it would have amounted to have murder in the normal course of events.
52. As per Section 313 IPC which states causing miscarriage without women's consent and the punishment for the same. Section 312 IPC mentions Causing Miscarriage.-
"Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
53. In the present matter, PW1 complainant Rubina Naaz was the victim and star witness of the prosecution. She filed the present complaint against accused Vinod Kumar being his wife for the offences u/s 307/313/506 FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 56 of 63 IPC. The complainant in the present matter had given her written complaint to the police in her handwriting dated 31.08.2016 for incident dated 30.08.2016. The complainant in her complaint dated 30.08.2016 had primarily made allegations for the incident dated 17.07.2016 and 30.08.2016. She has stated in her complaint that on 17.07.2016 accused had given beatings to her and for which she had made call at 100 number and due to beatings she had suffered a miscarriage and was suffering from injury. The second incident as narrated by the complainant is pertaining to incident dated 30.08.2016 wherein she has stated that in the night the accused had given her beatings and tried to strangulate her and she was saved by her landlord and accused had broken her mobile phone and therefore she made a call at 100 number.
54. In the present matter the statement of complainant U/s 164 CrPC was recorded on 07.09.2016, almost after 7 days of incident wherein she had made several other allegations and also disclosed her past and association with the accused. In her statement recorded U/ 164 CrPC she has mentioned that on 06.03.2014 she joined the company of accused and on 02.10.2014 accused Vinod Kumar laced the drink of the complainant, while they had gone for a meeting and thereafter raped her and she subsequently filed an FIR no. 237/2016 PS Jaitpur U/s 376/328/506 IPC on 05.05.2016 against the accused. In the aforesaid statement the complainant also discloses that during the bail proceedings in aforesaid matter the family members of the accused influenced her to FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 57 of 63 help them seek bail for the accused and under the pressure she agreed for the accused to be granted bail. Further, that on 12.10.2015 she had solemnized marriage with the accused and thereafter, due to the aforesaid incident of 17.07.2016 and 30.08.2016 she had filed her complaint.
55. It cannot be lost sight that the complainant in the present matter has filed the present complaint against accused in capacity of his wife and was divorced by obtaining decree of divorce on 17.08.2017. The complainant in her testimony before the court as PW-1 disclosed several aspects of relationship and stated that on 06.03.2014 she joined the company of accused. On 02.10.2014 during one of the meetings, she was raped by the accused and when she confronted him the accused promised to marry her and subsequently she got married to accused on 12.10.2015. Subsequently, being the wife of the accused she got an FIR registered against him for rape vide FIR no. 237/2016 at PS Jaitpur. Also, that during the bail hearings of the aforesaid matter she came to know that accused was already married and under the influence of family of accused she agreed during the proceedings of bail to settle the matter and on her submissions bail was granted. Further, that the accused made her live in a separate house and the family of the accused did not accept her despite promises made. During such stay the accused often visited her and made physical relations. On 17.07.2016 the complainant visited the office of the accused but was stopped by the guard namely Amar FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 58 of 63 Singh who threatened her with dire consequences and thereafter she waited outside the factory of accused by hiding herself and when the accused came out, and was going on bike, accused kicked her on the stomach and left the place and she fell down. Further, that she felt pain in her stomach and meanwhile someone called the police and police took her to clinic. The concerned doctor checked her and informed her that the child was alright and discharged her but later in the night she felt pain and started bleeding. She called up the accused for help but he did not take her call. On 22.07.2016 she suffered miscarriage. On 30.08.2016 around 7 - 8:00 p.m. accused again visited her and gave her severe beatings and tried to strangulate her with a dupatta and thereafter the landlord intervened. The accused broker her mobile phone and left from spot. Thereafter, she made a call at 100 number.
56. The complainant during her testimony relied upon her complaint Ex.
PW1/A, the site plan Ex. PW1/B, seizure memo of the dupatta dated 05.09.2016, medical documents given to police seized vide Ex. PW1/D, her statement recorded U/ 164 Ex. PW1/E, her dupatta Ex. P-1 and one photograph Ex. P-3.
57. During the cross examination as discussed in the previous paragraphs the complainant was confronted by Ld. Counsel for accused on several aspects and was even asked court questions as the veracity of the complainant was doubtful. During court questions the complainant FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 59 of 63 stated that she shifted to Delhi in year 2013 and that after being raped by the accused she was suffering from depression and once she came to know that accused was already married, she was given assurance by family of accused that accused shall divorce his first wife. Further, that she had filed her complaint of rape against the accused. She admitted that she had not filed any complaint against accused after he raped her on 02.10.2014. Further, that she was a post graduate. She had also stated before the Court that she was rented in a rented premises and that she was making regular calls to the accused since 2017. The complainant in present matter during her cross examination admitted to have financial transactions with the accused even till March, 2017.
58. The accused upon the allegations of the complainant was charged for offence punishable U/s 313/307/506 IPC. However, the prosecution in the present matter failed to establish the aforesaid offences against the accused. The prosecution relied upon the medical documents of the complainant to prove that the complainant on incident dated 17.07.2016 was pregnant. However, the testimony of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution of PW-4 Dr. H. P. Mighlani and PW - 5 Dr. Pratima Kumari categorically stated that there was no document by which it could be ascertained that the complainant was pregnant on 17.07.2016. The medical document Ex. PW-5/A, ultrasound report dated 12.07.2016, prescription dated 17.07.2016 nowhere establish that the complainant was pregnant on 17.07.2016. Further, the medical record dated FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 60 of 63 20.08.2016 Ex. PW5/C and 22.08.2016 Ex. PW5/D, also do not show that the complainant was pregnant and had suffered any miscarriage. The reply of PW Dr. Pratima Kumari in respect to the present matter dated 22.09.2016 categorically mentions "On 20.08.2016 she has given history of spontaneous abortion in July, 2016, with evidence of ultrasound showing normal scan, no evidence of pregnancy dated 14.08.2016 done by Dr. H. P. Mighlani"
59. In view of the aforesaid medical evidence the prosecution failed to substantiate that the complainant was pregnant on 17.07.2016 and therefore, the offence U/s 313 IPC which postulates causing miscarriage without women's consent does not stand proved. Therefore, the accused stands acquitted for the offence U/s 313 IPC.
60. The accused in the present matter had also been charged for offence punishable U/s 307/506 IPC. To constitute the offence U/s 506 IPC it is required that the accused committed an offence and the same was done with intention and knowledge and under such circumstance that if the cause was death, he would be guilty of murder. In the present matter the complainant had alleged that on 30.08.2016 she was given beatings by the accused after coming to her rented premises and the accused even strangulated her. For the aforesaid allegations the complainant relied upon the MLC dated 31.08.2016, Ex. PW-8/A and her photograph Ex. P-3. The aforesaid MLC shows the nature of injury as simple and the FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 61 of 63 injuries have been described as scratch marks and red marks over the neck. There is no history of strangulation by chunni or dupatta mentioned in aforesaid MLC. The MLC does not talk about any strangulation upon complainant or that injuries were of such nature which would cause death of injured / victim. Further, the kind of weapon have been mentioned as blunt which is not possible in the nature of injuries described by complainant. Therefore, the MLC does not disclose any act which could have caused death of the injured as required to constitute an offence U/s 307 IPC. Further the complainant has relied upon one phtoographs Ex. P-3 which was not supported by any certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act and even if taken into consideration, did not show any strangulation on the neck of the complainant. Further, the accused in present matter has disputed his presence for incident on 17.07.2016 and 30.08.2016. PW3 Amit Kumar was the landlord of the complainant and allegedly the witness to the incident dated 30.08.2016, however, the aforesaid witness did not support the complainant in respect to presence of accused to aforesaid incident and was declared hostile. Therefore, even aspect of any threats extended to the complainant does not get established. In view of the testimony of the complainant and the medical record relied upon by prosecution, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for offence U/s 307/506 IPC. The remaining witnesses examined by prosecution were police officials and were formal in nature who conducted the investigation. Their testimony also did not prove the FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 62 of 63 commission of offence by accused. The alleged 100 no. call made by complainant on 17.07.2016 was also never placed on record and there was no evidence to show that on 17.07.2016 the complainant was taken for treatment by police officials.
FINDINGS
61.Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion and after carefully perusing the testimony of witnesses, I am of considered view that no offence has been proved against accused and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence accused Vinod Kumar stands acquitted for offence punishable U/s 307/313/506 IPC.
Digitally signed by Sheetal Sheetal Announced in open Court chaudhary chaudhary Date:
2026.04.15 Today.
16:34:22 +0530 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan] ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
15.04.2026(m) FIR No.344/2016 PS Badarpur State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page No. 63 of 63